No doubt you have all heard that the world is focused on Copenhagen this week (Dec. 7-18 2009) and praying for positive outcomes from the official UN negotiations. However, there are hundreds of non-UN related side events going on all over town. Of particular note is the ’shadow’ NGO COP15 meeting being held by activists and citizens who are pushing on the civil society side for change. Klimaforum09 includes more than 150 climate workshops, 40 exhibitions and 30 climate films. Learn more about it at http://www.klimaforum09.org/. Expect some major street demonstrations this weekend that are being organized by Friends of the Earth www.foe.co.uk.

On the other side of the economic/political spectrum, world business leaders will be convening as well. The World Council for Sustainable Development is sponsoring Copenhagen Business Day on 12/11  http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?MenuID=1. On 12/12-13, businesses are also attending a large environmental technology fair, Bright Green  http://www.brightgreen.dk/. ICLEI is sponsoring Mayor’s Day next week. Expect Mike McGinn to be in attendance. Also, many governors are coming to town, including Gregoire and Schwarzenegger, along with hundreds of other politicians of all stripes (ex. Jay Inslee).

Unfortunately, while these disparate groups are all here at once, it is unlikely that there will be much interaction among them. The ‘elite’ group includes those with official UN credential tags draped around their necks. The attendees in suits without official UN credentials are the business people. And the activists, mostly young people, dress in every conceivable fashion. There are also about 12,000 members of the media in town. Since most of the ‘newsworthy’ stuff happens at the end of these kinds of conferences, they will be on the lookout for any trouble or controversy, no matter how small. If there is a demonstration of any kind, they will almost certainly blow it out of proportion. Got to sell those newspapers. One of the main reasons why the world is in its present predicament is because these various groups have little contact with one another.

In der vergangenen Woche wurden die Entwürfe für die Überarbeitung des GHG-Protokolls veröffentlicht. Die vorgesehenen Änderungen betreffen Scope 3 des GHG Protokolls. Ferner legen das World Business Council for Sustainable Development, das World Resource Institute und die Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative erstmals einen Entwurf für die Berechnung von Product Carbon Footprints vor.

Unserem ersten Eindruck nach werden die Systemgrenzen bei Scope 3 der unternehmensbezogenen Emissionen und auch bei den produktbezogenen Emissionen sehr weit gezogen.

Morgen findet in Berlin ein Workshop zu beiden Entwürfen statt, an dem Dennis Uieß teilnehmen wird. Er und Katharina Völker-Lehmkuhl sind Mitglieder der Stakeholder Advisory Group für die Überarbeitung beider Standards und sind dazu eingeladen, bis zum 21. Dezember eine Stellungnahme zu den Entwürfen abzugeben.

Wir berichten über die weiteren Verhandlungen zur Überarbeitung der Standards. Wenn Sie am bisherigen Arbeitsstand interessiert sind, können Sie die Dokumente hier downloaden:

- Entwurf Scope 3
- Entwurf Scope 3 (Zusammenfassung)
- Entwurf PCF
- Entwurf PCF (Zusammenfassung)

The global situation
• Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh – the rest is seawater and undrinkable.
• Of this 3% over 2.5% is frozen,locked up in Antarctica, the Arctic and glaciers, and not available to man.
• Thus humanity must rely on this 0.5% for all of man’s and ecosystem’s fresh water needs.

Fresh water available

Where is this 0.5 % of fresh water?
• 10,000,000 km stored in underground aquifers, Since 1950 there has been a rapid expansion of groundwater exploitation providing:
50% of all drinking water
40% of industrial water
20% of irrigation water.
• 119,000 km net of rainfall falling on land after accounting for evaporation.
• 91,000 km in natural lakes.
• Over 5,000 km in man made storage facilities reservoirs. There has been a 7 fold increase in global storage capacity since 1950.
• 2,120 km in rivers – constantly replaced from rainfall and melting snow and ice.

The world is not “running out of water,” but it is not always available when and where people need it. Climate, normal seasonal variations,droughts and floods can all contribute to local extreme conditions.

