What If Greenpeace Ran China?

Though I am very often at loggerheads with positions that Greenpeace takes, a significant part of the following makes sense to me at least. As we all know, China's rise to becoming the world's second largest economy has been accompanied by becoming the world's most polluting economy in terms of carbon emissions and likely much else. My general belief is that while the PRC leadership expresses concern over these facts, it is reluctant to offend export lobbies in resource-intensive manufacturing industries. Moreover, it is not so easy of breaking away decisively with what, for the most part, can now be considered a "tried and true" growth strategy.

As a remnant of Soviet-style central planning, the Politburo still prepares five-year plans, basically blueprints for running the country. While the likes of William Easterly and those of a libertarian bent pooh-pooh these plans, it is remarkable how the major emerging economies China and India still engage in them. Though environmental overtures were already evident in the 11th and indeed the 10th five year plan, Greenpeace suggests the difference with the forthcoming document may be that it will have more teeth. So it can wish; let's see. In the meantime, if Greenpeace ran China, it would probably implement its following suggestions:

“In the last 30 years, China’s rapid economic development has astounded the world, but it has also exacted a heavy price on the environment and natural resources. Severe industrial and agricultural pollution is already taking a toll on public welfare and economic development. Meanwhile, climate change not only exposes China to increasing international pressure, but also has dire threats to the country’s water resources and food security,” says Greenpeace Campaign Director Sze Pang Cheung. “China urgently needs to transform its development model, which currently prioritizes economic growth, and instead embark on a healthy, sustainable path of green development.”

Thus, building on its over ten years of experience in China, Greenpeace has prepared some comments and suggestions on the forthcoming 12th Five-Year Plan:

1. We suggest that the government improves its energy efficiency target and ensure that they are met. Regarding the highly possible 16% target reduction in energy intensity (energy used to produce each unit of GDP), Greenpeace believes that this is not ambitious enough and will not sufficiently pressure local governments to put forth the fullest effort to meet the increasingly difficult challenges of improving energy efficiency. Learning from its past experiences, the Chinese government should establish higher energy savings targets, and implement more ambitious action plans and supporting polices to ensure their fulfillment.

2. We recommend that the government clearly define the strategy to adjust China’s energy mix, to halt the rapid growth of coal-fired power plants and gradually decrease the country’s over-reliance on coal. We hope that the environment tax can be implemented in the early phase of the 12th Five-Year Plan, and that it will include carbon dioxide so that the price of coal fully reflects its true environmental cost. At the same time, we recommend that government set bold targets for the development of renewable energy and actively solve bottlenecks – such as grid access – that are constraining the further expansion of renewable energy.

3. We understand that the 12th Five-Year Plan will include “invisible pollutants” such as heavy metals for the first time, as well as a comprehensive approach to pollutant management and control, including the key concept of prevention at the source. This marks historical progress in both the types of pollutants covered and the approach to pollution management. We recommend tracing back the control of heavy metals to industrial demand for these elements in their production chains. We also suggest setting limitations on the use of heavy metals in certain products and processes. At the same time, we call for greater information disclosure and public participation to make it fully possible to achieve pollutant control targets.

4. We recommend that the government establishes more detailed and more comprehensive policies and laws to regulate agricultural non-point source pollution. We call for the decreased use of pesticides and fertilizers to reduce and control agricultural pollution, an end to the commercialization process of genetically engineered crops (especially rice and corn), and the implementation of long-term plans to promote the development of ecological agriculture. Through these various policies, China will be gradually freed from its over-reliance on chemical agriculture.

Sze Pang Cheung says, “We believe that the Chinese government will continuously increase the strength, scope, and depth of its policies on energy savings and emissions reduction, environmental management, and adjustments of the economy and energy mix. At the same time, it will become the trend to implement more policies, expand environmental technologies, and support the growth of renewable energy and clean production. In such a historic transformation, we expect that local governments and industries will be farsighted enough to place energy intensity and pollution reduction targets over GDP growth. If they can seize this opportunity, then China can occupy a prime position in the race to green development.”

The full PDF is also available online. Considering that NGO activity in China is highly regulated, it is remarkable that Greenpeace is quite sanguine on the prospects for greening China. Then again, you would naturally think that it would be more sympathetic to a socialist regime than its typical bogeyman--the capitalist multinational firm.

