Durban 2011 climate change deal: The world could have achieved same results ten years ago or more

It is nearly the end of two weeks of meeting in Durban; The UN Climate Change Conference. While only two more days of negotiation to go, this piece of writing contains a searing exposé of my expectations and disappointments on recent progress and the future of climate change treaty.

As I predicted with my utmost disappointment even before the negotiation began that a legally binding treaty would be certainly off the table. May be at least for now - but, would that even be possible by 2020? Of course, it is a matter of future negotiations as opposed to the world’s economic situation and for the developed and developing nations to share the responsibilities to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. But for now, conference outcomes are very clearly indicating red lines on the issues of legally binding global treaty. It comes as no surprise to me. It’s simply because world’s economic situation is presently going pear-shape. Many governments around the world have introduced austerity measures to come out from the recession and no countries want to bind themselves in a legally binding commitment which will potentially hinder the way out from this looming economic crisis.

Indeed, for many, the timing of this climate change discussion has seen as inappropriate when world is facing worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. But, when is the right time, place and context to have the right discussion on the right topic? One thing in common with all the Government's representatives; where all of them, mutely thinking not to be similar to Greece which has been on the verge of default on its huge economic debts. I believe economic and ecological debts are both equally important and closely interlinked; therefore need to be tackled simultaneously. Provision for any future ecological austerity by the nations will be bitterly fought against by its own people, therefore possible that it will get nastier than economic austerity that we are experiencing today.

This time in Durban discussions, India has been seen as acting as a 'bully' and 'spoiler', however denied by its negotiators that India's position as 'clear, consistent and compassionate' (Daily News and Analysis, December 02, 2011) on the issue that New Delhi will not accept any new legally binding carbon emission cuts. None of the other two biggest polluters in the world, for example USA and China are willing to commit to any new legally binding deal. Nothing is new; it’s all old same manifestation of denial and blaming each others for their responsibilities.

United Nation Environment Programme’s (UNEP) executive director Achim Steiner told Indo Asia News Service (IANS) that ‘Voluntary measures by countries and legally binding emission cuts are to condition each other and should not be put into competition against each other. Both are important and it cannot be either/or.’ ‘You cannot totally rely on voluntary measures but they are necessary as they show the commitment of the countries at regional level to deal with adverse impact of climate change. Similarly legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’ he said (Eco News, December 06, 2011).

I agree with Achim Steiner’s comment on ‘legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’. My strong view on this is that there has to be a change in culture and attitude - people should perceive nature as sentinel who guards and guides the humanity; not only seen as the provider of natural resources. Therefore, individual responsibilities are far greater than ad hoc legal instruments, which can strongly be strapped with voluntary measures, but in the reality only voluntary measures will barely protect the environment and biodiversity. That means there has to be a combination of all three – legally binding targets, voluntary measures and increased consciousness in green living.

The lengthy climate change conference has NOW ended after a last-minute quid-pro-quo arrangement between European Union (EU), India and China. Proponents, denials and critics are all rushing to the conclusion about its possible effects on tackling global warming and climate change. In the agreement, EU agreed to extend Kyoto Protocol for the second round, which secured a lifeline beyond 2012. All other countries in return agreed to draft a roadmap for new legally binding agreement by 2015 and will make it operational by 2020.

I have to say it is too little too late to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. My anger dwells inside of me as such prototype deal could have been agreed much earlier. I suspect that in the future UN will have to allow a 3°C or 4°C global temperature rise. An increased global temperature up to 4°C would bring ecological as well as financial catastrophe around the world. I am not forecasting doomsday scenarios, on the contrary, I believe that the mitigation and adaptation costs will be higher and certainly far greater than it is now, society will have to adapt with the changes, while doing so there will be an enormous pressure on the planet and people’s livelihoods. It looks like the world is going to that direction.

I am being cautiously optimistic about the new agreement that may be reached in the future. Arguably, it appears that all are not bad news, other areas, where the deal has been progressed, are the rich countries which have promised to provide global green climate fund worth $100 billion to the developing nations by 2020. Critics are saying global green fund is good in principle but low in substances as it is not yet clear from where the money will come and how it will be spent. However, the US and the EU said that they have mobilised $5.1bn and $6.3bn, respectively, in the past two years (Aljazeera, 02 December 2011). I think it will be difficult to assemble more money at the time of worst economic downturn. But it’s better than nothing; at least the process has begun to help developing nations tackling the impacts of climate change. Fund receiving countries need to be highly cautious and need to show enormous responsibility of being transparent, accountable and free of corruption while utilising the global green fund. I am worried about the dishonesty, negligence, bribery, corruption, victimisation and influence peddling that go on in the developing nations. Will the funds be applied for the right cause and for the right people?