BY WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – MORE INFORMATION

I read an interesting article recently by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) on lithium, which I’ve summarised below.

The article discussed how new vehicle emission standards will likely be a boon for everything from aluminum to new plastics, but the producers of lithium – a mineral used in batteries that power new generation vehicles – could be the big winners.

But while the few public companies that mine lithium will likely see surging revenue, they will also face the pressure that comes with all booms — making supply meet ever-tightening availability.

Companies that mine lithium should see a long-term boost to their business, analysts said, although there are questions about whether there is enough lithium for all customers.

And some energy experts see the irony in lithium batteries replacing carbon-burning gasoline, since they believe exploiting lithium could be just as destructive to the environment as pollution.

Michael Harrison, an analyst at First Analysis Securities, said “There is no question the long-term trend is toward lithium-based batteries, but it depends on what kind of demand there is.” “It is clear to me that regulatory moves on fuel efficiency are going to help make electric cars a reality.”

Harrison said current hybrids and electric cars mostly have nickel-based batteries, but he expects to see more cars with lithium batteries by 2011-2012.

However, not all analysts were uniformly cheery about the outlook for lithium or its major producers.

William Tahil, research director of Meridian International Research, an independent consultancy specializing in renewable energy, is not convinced lithium is the answer.

“Lithium Ion batteries are rapidly becoming the technology of choice for the next generation of electric vehicles,” he noted in a research paper titled “The Trouble with Lithium.”

To achieve the required cuts in oil consumption, a significant percentage of the world’s automobile fleet of 1 billion vehicles will be electrified in the next decade, he said. Ultimately, all production, currently 60 million vehicles per year, will have to be replaced with electrified vehicles.

“There are insufficient economically recoverable lithium resources available to sustain electrified vehicle manufacture in the volumes required, based solely on LiIon batteries.

“Depletion rates would exceed current oil depletion rates and switch dependency from one diminishing resource to another. Concentration of supply would create new geopolitical tensions, not reduce them,” Tahil wrote.

So what do you think? Are you rushing out to buy stocks in lithium producing companies, or is this the next bubble waiting to burst?

You can check out the full text here.

Am 18. Juni findet in Köln die diesjährige Vollversammlung des Forest Stewardship Council – Arbeitsgruppe Deutschland e.V. – kurz “FSC” - statt. Das Programm und die Anmeldung zu dieser Veranstaltung finden Sie hier. Wir wünschen Dr. Uwe Sayer und dem FSC eine erfolgreiche Veranstaltung.

In diesem Zusammenhang: Die Quantifizierung von CO2 (Speicherung) und Wasser (Verbrauch) sind Herausforderungen, die im Kontext der nachhaltigen Waldbewirtschaftung zunehmend eine Rolle spielen. Das ist die wesentliche Erkenntnis einer Tagung des World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), die am 2. Juni in Lissabon stattfand.

On 23 April, the European Parliament endorsed a legislative report from the Energy Committee on a proposal from the European Commission to amend the 2002 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The report is now with the Council. Four days later, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development published a report addressing barriers to lowering energy use in existing and new buildings, with projections to 2050.

(More on www.eurelectric.org in Daily News – Password needed)

Related link: European Parliament

Companiile participante in cadrul proiectului de cercetare “Eficienta Energetica in Cladiri” al Consiliului Mondial pentru Dezvoltare Durabila (WBCSD) au trimis lectori la conferinta noastra de anul trecut din Bucuresti -  “Build Green CEE”. Acest raport reprezinta partea a doua a vastului studiu pe care l-au realizat in ultimii ani.

Noul model realizat de catre World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) arata cum poate fi redus comsului de energie al cladirilor cu 60% pana in 2050 – esential pentru a atinge obiectivele schimbarilor climatice. Pentru a realiza acest lucru este nevoie de actiuni prompte pentru a transforma sectorul contructiilor. Acesta este mesajul central al raportului proiectului ce cercetare al WBCSD “Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB)” ce a durat 4 ani si a costat 15 milioane de dolari, fiind cel mai riguros studiu realizat in acest domeniu.