Applying CSR Pressure on Indonesia's Sinar Mas

Clear-cutting rainforests is perhaps the environmental issue confronting Southeast Asia. Not only is deforestation blamed for increasing the severity of floods during the monsoon season, but it is also feared that irreversible biodiversity loss may result from disturbing these unique ecosystems. A new cause celebre among environmental activists is the Indonesian conglomerate Sinar Mas. While it has many different activities, that which it is increasingly known for is clearing prime rainforests in alleged contravention of Indonesian law to grow palm oil used by multinationals in food preparation and to grow trees for pulp paper. A few days ago, Burger King joined a long list of MNCs that have cut off business ties with Sinar Mas:

Environmentalists on Saturday praised Burger King's decision to stop buying palm oil from an Indonesian company accused of destroying rainforests. The U.S. hamburger chain giant — which recently sealed a deal to sell itself for $3.26 billion to 3G Capital — said Friday that it was canceling its contract with PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology over concerns it had not adopted sustainable farming practices.

It cited an independent audit that found the company's plantations had violated several regulations, including planting in some peatland swamps and secondary forests. "These practices are inconsistent with our corporate responsibility commitments," Burger King said in a statement on Facebook as it joined a growing list of multinationals that have broken ties with Sinar Mas.

Burger King did not say what its alternate source of palm oil — used for frying — would be. The environmental group Greenpeace, which has accused Sinar Mas companies of tearing down forests that are home to orangutans and other endangered species, welcomed the move. Bustar Maitar, the group's regional forest campaigner, urged other major corporate consumers like Cargill, Pizza Hut and Dunkin' Donuts to do the same.

Jatna Supriatna from Conservation International Indonesia sees the move as a lesson for Sinar Mas and others companies that have destroyed the tropical forests that are home to endangered wildlife and act as a filter to absorb carbon dioxide, a key cause of global climate change. "They should not just be aggressive in expanding plantations without allotting their revenues for the forest restoration," Supriatna said Saturday. "The government has to stop them."

Indonesia is the world's largest producer of palm oil, a cheap commodity used to manufacture cooking oil, margarine, cosmetics and biofuel. Sinar Mas said in a statement it was disappointed with Burger King's decision, but would work hard to convince the U.S. company that it was committed to sustainable practices. Unilever, Nestle and Kraft Foods also have recently broken ties with Sinar Mas.

And speaking of Cargill, the Ecologist recently commented that it is not committing to severing business ties with Sinar Mas:

The billion-dollar agribusiness giant Cargill is refusing to cut its ties with an Indonesian palm oil supplier who has admitted illegally clearing forest...Nestle, Kraft, Unilever and Burger King have stopped trading with the Sinar Mas group after an independent audit of its operations found it broke Indonesian law by clearing land before any assessment had been made of its conservation value.

[Sinar Mas] has also been accused of trying to cover-up the critical report by initially claiming it cleared them of destroying peatlands or forests of high conservation value in Indonesia...

[Cargill] said it was encouraged by the group's commitment to 'taking corrective actions and to strengthening its standard operating procedures'. It also says it is aiming to buy 60 percent of its palm oil from Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certified growers by 2010. Sinar Mas is currently aiming for all its existing growers to become a RSPO certified by 2015.

Greenpeace has criticised such commitments as unforceable on the ground. It said Cargill would now become the focus of its campaigning against the illegal forest and peatland clearance undertaken by Sinar Mas. 'We will not stop until Cargill has stopped trading with Sinar Mas,' said Greenpeace Indonesia forest team leader Bustar Maitar.

Aside from this episode occurring in my backyard, I hope that keener readers familiar with American business notice the difference between the likes of Nestle and Burger King on one hand and Cargill on the other: Cargill is privately held, and hence more able to withstand pressure applied by activists from organizations such as Greenpeace. Lessons here cut both ways: NGOs may need further strategizing when aiming to achieve compliance by those whose ownership is concentrated and less likely to bow to public pressure. They don't scare as easily. At the same time, firms doing business with questionable CSR implications may be better off not listing on the stock exchange.