A modest progress was made in Durban on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Including forests in combating climate change were the strongest areas where the international community had moved to the right direction in 2010 Cancun climate change conference. In Durban, progresses have been made on setting the baseline emissions and how to measure the reduction of emissions by including the forests in combating the climate change. According to Lars Lövölde, the head of the Rainforest Foundation of Norway – ‘The Durban has delivered progress on fundamental issues such as social and environmental safeguards, and strict rules to ensure that the global deforestation is reduced’. But as we know that the progresses were not made on long-term funding for REDD.

In Durban, negotiators also agreed on a technology-expert panel to start their work. This expert panel will be hosted by the institution ‘Climate Technology Centre, which will lead a global network of information sharing on cleaner energy technology among developing nations in climate change mitigation. This is a big step forward in the right direction.

Finally, opinions are divided on the deal that was struck in Durban. But it is very important to acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol is still alive even though [for time being] no penalties can be enforced against those who overshoot their emission targets with impunity. Exceptional credit goes to European Union that it was committed to continuing Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 and it helped to facilitate a roadmap that China and other countries were agreed.

In my view, the world could have achieved the same results ten years ago or more.

       

Eco driving: Save fuel, money and the environment!

Ever since green consciousness has steadily increased in last thirty years, society seems to be more aware of pollution prevention, resource conservation, recycling and using clean sources of energy. Ideas and best practises of green driving are not new, on the contrary, it have been there for years. People have realised that simple changes on their driving habits can save money, reduce wear and tear on their cars and above all save the environment. However, in many cases people may well still ignore smarter driving techniques or simply do not know about it.

Plethora of opinions and advices are floating around, however carrying out ten good green driving tips are far better than following thirty techniques – it is simply because ten techniques are easy to remember and can be easily incorporated into someone’s habits. Frequently, it is augured that best practises of green driving are subtle, which may or may not signify the benefits that you seek but the cumulative actions will certainly provide the benefits that people normally wish for.

It is often said that you cannot manage what you don’t measure. Monitoring fuel consumption is therefore very important in the first place to find out the ratio between the fuel consumption and the distance driven. Here are the easy steps that can be followed to find out consumption rate in litres in every100 kilometres.

Step 1: While filling up your car’s fuel tank, note the distance (in kilometres) from the odometer.

Step 2: When you fill up the tank next time, note the amount of fuel required (in litres). This gives you the data for the amount of fuel consumed.

Step 3: Note the distance immediately from the odometer and subtract it from the previous noted distance. This gives you the data for the distance driven.

Step 4: Perform the following calculation:

Amount of fuel consumed (litres)

__________________________ X 100 = Consumption rate (litres/100km)

      Distance travelled (kilometres)

Step 5: You can repeat above steps when you fill up the fuel tank to compare the consumption rate with the previous one.

(Source: Eco mobile –motoring fuel consumption 

http://www.ecomobile.gouv.qc.ca/en/ecomobilite/tips/monitoring_fuel_consumption.php)

Here are a few simple tips to help you save fuel, money and the environment:

• Plan your routes ahead especially for the longer journeys. You can avoid the known road constructions or congestion areas. If you do not have any satellite navigator then look for road maps to avoid to get strayed off course.
• Drive smoothly and drive in the right gear. Unnecessary change of gear or driving in the wrong gear would burn more fuel. Change up gears as early as possible when accelerating.
• Try to avoid idling – switch off the engine when you are going to be stationery for a while.
• Avoid driving with under inflated car tyres and keep your car well serviced.
• Avoid keeping heavy items in the car. Try to remove empty roof racks if you don not use it.
• At higher speeds, close your windows – opening the windows at higher speeds will increase the turbulences. More turbulence will burn more fuel.  
• Avoid using air conditioning system unless it is necessary.
• When ever possible travel during the off-peak hours and avoid bad weather.
• Stick to the speed limit – more speed will burn more fuel that leads to more pollution.
• Avoid buying bigger cars and more cars than you need.
• Take the shortest route but do not take the rough roads, however make safety your first priority.
• Consider car sharing while going to work or for your leisure.