Abordarea a fost una de jos in sus, si orientata asupra pietei pentru a intelege barierele care stau in calea reducerii consumului de energie, bazandu-se pe cea mai dealiata imagine a statutului prezent al cererii de energie din partea cladirilor. A fost analizat consumul de energie in functie de tipul de cladire pentru milioane de cladiri noi sau existente, si a fost proiectat pana in 2050, luandu-se in considerare aspecte precum climatul si designul cladirii. Folosind simulari computerizate, cercetatorii au reusit sa determine raspunsul pietei la diferite combinatii de factori financiari, tehnici, comportamentali si politici, identificand combinatia optima pentru a obtine transformarea fiecarei piete studiate. Raportul final al proiectului contine 6 recomandari principale:

• Consolidarea codurilor de certificare a cladirilor si etichetarea cladirilor pentru a creste transparenta
• Oferirea de stimulente pentru investitiile eficiente-energetic
• Incurajarea abordarii unui design integrat si a inovatiilor
• Dezvoltarea si utilizarea tehnologiilor avansate pentru a permite un comportament eficient-energetic
• Dezvoltarea capacitatilor de eficienta energetica a fortei de munca
• Mobilizare pentru o cultura constienta energetic
  

Raportul EEB este disponibil pentru download aici: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/eebtransformingthemarket.htm

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development ‘Energy Efficiency in Buildings’ research project member companies provided speaker’s to last year’s “Build Green CEE” conference in Bucharest.  This research is the next installment of their comprehensive study.

The new modeling by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) shows how energy use in buildings can be cut by 60 percent by 2050 – essential to meeting global climate change targets – but this will require immediate action to transform the building sector. This is the central message of the report from the WBCSD’s four-year, $15 million Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB) research project, the most rigorous study ever conducted on the subject.

The research took a bottom-up, market-driven approach to understanding the barriers to lower energy use, based on the most detailed view ever of the current state of energy demand in buildings. Energy use by building type was analyzed for millions of existing and new buildings and projected out to 2050, accounting for differences such as climate and building design. Using computer simulations, researchers were able to show the market response to various combinations of financial, technical, behavioral and policy options, identifying the optimum mix to achieve transformation for each market studied. The project’s resulting report makes six principle recommendations:

• Strengthen building codes and energy labeling for increased transparency.
• Incentivize energy-efficient investments.
• Encourage integrated design approaches and innovations.
• Develop and use advanced technology to enable energy-saving behavior.
• Develop workforce capacity for energy saving.
• Mobilize for an energy-aware culture.

The EEB report is available for download here: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/eebtransformingthemarket.htm

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

UN Declaration of Human Rights, article 19

This post consists of my notes for a short talk I was due to give at the Alternative G20 Summit planned at the University of East London (UEL) today (April 1st) to coincide with the G20 summit meeting in London on April 2nd. The latter, of course, has been called with some urgency in the search for solutions to the astonishing meltdown of the international finance markets that has occurred in the last few months.

It was announced on 31st March, however, that the management of UEL has decided to close the University Campus  completely on April 1st and 2nd. The official reason is over security concerns, given the proximity of UEL’s Docklands campus to the Excel centre where the  G20 meeting is being held. But the noticeable effect is the cancellation of the Alternative G20 summit: amounting to prevention of public  expression of a range of concerns and ideas regarding the various global crises of our time that might run counter to those discussed behind closed doors by the leaders of 20 of the world’s nations.

A petition has been circulating that emphasises the need for ‘the university to act as a truly public space for debate in a time when nobody can doubt that radical new ideas are needed’. Currently, a reduced event with a range of speakers is still planned, via occupation of two lecture theatres in the university. Go to Alternative G20 Summit for more information.

~

Notes on green capitalism, and the poverty of framing nature as service provider

As we know, capitalism is in crisis.

But it is too early to write its epitaph.

As Peter Mandelson said on Channel 4 news on Monday; the purpose of this G20 meeting is to ‘restart the global economic machine‘.

~

We know from history that capitalism thrives on crisis.

This is its engine of innovation and creativity.

It is in crisis that new forms of capitalist value, new frontiers of accumulation, and new enclosures and dispossessions, are created.

