 |
|
|
Business and Biodiversity - Risk of 'Greenwash'? |
|
By Sonny Inbaraj*
Corporations
returned to the center of debate at the third World Conservation
Congress, which ended Nov. 25 in Bangkok. Skeptics say partnerships
between environmental groups and transnational corporations only
serve to ''greenwash'' the sullied image of some companies, reports
Tierramérica from Thailand.
BANGKOK - To skeptics, the partnership between
multinational corporations and environmental groups is the business
of selling ''feel-good conservation'' to prop up a company's sagging
public image.
But to some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engagement with
business and the development of strategic alliances really does
matter, if one is serious about saving planet Earth.
According to them, big money helps pay for a better world -- where
biodiversity can be protected.
These two divergent points of view were brought up at a heated session
on business and biodiversity at the recently concluded World Conservation
Congress in Bangkok, organized by the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
''One of the challenges from an NGO perspective in working with
companies and businesses in general is to create a win-win situation,''
said André Guimaraes, executive director of the Brazil-based Instituto
BioAtlântica, an NGO working to conserve and protect the fast disappearing
Atlantic Forest there.
Two hundred years ago the forest covered the entire Atlantic coastline
of Brazil and has been deemed one of the biologically richest systems
in the world, home to 20 primate species found nowhere else on the
planet.
Some 360 private reserves can be found in the Atlantic Forest, known
in Portuguese as the Mata Atlântica, which since 1500 has lost 93
percent of its total area, and is now reduced to small ''islands''
of green amidst ever-expanding urbanization.
''My mission is to conserve the Atlantic Forest and the mission
of companies is to produce profits and maximize benefits for their
shareholders... Our challenge as an NGO is to show them (corporations)
in their language what benefits they could get out of conserving
biodiversity,'' Guimaraes told delegates gathered at the IUCN congress.
The World Conservation Congress, billed as the world's largest environmental
conference, Nov. 17-25, brought together representatives from 81
states, 114 government agencies, more than 800 NGOs and some 10,000
scientists and experts from 181 countries.
The final declaration of the congress called on the world's governments
to meet the goal of halting the loss of global biodiversity by 2010.
Species loss is occurring at an unprecedented pace, and nearly 16,000
types of plants and animals are on the brink of extinction.
The Mata Atlântica is disappearing two and a half times faster than
the Amazon, the worst case of deforestation in the world, with the
exception of Madagascar.
''We have 70 percent of the Brazilian population living within the
Atlantic Forest and it is the source of 80 percent of Brazil's gross
domestic product. And 90 percent of this area is private -- there
are farms, corporations and business groups there,'' Guimaraes said.
''So it's a must do. We have to work with the private sector, otherwise
we are not going to do any conservation at all.''
But these ties do not come without controversy. Critics in the conservation
community have voiced their concern especially when there is a parallel
growth in the budgets of NGOs and the proliferation of their green
logos alongside those of multinational corporations.
''The huge risk in this is what I call 'greenwash', whereby companies
clean up their image but hardly change their practice,'' Marcus
Colchester, director of the Britain-based Forest Peoples Program,
told Tierramérica.
''I think conservation organizations risk paying too high a price
for petty gains if it means them losing the trust of the public
and their members,'' he added.
A case in point is the mining giant Rio Tinto forming partnerships
with large conservation groups like the Britain-based Birdlife International.
The largest mining company in the world, Rio Tinto has headquarters
both in Australia and Britain and operations on all continents except
Antarctica.
For years, Rio Tinto has had a reputation for being responsible
for environmental and human rights violations at its mines and smelters.
Accusations of corporate misdeeds include suppressing trade unions
at their Australian operations, exposing workers to radiation in
a uranium mine in Namibia, and negligence and complicity in the
civil war in Papua New Guinea, where Conzinc Riotinto -- a Rio Tinto
subsidiary -- used to operate a major copper mine.
Explaining Rio Tinto's partnerships with conservation groups, the
company's environmental policy advisor Stuart Anstee said: '' We
see these partnerships as a fundamental way in meeting our biodiversity
goals on site.''
However, Birdlife International's project manager, Jonathan Stacey,
admitted that NGOs were putting themselves in a vulnerable position
when they receive money from corporations, but he defended Birdlife's
cooperation with Rio Tinto.
''It's how that money is used, how it's targeted and how it's delivered
on the ground. As long as it stays with Birdlife's key objectives,
there is a strong foundation for cooperation,'' Stacey told the
IUCN delegates.
Added Leon Bennun, Birdlife's policy director: ''there seems to
be a misconception. We are talking about partnerships and not sponsorships.''
''We are not using money from corporate bodies to finance our programs.
We are working with them to help them do a better job in looking
after the environment -- so conservation gains that way.''
Nonetheless, Sachin Kapila, Shell's group biodiversity advisor,
was frank on how the multinational's board and shareholders tried
to understand biodiversity issues.
''Looking at the sector we are in, energy provision, there's clearly
an understanding that we have an impact on the surrounding environment,''
he said.
''But there's not necessarily an understanding at all levels of
the organization as to what to do about that. And I think trying
to use the term biodiversity causes an awful lot of problems for
us,'' said Kapila.
Last year, Shell, alongside British Petroleum and other transnationals
announced during the Fifth World Parks Congress, in South Africa,
that they would not explore or exploit any of the areas listed as
global natural heritage sites.
* Sonny Inbaraj is an IPS correspondent.
|