Is the notion of climate change an empty and exaggerated talk when there is extreme cold weather?

Extreme cold and big snowfalls particularly in the northern hemisphere in recent years have created huge confusion among public and climate change denials happily seized the opportunity; intentionally sowed seeds of anti-climate change sentiments in order to gain publicity. It's perhaps no wonder why many people don't want to believe in climate change and perceive the notion of climate change as an empty and exaggerated talk. Faced with this seeming contradiction, it will be worthwhile reading the research papers on public perceptions as the big freezes may [as I allude - may not] continue in coming winters. In fact, while I have been writing this piece, the East coast of USA have been hit by heavy snow storms starting Saturday 29th October 2011, one of the earliest and heaviest even before the arrival of usual winter season.

But, what climate scientists have been saying about it? There are differences in opinions and perceptions, however if you ask the question - 'if the extreme cold and snowfalls are frequently occurring due to the climate change?', then overwhelming majority of climate scientists will answer positively. According to many scientists, we are now in a negative phase of 'Arctic Oscillation*' [*Arctic Oscillation is the main driving forces behind the atmospheric pattern]. Negative Arctic Oscillation means Arctic are getting warmer and mid-latitude areas are getting cooler, therefore the clashes between high pressure over the Arctic and low pressure at the mid-latitudes lead more snowfalls. Because of this we have recently experienced harsher winters in the Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes particularly in the UK and some parts of USA.

And, it is believed that global warming is linked to negative Arctic Oscillation. As the global temperature is slowly rising, this in turn makes widespread melting of snow and ice, which has explicitly been (among others) one of the strongest evidences of global warming so far. Even Richard Muller; a prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming found in his own study that world temperatures are really rising. Perhaps, he is being branded as a traitor by his fellow colleagues who have been very critical of global warming and climate change discourses but Richard Muller’s findings on global temperature rise has once again invalidated all the myths and assumptions surrounding the ‘Climate-gate’ scandals. He concluded that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. He analysed the data from the time of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and found no different from what the proponents of climate change and global warming have been saying for many years.

According to Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Centre - Extremes of precipitation are generally increasing because the planet is actually warming and more water is evaporating from the oceans, he said ‘This extra water vapour in the atmosphere then enables rain and snow events to become more extensive and intense than they might otherwise be’ (Scientific American, June 17, 2011).

According to other experts - La Nina; a periodic cooling (three-to seven-year cycle) of the surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific Ocean is also to be blamed in part for extreme cold and big snowfalls in the East coast of USA. Louis Uccellini (Director of USA government’s National Centres for Environmental Prediction); a long time weather expert said 'as the North Atlantic Oscillation has shifted into a negative phase, leaving La Nina in full control.' This periodic cooling of the surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean is cooler than average which tends to create more precipitation in the air.

The June 2010 to May 2011 La Nina contributed to record winter snowfall, spring flooding and drought across the United States, as well as other extreme weather events throughout the world, such as heavy rain in Australia and an extremely dry equatorial eastern Africa (NOAA in The Australian News, September 9, 2011). Very recently, NOAA forecasters said that there are standing 50 percent chances of a secondary La Nina to follow a strong event as we had last winter. Usually the second dip is weaker than the first. Question remains, whether we are going to experience ‘Double Dip’ La Nina conditions? Well, we wouldn’t know until the winter season arrives this year. Nevertheless, we have already experienced early-season winter snow storms particularly in the East coast of USA.

In the UK, it has been so far very mild autumn temperature but the speculations are there will be a sudden hammering of heavy snowfalls around the country in the coming winter. What ever happens in the coming winter, in the midst of all contradictions, for many the real causes and effects of global warming and climate change will still be misinterpreted and misunderstood. 

Cancun, Bangkok, Bonn and now in Durban!

From Cancun in 2010 to Bangkok in 2011, then Bonn and now in Durban! Once again the most eagerly anticipated United Nation's Climate Change Conference COP17/CMP7 will be held in the sunny city of Durban (28th November - 9th December 2011). The representatives from World's governments, business communities, NGO's and civic societies will get together to seek out and settle on the advancement in implementing the Kyoto Protocol agreements particularly on those which were agreed in the Bali Action Plan (COP13 in 2007) and Cancun Climate Conference (COP16 in 2010).