~

Currently the new frontier is ‘the environment’.

Major corporations and investors are falling over themselves to get a slice of emerging ‘ecosystem markets’, and of the promised cash flows from the protection and enhancement of the world’s ecosystems (Equatorial Environmental, LLC).

~

We think, intuitively, that the capitalist crisis and the ecological crisis are interlinked.

This is true, but perhaps at times we understand the interlinkages naively.

~

As we have seen with the Kafkaesque derivatives markets that in part have pushed the international finance market into such toxicity ~ capitalism makes a virtue of crisis.

If the risk of loss or hazard can be priced, and thereby traded and speculated on, then the logic is that everyone can win.

~

Similarly, the current view of a new wave of ‘green capitalism’ is that if we just price ‘the environment’ correctly ~ creating new markets for measures of environmental health and degradation ~ then everyone AND ‘the environment’ will win.

If nature can only be transformed and priced into assets, goods and services ~ then risk and degradation can be mitigated and offset.

So, with the help of the raft of scientists who produced the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, nature has been effectively transformed into ’service-provider’.

But, of course, payments for the ‘environmental services’ produced by nature’s labour do not go to ‘the environment’ itself, but to whoever is able to capture this newly priced value.

~

Take the new trade in carbon. The financial value attributed to carbon is actually given to, and therefore captured by, heavy industry emitters.

It is they who are allocated tradeable carbon credits under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

Some scarcity is built into the market by allocating credits at a level slightly below what major installations require to cover their emitting levels.

But once these credits enter the international financial system their value can be speculated on (as with any other commodity) and with a buoyant market significant profits can ensue.

In the wake of this, a veritable ecosystem of economists, stock brokers and financial advisors has emerged to service and profit from this new trade.

~

But of course it is as vulnerable as any other commodity to a crisis of faith in the market.

So, although the value of the EU ETS scheme was some $50 billion in 2008, the value of carbon has plummeted in the months since, reducing trade and creating a surplus of carbon credits on the market (Carbon Markets Continue to Fall in Value).

(Because arguably the incentive to trade is based on creating new financial value for emissions as opposed to ceasing pollution, the motivation for participating in the trade plummets along with the financial value of the commodity.)

Profits fall; and so does the incentive to reduce emissions.

~

Nevertheless, the new market in carbon is being embraced by both business and environmentalists as the model for pricing nature across the environmental spectrum.

This is under the rapidly proliferating zeitgeist of ‘Payments for Ecosystems Services’.

These schemes are being lauded by big business because by assuming that environments in very different locations are substitutable they allow impacts in one location to be offset against environmental investments in another.

Or, even more attractively, they will permit companies to trade newly priced ‘marketable ecosystems services’ on appropriated land that they now own, thereby capturing new financial value from the newly priced idea of nature as service provider.

Thus mining conglomerate Rio Tinto are exploring with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ‘opportunities to generate marketable ecosystems services on land owned or managed by the company’¹.

It seems that we really are now inhabiting an Alice in Wonderland World where the corporations who have done harm in the mining of natural resources are not only be applauded as environmentalists, but can also profit from this new status (accompanied by the encouragement of various large environmental organisations worldwide).

~

The core idea underlying these initiatives is that so-called environmental services have not been correctly valued to date.

Of course I would agree that capitalism has tended to ride roughshod over both biological and cultural diversity.

But it seems to me that pricing something financially is not necessarily the same thing as valuing it.

~

We are critically impoverished as human beings if the best we can come up with is money as the mediator of our relationships with the non-human world.

Allocating financial value to ‘the environment’ does not mean that we will embody practices of appreciation, attention, or even of love in our inter-relationships with the non-human world.

~

In a very different context ~ with Damara people living in the dry, open landscape of north-west Namibia ~ I witnessed and experienced a very different way of relating with the non-human world.

Here, the process of acquiring food and other substances from the landscape required constant conversation and exchange.

The non-human world was alive to be spoken with ~ variously remonstrated, or celebrated, with song, dance and gifts.

People were not separate and alienated from the non-human world; they were co-creators with it.