Qadhafi's Son Speaks @ LSE; Brawl Erupts

Once more during this very eventful week, it's interesting times on the LSE lecture circuit. It may not be known to many outside of (or even in) the UK, but the favoured son of Moammar Qadhafi by his second wife, Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi, completed his PhD in global governance here at the LSE. His thesis concerned The Role of Civil Society in the Democratization of Global Governance Institutions: From ‘Soft Power’ to Collective Decision-Making? Many believe that Alqadhafi is the likely successor to Moammar Qadhafi. Given the emphasis of his research, you will not be surprised to find out that he is broadly reformist in outlook. The London Times even combed through his thesis in search of clues about the future of Libya (assuming he takes the mantle of leadership). Let's just say his doctoral studies were more eventful than mine:

While other doctoral students struggled to survive with occasional lecturing, the multimillionaire Libyan was also negotiating the release of the Lockerbie bomber and $1.5 billion compensation for his victims, opening up his country’s oil and gas fields to international businesses and restoring diplomatic links with the US.

Dr Gaddafi, 37, introduces his work by writing: “I shall be primarily concerned with what I argue is the central failing of the current system of global governance in the new global environment: that it is highly undemocratic.” The comments will be read with interest in Libya, where his father has ruled since a military coup in 1969 and where opponents are still ruthlessly suppressed. Dr Gaddafi says that his dissertation “analyses the problem of how to create more just and democratic global governing institutions”, focusing on the importance of the role of “civil society”.

“Citizens in undemocratic states emphasise that they are not represented in the decision-making process of the IGO [intergovernmental organisation],” he writes. “Even if their governments are represented in some capacity, because their governments are authoritarian, abusive and unrepresentative of their people’s real interests. Others emphasise that even democratic states fail to consult adequately with their own citizens regarding their positions in international negotiations.”

In light of his favourable impression of the LSE, he also made a gift of £1.5 million to our sister Global Governance programme. From our school paper, The Beaver (our mascot):

The LSE has accepted a donation from a Libyan non-governmental organisation headed by Saif Al Islam Al Gaddafi, LSE alumnus and son of the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. The donation from Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (GICDF) amounted to £1.5 million and was intended to support LSE Global Governance.

In a press release from the School, it was stated that LSE Global Governance “has produced pioneering work on global governance, shifting debate away from the role of individual governments in global affairs to far-reaching analysis of the framework of principles, rules and laws necessary to tackle global problems”.

“This donation will support us as we work to increase understanding of global problems and to encourage interaction between academics and policy makers,” said Professor David Held, a co-director of the centre along with Professors Mary Kaldor and Danny Quah in the press release. “It is a generous donation from an NGO committed to the promotion of civil society and the development of democracy.”

The GICDF “carries out developmental and humanitarian activities in the social, economic, cultural and human rights fields”, as described on their website. It has been praised in particular for its work in supporting human rights for Libyan citizens.

In 2004 Amnesty wrote that the “organisation has made strong calls for long-term human rights violations, including deaths in custody, to be addressed.” This appears to tally with arguments made by Professor David Held in the Council meeting on the Foundation’s donation where he argued that the Foundation’s stance on both democracy and human rights had sometimes led to disagreement with the Libyan state but nonetheless had enjoyed success in areas such as penal reform.

Despite his reformist orientation (and the foundation being independent of the government), Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi perhaps cannot just yet escape the shadow of his father. Indeed, he has not distanced himself fully despite his doctoral work, especially by helping secure the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi. Indeed, things came to a head just this Tuesday as scuffles broke out prior to the talk between pro- and anti-Qadhafi forces. Like in many other places, Libya has a fairly sizeable diaspora community here in the UK:

One man was injured during scuffles between pro- and anti-Libyan government groups last night outside a London School of Economics building during a speech by the son of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. Police were called to the incident, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, after angry exchanges between the placecard waving demonstrators and a pro-Libyan government group. No arrests were made. The injured man was treated by ambulance officials, but was not taken to hospital.

The Washington Post has a profile of its own of Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi. Take your pick: you can listen to Alqadhafi speak via podcast or video. I myself haven't had the opportunity to do so as I went to another event but will do so shortly. As I said before, there is just so much happening that you cannot attend them all.