Negotiations on climate change agreements have been a long and bumpy road with many roadblocks, however the meetings (3rd April - 8th April 2011) in Bangkok and (7th June - 17th June 2011) in Bonn provided the platform to continue the climate talks and moving them forward to the next stage in Durban. A few agreements emerged from Bonn meetings, for example how the Adaptation Committee will be governed, their composition and what are their specific roles will be. Progress was also made on the Technological Mechanism that will help sharing the clean technology around the world in the form of a network named as 'Climate Technology Centre and Network'.

Clearly, progresses were made in Bangkok and Bonn meetings but some of the bigger issues are yet to be resolved. One of the most contentious topics has been the fate of Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, as it will expire at the end of 2012. Canada, Japan and Russia are still reluctant to commit themselves on a second commitment period and the United States is the second largest polluters in the world is not bound by the Kyoto Protocol. From the point of view of developing countries, it has been one of the most critical issues as it contains key rules where all the signatories are obliged to quantify and monitor their greenhouse gas emissions. As the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, therefore they are not obliged to respect what the protocol is asking them to do. United States has been arguing that Kyoto Protocol doesn’t allow developing countries including China (now the largest polluter in the world) to put targets on their emission cuts.

Unfortunately, there are other controversial issues during the course of pre-Durban negotiations in Bangkok and Bonn have not been reached, for example mitigation measures and legally binding agreements. So, what are we expecting from Durban meetings then? Can the world be so enthusiastic and looking forward to seeing a second commitment period for Kyoto Protocol which may or may not be agreed? I am not so enthusiastic about it because major polluters in the world will not risk their economic growth during the time of recession. In my view it’s a common misconception that improved environmental quality deteriorates economic growth; however there are growing evidences which suggest that economic growth initially deteriorates the environmental quality, and subsequently the quality of environment gets better as the countries become better off.

Let's hope for the best in Durban’s meeting as the whole world is waiting, one thing we don't want to see is the replication of Copenhagen conference (COP15 in 2009). In his own words John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK said: 'The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit.' It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen (The Guardian, 19th December, 2009).

Even if a second commitment period for Kyoto Protocol will be reached in a last minute agreement after tough day and night negotiations, but I am yet to be convinced that world's largest polluters will reach any legally binding agreement. Nevertheless, I am excited and looking forward to seeing some positive outcomes.

Corporate branding, sustainability and social responsibility are mutually dependant and inseparable!

It is virtually impossible to separate the connections and dependencies that exist in sustainability, social responsibility, social sustainability and ethical business practices. Some accept it readily whereas others reluctantly but corporation’s social and environmental obligations have moved to the centre stage as we call it these days ‘good business practices’. In response it has put enormous pressure on how businesses should operate, hence helped to establish a sense that healthy business and healthy society are mutually dependant. With the increasing concern about global environment, as well as corporate social responsibility, companies are forced to integrate environmental good practices and social obligations within their overall corporate strategy. Harmony with the environment, harmony with the society and respect for the people have now become new business mantra.

However, a corporate brand is the visual, verbal and the behavioural expression of an organisation's unique business model (Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Other says it is a valuable financial asset (Aaker, 1996; Balmer, Greyser, and Urde, 2006; Leitch and Richardson, 2003), which acts as an interface facilitating the interaction of multiple stakeholders with the corporation (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).  As a public, as well as a customer, my understanding of corporate brand is familiarity, clarity, reliability, understanding brand's personality, brand values and higher reputation. If a company is well known in the community, having a good ethical business practices then we are all happy to be their customers. The company can further strengthen their brand reputation by engaging more on social and environmental obligations and the effect would be even stronger if the customers are already familiar with the company products and services.

The importance of underlying brand values are immense, for example the values that your company stands for, how these values could be achieved, how you are going to be different than other companies who are already operating in the same sector. In my view, brand values simply cannot exist without considering any sustainability and social responsibility issues as businesses fundamentally depend on environment and society where they operate. Customers usually find the company name first, then pricing before they chose to buy any products.