~

It is clear that collectively we need a radically different way of valuing ‘the global environment’.

But I think that to look towards the worlds of economics and finance, markets and pricing mechanisms, will leave both us and the non -human world further impoverished.

It is time to turn instead for training and inspiration to those in many different contexts, and often against the odds, who have trod relatively lightly on the land.

[1] Bishop, J. 2008 Building biodiversity business: notes from the cutting edge, Sustain 30: 10-11, p. 10.

‘… we must revive growth in the world economy.
A low-growth recovery is unacceptable.
… we need a high-growth and low-carbon world economy.
(WBCSD 2009)

‘The Camp for Climate Action…  say that trying to tackle climate change with market instruments like carbon trading would hand control of the climate system over to the same bankers, brokers and private traders who caused the financial collapse, and that we need a radically different economy not based on endless growth.’
(On Indymedia 2009)

~

Ecosystems + equity + economics (E³) = sustainable development?

This is the ‘E³’ slogan of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a network of the CEOs of some 200 corporations whose mission is ‘to provide business leadership as a catalyst for change toward sustainable development, and to support the business license to operate, innovate and grow in a world increasingly shaped by sustainable development issues’ (Mission Statement).

These images, taken at the WBCSD prominent stand at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in October 2008, are suggestive of their planetary reach and ambition. They depict the brand logos of many of the world’s largest multinationals, stretching across an abstract earth, smoothed of difference, diversity and inequality. A world good for capital. Is it good for cultural and ecological diversity too?

]]> http://lehors.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-eco-patent-commons-has-momentum/ Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:00:29 +0000 Arnaud Le Hors http://lehors.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-eco-patent-commons-has-momentum/

Although I’ve never talked about the Eco-Patent Commons before I’ve actually been involved in this project since its inception. You might wonder why, given that it doesn’t really have anything to do with standards and open source which are my primary focus.

It’s one of those “special projects” we have at IBM which do not necessarily fall within the scope of anyone’s responsibilities, and for which we pull in people with various skills to help out.

What I brought to the project was experience with patent pledges and policies as well as organizations/associations of various interested parties (regarding process, governance, etc.)

The initial idea came out of IBM’s Global Innovation Outlook program. A program in which we invite people from all around the world to meet and discuss “the most vexing challenges on earth” and what might be done about them.

In this case the idea that came out of the GIO was to share patents to help protect the environment and foster innovation in that field.

For several years IBM had been experimenting with non traditional ways to use our patent portfolio. We thus did several patent pledges in support of Linux, Open Source, Web services based healthcare and education related standards, and others. So, the idea of allowing one to use our patents on a royalty free basis for a specific purpose was no foreign concept to IBM and doing so in support of the protection of the environment fit within this trend. It was therefore agreed upon within IBM without much controversy.

Because we didn’t want this to be just an IBM thing however, we looked for a neutral host and invited other companies to participate in the creation of a patent commons.

We investigated several possible hosts and eventually settled on the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) which welcomed us with enthusiasm.

WBCSD is perfect for this because the project fits well within its mission and, WBCSD is an international organization with participation from companies from all around the world.

The Eco-Patent Commons was launched in January 2008 with the participation of Nokia, Pitney Bowes, and Sony, in addition to IBM.

Later Bosh, Dupont, and Xerox joined, and today WBCSD announced that Ricoh and Taisei joined the commons and Dupont contributed more patents.

While we haven’t seen an explosion in participation the commons exists and keeps on growing both in terms of number of patents and in number of members. This is very encouraging. The idea of pledging patents is still brand new so, it’s no surprise it takes time for companies to get comfortable with it. The fact that several companies have already done so leaves me without doubt that more are to join us.

I invite you to familiarize yourself with the Eco-Patent Commons. Investigate whether your company might join and talk about it around you. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

ISO, WRI si WBCSD au anuntat o cooperare in domeniul gazelor cu efect de sera

Într-o mişcare ce priveste companiile care doresc să înţeleagă şi să îşi gestioneze emisiile de gaze cu efect de seră (GES), trei organizaţii a anunţat că vor lucra împreună pentru a promova contabilitatea si raportarea standardelor referitoare la gazele cu efect de sera.

ISO (Organizatia Internationala de Standardizare), World Resources Institute (WRI) si Consiliul Mondial de Afaceri pentru Dezvoltare Durabila (WBCSD) au semnat un memorandum de înţelegere (MoU) în care acestea au fost de acord să promoveze în comun standarde ISO 14064 şi Protocolul WRI referitor la gaze cu efect de seră şi standardele WBCSD.

Miscarea apare ca un răspuns la preocupările in rândul întreprinderilor şi a designerilor programelor referitoare la gazele cu efect de seră, care cred ca cele două standarde ar putea să nu fie în concordanţă şi nu se susţin reciproc.

De fapt, pentru contabilitarea intreprinderilor, cerinţele şi liniile directoare ISO cuprinse în Protocolul de gaze cu efect de seră şi standardele sunt coerente şi sunt proiectate astfel încât să poată fi utilizate în mod complementar.

“Suntem convinsi de faptul că o colaborare mai strânsă între cele trei organizaţii internaţionale va creşte convergenţa, precum şi increderea instituţionala şi corporativa în dezvoltarea şi menţinerea credibila privind schimbările climatice “, a spus Alan Bryden, Secretarul General al ISO.

Bjørn Stigson, presedintele WBCSD, a adăugat: “Acesta este un indiciu clar al angajamentului nostru formal de a lucra la realizarea coerenţei în scopul de a crea o mai mare încredere în rândul managerilor corporatisti, in sprijinirea dezvoltării pieţelor credibile de carbon”.

Das World Business Council For Sustainable Developement (WBCSD) veröffentlichte jüngst einen sehr aufschlussreichen Report über Nachhaltigen Konsum bzw. über das (derzeit noch schlechte) Verhältnis zwischem Konsum und Nachhaltigkeit. Das Dokument mit dem Titel ‘Sustainable Consumption Facts & Trends From a Business Perspective’ gibt es als PDF hier zum Download, auf Seite 6 gibt es übersichtliche Zusammenfassung der Thematik (in englischer Sprache).

Dass unternehmerische Verantwortung – also Corporate Social Responsibility – nur eine Facette eines nachhaltigen Wirtschaftssystem ist, liegt auf der Hand. Eine andere wichtige Facette ist natürlich auch der nachhaltige Konsum, oftmals auch als ‘ethischer Konsum’ bezeichnet. Sowohl Hersteller als auch Verbraucher müssen ihren Teil beitragen – das ist logisch und ist auch schon länger Teil des Nachhaltigkeits-Diskurses.

Besonders interessant war im Report des WBCSD für mich deshalb, dass auch auf das Verhältnis zwischen diesen beiden Facetten eingegangen wird. Hierbei geht es um die Frage, was Unternehmen tun können/sollen, um nachhaltigen Konsum auf Seiten der Verbraucher zu fördern. Beispiele hierfür wären Innovationen, besserer Preis und Produktnutzen bei nachhaltigen Produkten, bewusste Sortimentsgestaltung oder auch Bewusstseinsbildung über Werbe- und Imagekampagnen. Oder auch mehr Dialog mit Stakeholdern, um die Bedürfnisse nachhaltiger KonsumentInnen besser zu kennen. Schon allein diese Ausführungen machen den Report lesenswert. 

Trotzdem, so meine Ansicht, werden es immer wechselseitige Beeinflussungs-Prozesse sein, die gesellschaftlichen Wandel schaffen oder begünstigen. Das heißt: Unternehmen müssen KonsumentInnen hin zum Nachhaltigen Konsum beeinflussen, andererseits müssen aber auch KonsumentInnen die Unternehmen beeinflussen, Ihnen also durch Konsum oder Nicht-Konsum Rückmeldungen geben. Oder aber auch mit den Unternehmen in Kontakt und Dialog treten.