Till now, scant attention may have been given in linking branding and sustainability issues in general; however companies are very keen to integrate sustainability within their core business practices because companies have realised that it brings added values. It provides not only financial benefits, but it also enhances product innovation, strengthen company’s reputation, mitigating the risks, increased employee and customer satisfaction. Integrating sustainability into corporate branding will attract customers who have been looking for products that have least environmental impacts, high quality and durability, more over it will fulfil customer’s immediate demands with reasonable costs.

Car companies like Honda and Toyota have heavily invested on fuel efficiency cars, which provided their customers with 'more miles from less fuel' in the face of ever-increasing fuel prices, effectively it also creates less pollution - a win-win situation for all the parties that are involved. Companies must continue their sustainability mission on a long-term basis; all of a sudden they cannot abandon their brand values saying 'it was a short term venture to capture the market and we will again go back to the old ways of doing business'. This would be the most damaging effects on brand images, which in no doubt will cascade down to customer’s level, who may choose to switch to buy alternative products from other companies. Therefore, company’s brand values are not only the present once being used perception of sustainability and social responsibility issues; rather it’s the company’s ability to stay in the market for the long time and keep generating revenue for them. Therefore, it is only possible if companies are committed to meaningful long-term contributions towards sustainability and social responsibility issues.

We are living in an era where social consciousness is evolving rapidly throughout the world. In the midst, companies are effectively pressurised to integrate social obligations into their underlying brand values, it's no longer acceptable if the companies simply define themselves who they are and what they make, instead it is very important to have environmental and social policies embedded in the company’s mission, vision and values. A company's bad motives on social responsibility will undermine their ability to promote the brand.

Although child labour is still common in many countries around the world but it has recently become a widely discussed topic. Companies have to make statement that they are fully compliant with prohibiting child labour in their domestic and overseas production sites, also make sure that entire supply chains are free from these contemptible practices. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has been ratified by almost all states worldwide, obliges requires States to ‘recognise the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development’ (Convention on the rights of the child, Article 32.1). In 2008, Chinese Government was embarrassed when some big cases of child labour were uncovered in the South West of the country where thousands of children were sold as slaves in booming coastal factory cities (Asia Pacific, April 30, 2008). Imagine the consequences if it is embedded in any company brand particularly on children toys which are made by children.

Finally, Sustainability and social responsibility are inter-linked by the brand values. Corporate branding is the bridge between these two. Companies who have synergies will continue to be benefited and enriched, successful companies in the future will be those who will recognise and incorporate sustainability and social responsibility issues within their business practices. Looking to the future, as the brand values grow, transparency and authenticity will be essential for stronger brand images.

Growing business interest and momentum towards Biodiversity Offsetting!

There are growing recognitions of importance of biodiversity conservation that have been observed particularly among the big business communities in recent years. We heard about carbon offsetting - making carbon history for last many years. Global carbon offset markets have tremendously grown over the last decade, which saw 3.6 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2e exchanged over the first six months of 2011, valued at some €50 billion (US$71bn), compared to €48bn in H1 2010 (Point Carbon, 20 July 2011).

Similar to carbon offsetting that puts a monetary value on carbon emissions, there is a growing desire on a market based approach to put a value on nature that would potentially stop the biodiversity loss and if possible reverse it. Named as 'Biodiversity Offsetting' that designed to replace the destroyed natural capital with measurable conservation outcomes and compensate for the significant residual impacts. The concept of Biodiversity offsetting is not new. In the US a wetland banking scheme where public or private developers restore, establish or enhance an aquatic resource to compensate for any unavoidable damage they cause has been in existence since the 1970s. More than 400 wetland banks have now been established in a market worth more than $3 billion a year (Levitt, 2010).

Biodiversity offsetting is measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development and persisting after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been implemented. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss, or preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem services, including livelihood aspects (Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme, 2008).

Natural loses, for example loss of forests and local eco systems, fisheries, wetlands, soils, species, oceans and corals have been so far invisible from the economic models. Market instrument such as 'biodiversity offsetting', in other word 'Bio-compensation' would certainly fill the gaps, where in essence particularly developers need to compensate or buy bio-credits to protect somewhere else if they have damaged the original development sites. However, there are still lots of questions needed to be answered with regard pros and cons on how the bio-offset markets will operate, as the complexity of eco-system's processes are immense, further more they are inter-linked, which raises the most important question about the 'common denominator' as we know CO2 in the case of carbon market.

Fundamental questions may be asked - why big businesses are so interested primarily to protect the biodiversity and reverse any eco-system loses? The answer is very simple and we can all envisage the grave consequences on humanity if the natural capital is systematically destroyed. Biodiversity offsetting can be a standard practice for business organisations that have got significant impacts on biodiversity from their business activities. This is an opportunity where business organisations can make a difference on their biodiversity footprint; reinforcing their license to operate in a particular area, more over become a trustworthy organisation to the local communities (particularly indigenous communities)  who may agree to provide the access (social license to operate) to the lands and oceans for commercial purposes.

Within the biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy businesses must take efforts to prevent or avoid any negative impacts on biodiversity. Then efforts should be made to minimise and reduce, and then repair or restore any undesirable effects. After all these steps biodiversity offsetting could be implied to address the significant residual impacts that planned to achieve no net losses but if possible net gains of biodiversity. If the offsetting is not feasible then compensation can be offered. However, measuring the amount of compensation that would be suitable for significant residual impacts of any development could be complicated and difficult job. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) developed a metric which is the ‘Guiding Principles’ of offsetting in England. Firstly, a development site should be divided into habitat parcels based on their distinctiveness (e.g. habitat category), which are called habitat type bands. These bands have numbers associated with them (e.g. High 24, Medium 16, and Low 8) and they are used to calculate the biodiversity units/hectare to compensate the loss of habitat.

Undeniable facts that there are array of many business benefits from biodiversity offsetting, yet it is not without any challenges, for example the notion of no net loss, ecological proximities and economic valuation. Challenges remain on how one should determine no net loss of biodiversity? How do you get a clear understanding of the land with regards its existing species and their habitats, interactions between them, measuring the impacts of land use on species and surrounding habitats and finally putting economic values on it, given the fact that every eco system is not equal? Among others, indirect impacts should also need to be considered, for example outside the boundary of any designated development site where further growth of human settlements will create undesirable negative impacts on biodiversity. Therefore, measuring the direct impacts on biodiversity of a selected development site may not be sufficient, indirect impacts need to be part of the equation.

Biodiversity offsetting should be like-for-like and that is why it is practically impossible to offset with one eco system with the other in a different part of the world; the reason being they are not equal. Unfortunately, this is why many business organisations cannot declare their reforestation activities as their biodiversity offsetting programme because impacts on biodiversity and land use from their business activities are taking place somewhere else. Therefore, it is recommended to offset biodiversity as close as possible to the development site, as a result making it more relevant to the local eco systems and gain more acceptances from the local communities. For sure there are needs for further work on methodologies particularly on economic valuation. Biodiversity offsetting is not a panacea to protect the eco system where development occurs but it has certainly made business case and many European observers believe that the biodiversity offsetting market will get bigger than carbon offsetting markets.       

Greening your business!

Demonstrating environmental performance has now become a well-accepted business model for the organisations and the businesses. Faced with increased legislation, green consciousness and fulfilling customer expectations, supply chain pressure, industry began to develop new management techniques to deal with the agenda. Many big businesses in the developed countries already have mature ISO14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) to assess and manage their environmental impacts of their business activities. However, in the developing countries like Bangladesh this process has been so far quite slow.

An EMS can be described as ‘a programme of continuous environmental improvement that follows a defined sequence of steps drawn from established project management practice and routinely applied in businesses management’ (World Bank Group, 1998). In 1997, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has produced an international standard for environmental Management System – ISO14001. The series of ISO14000 are the sets of standards and guidelines defines the core of Environmental Management System (ISO14001) itself and the auditing procedures necessary for verification.

Environmental impacts occur at every stage of business activities – from the type and amount of raw materials being used (material input), to the production process, creation of waste and to the means of distribution (material output) and resource recovery and recycling etc. It says ‘if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it’. On the basis of this principle, a good environmental management has to start with the measurements, for example identify, quantify and assess of all environmental impacts and be in a position to manage them.

Within the EMS, there needs to be an Environmental Policy and that is the main instrument for communicating environmental priorities of the business organisation. Followed by environmental programme (procedures) which ensure how to achieve specific goals and objectives highlighted in the policy. It is essential to monitor the progress, review the current situation and feed into any improvement plan to a simple systematic management ‘plan-do-check-act’ cycle.

Following are the internal and external factors that would shape the take-up and influence of EMS:

Internal factors:

- Awareness raising campaign: environmental policy must be clearly communicated to all the member of the staff so that everyone knows about it, also raising awareness of the potential impacts their work might have on the environment.

- Implementation cost: obtaining EMS certification would involve costs, time, trained personnel and effort for the businesses. These are main reasons why Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) are still reluctant to uptake EMS.

- New attitudes to accept the changes: changes will inevitably be there if a business tries to establish its environmental policy into their procedure. For example, reducing energy consumption may require changes to the manufacturing process or using different raw materials may result in modification of the design of the products.

- Leadership - commitment across the company: leadership is required at all levels and in all functions for meaningful change to occur e.g. manufacturing, distribution, retail sales have the most visible environmental footprint. And the manufacturers or the producers are often come close to environmentally cautious customers within these processes.

- Resources, Roles, Responsibility and Authority: administrating an EMS programme needs a clear line of command and responsibility from the highest to lowest level. Each employee in the company must know exactly who is responsible for which aspects of the programme. More over, each employee needs to know within the scope of their assigned activities in accordance with environmental procedures and work instructions, also report to their departmental managers in case of any environmental non-conformity.

- The fear of failure : it is very important that the fear of failure should be eliminated from the staff’s mind and staff need to be encouraged in areas, which are unfamiliar to them and staff must gain confidence and knowledge in those areas.

- Earlier registration of any management standards: any history of ISO9001 quality management standards would be helpful to adopt EMS quite easily and quickly. The revised ISO9001 and ISO14001 Environmental Management System are compatible particularly with regard to terminology and content.

- Employees: sometimes employees take initiatives on good environmental practices, within their own organisations, for example segregating papers to be recycled. Colleagues can be a positive influence to other colleagues and the good intention can reach up to the senior managers who would think harder to resolve the issue when he/she sees that enthusiastic new ideas came from his/her own working forces.

External factors:

- Regulations: legislative compliance is unavoidable by the business organisations. It is very important that they are compliant with the current environmental legislation to avoid fines and prosecution, as well as considering forthcoming legislative requirements so that any changes whether it is related to products or services would be easily accommodated. Sudden change could incur costs, time and unnecessary disruptions.

- Consumers and corporate image: consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental characters (e.g. negative impacts on the environment and human health) of any product. Therefore, it’s an opportunity for business organisations to enhance business’ image by going green. However, any false green claims from the organisation about their products will be very quickly found out and it will be harder to rebuild the good reputation again.

- Supply chain: Businesses need to ensure that their whole operation relating to that product is green. Both up-stream and down-stream supply chains need to comply with the environmental requirements. This way business organisation can also influence or put pressure on their supply chains to motivate them to act as environmental responsible businesses.

- Economic motivation and competition: competition with other businesses is another factor, which drive businesses to take up the environmental management system. When customers will see that a business organisation has got an environmental sound policy then they will be more attracted towards them than those who do not have any.

- Stakeholders’ pressure: external stakeholders, for example customers, local communities, supply chains, regulators, governments, insurer and Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGOs) are increasingly pressuring businesses to show green credentials and disclose environmental performances.

- Relationship with regulatory bodies: good environmental management practices will assist to maintain a good relationship with the regulatory bodies. Management quality will determine the nature and frequency of site visits from the regulators.  

 

Finally, an environmental management system will provide a useful tool for a business or an organisation to identify, quantify, monitor and assess the environmental impacts and providing a basis for external recognition. At the same time environmental management standards are not ‘magic bullets’ that will achieve environmental improvements where regulation and enforcement are ineffective or that can open market where competition is strong. Environmental Management System provides a framework on which to build better performance, greater efficiency, a competitive image and above all help greening your businesses.   

Has the world gone mad on green consciousness?

There is an old saying - ‘too much of anything is not good’. Too much of sunshine dries the crops and too much of rain drowns it. We certainly acknowledge the existence of many similar symbolic examples like these which are explicitly relevant to many other aspects of our daily lives. In our daily affairs, one of such aspects has certainly drawn huge attention – ‘green consciousness’, which has become vogue for governments, businesses, civic societies and by and large normal public for last more than three decades. Is it fair to say ‘fashionable’ or ‘necessity’ the appropriate word to describe the green consciousness? There is often a dichotomy between what is popular at a particular time and something that you need in order to fulfil one’s basic life requirements. In due course, we will pick up this argument as we approach in this article.

The origin of green consciousness is not new. It grew during the early stages of Industrial revolution when 'smoking stacks' were considered as the pride and symbol of industrial activity, success and affluence. From the chemical industries, emissions of highly repulsive waste gases especially hydrochloric acid and hydrogen sulphide from the Leblanc soda process were so high that authorities in England had to introduce environmental legislation Alcali Act in 1864. Smoke and ash abatement in Great Britain was considered to be a health agency responsibility and was so confirmed by the first Public health Act of 1848 and the later ones of 1866 and 1875 (Stern, 1984).

During the last thirty years, green consciousness has grown even stronger than ever. Society is now more conscious of pollution prevention, resource conservation and recycling, reduced new extraction of fossil and raw materials, more use of biomass materials, using clean sources of energy and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Not just widespread green consciousness among public but the green movement and green political ideology also played a very important role. But, what is the real driving force behind this? It may be quite opposite for many people, who would rather call it 'green hysteria' or 'scaremongering'.

Society always reacted towards the natural and anthropogenic disasters once it destroyed people's livelihood, immediate environment and killed many people on the way. Aftermath of an incident associated with BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico 2010 (by far it has been the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of petroleum industry) has showed how public outcry and political willingness can change the future environmental, health and safety policies and strategies on how petroleum industries should behave and take the responsibilities for their actions. Increasing customer expectation, supply chain pressure, pressure from the local community, ethical investment and plethora of environmental legislation will continue to underpin the green success and tackle environmental degradation.

Let us forget the impacts of global warming and climate change for a moment. Reducing the needs for new resources and make greater use of recovered resources ought to be the inherent culture, otherwise the risks of resource scarcity that may stall industrial progress to manufacture more goods and services that we all depend on. In this regard, green consciousness marches steadily uphill which is undoubtedly welcome for the future survival of the planet and the people. But any false or overstated green claims e.g. false Green PR or false Green Marketing will be not only damaging for the reputation of businesses, but also the gravity of the real cause for green agenda will probably be lost.

On the dichotomy of ‘fashionable’ and ‘necessity’ arguments in green consciousness where I believe that the necessity cannot be fashionable or fashionable cannot be necessity. In general, as a global citizen we all are entitled to be obligation-conscious of environmental conservation. Overwhelming evidences exist in environmental degradation driven by man-made pollution, consequently many experts are repeatedly calling and re-emphasising the importance to protect and improve the environment where ensuring both human beings and the environment can coexist. Environmental degradation is one of the ten threats to humanity identified by the High Level Threat Panel of the United Nations in 2004. Therefore, it is an urgent issue where something that we all need to fulfil for our planet’s basic life requirements.

Coming back to the maxim - ‘too much of anything is not good’! Too much emphasis is given on green consciousness without pointing out the measurable benefits, which is counterproductive and that is why it is not surprising when we see timid and inadequate public reaction towards green agenda. Sceptics have always capitalised on the opportunity by saying - ' the green agenda is about getting rid of as many humans as possible', 'green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism', 'green house effects have been falsified', we didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution', 'Al Gore's hockey stick is broken', 'record snowfall disproves global warming', 'mercury thermometers cannot measure within tenths of a degree' and the comments go on.

People from all strata of the society generally accept that mankind are to be blamed for exhausting many of planet’s precious resources for growth and development. We always read and hear the bad news. Particularly in the news media, it barely points out the benefits of humanity’s growth and development, for example availability and varieties of food, health, education, improvements to living standards and comfort, security, recreation and human mobility as a whole. Tremendous progresses have been made on biodiversity and environmental areas such as pollution prevention, resource recovery, recycling, finding alternative materials to avoid the exhaustion of raw materials, advancement in green technology, and the major technological changes in agriculture e.g. alternative farming methods, conservation on biodiversity and so on. Green consciousness is good and will be well accepted by the general public when they will see a balance in both sides of the debate – on one side ‘the causes of environmental degradation and destruction of the eco systems’, on the flip side ‘benefits of growth and development’ on society while maintaining the sustainability obligations.