Dieses Modell der wechselseitigen Beeinflussung muss jedoch noch zusätzlich erweitert werden – denn Unternehmen und KonsumentInnen sind nicht die einzigen Aspekte. Als weitere Säulen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung braucht es zusätzlich auch dementsprechende Rahmenbedingungen der Politik als auch die kritische Arbeit von NGOs und Medien, die als Kontrollinstanz dienen.

Erst durch diese vier Säulen – Unternehmen, KonsumentINNen, Politik, Kontrollinstanzen – und deren gegenseitigen Beeinflussungen kann der Weg zu einem nachhaltigen Wirtschafts- und Konsumsystem geebnet werden. Vollendet kann er aber meiner Ansicht nach erst werden, wenn die Gesellschaft schlussendlich als ganzes einen kulturellen Wandel vollzieht: weg von unserer derzeitigen Kultur der Maßlosigkeit und des allgegenwärtigen Konsums. Hin zu einer Kultur, in der ein weniger Ressourcen verschlingendes und konsumorientiertes Alltagsleben dominiert. So wie dies der Soziologie Karl H. Hörning vorschlägt, der Nachhaltigkeit als “kulturelle Revolution” bezeichnet – mehr Infos dazu gibt es hier.

A post on Nextbilliion.net today announced that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) just launched a new framework to measure social impact of a business or organization. While the name of the framework, Measuring Impact Framework, is not the catchiest in name, it is attempting to do something that has been a challenge so far within the field of social entrepreneurship. We have written many posts to this issue in the past, you can check them out here.

The goal of developing an effective measurement system is a topic of much research and debate and numerous models have come prior to this one an a number more are likely to follow. A post on Socialedge from last year listed the following:

•    Balanced Scorecard Methodology (New Profit Inc.)
•    The Acumen-Mckinsey Scorecard (Acumen Fund)
•    Social Return Assessment Scorecard (Pacific Community Ventures)
•    AtKisson Compass Assessment for Investors (AtKisson)
•    Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (World Bank)
•    OASIS: Ongoing Assessment of Social Impacts (REDF)

Makes you wonder whether or not we need a metric to measure the effectiveness of these metrics. But in all seriousness, quantification of social impact is a complex and at times impossible task, effectively guaranteeing that none of these indicators on their own will ever fully get the picture. The most important thing, however, is to recognize that while each may come from a slightly different angle and methodology, the actual organizations and ventures that sift to the top should be relatively the same. Those in the middle are likely to differ as subtle differences in how each index weights various factors may cause significant movement among organizations that are scored closely together. However, like many rankings and indexes, those organizations that are consistently on the top of multiple metrics are there for significant reasons that should be relatively immune to methodological differences.

It is then when we can either know that the methods are being accurate (or all suffer from an identical fundamental flaw) and then when they in complement will have the greatest utility.

O Conselho Empresarial Brasileiro para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável [CEBDS] estará realizando, no dia 15 de Maio, em São Paulo, o Diálogo Mobilidade Sustentável, para discutir alternativas sustentáveis ao transporte urbano. Na pauta: o caos do trânsito nas grandes metrópoles, o papel dos bio-combustíveis, e políticas a serem estudadas.

O diálogo girará em torno de um relatório do World Business Council for Sustainable Developmente [WBCSD, o CEBDS internacional], o Sustainable Mobility Project. Para quem quiser entender melhor os problemas em que estamos metidos, e o que nos espera no futuro, é fundamental dar uma lida.

In a post on Nextbillion.net yesterday, Derek Newberry, wrote a great piece on how SMEs serve as an ideal player in modifying technologies and products to reach the BoP. He starts off by recognizing the recent interest by large multinational corporations (MNCs) in serving the bottom billion, but then pushes forth the inquiry about the role of SMEs in this process. Interestingly, instead of viewing MNCs and SMEs as antagonistic in this space, as they most often are vis a vis each other in traditional markets, Newberry recognizes the potential for cooperative coordination between these two players to better serve the poor:

Their competitive advantage is an ability to quickly and efficiently innovate new technologies and services that meet the specific needs of BoP markets in different regions. New Ventures enterprise Big Tree Farms is an example of this in reverse, where they are offering Whole Foods value as a partner by supplying exclusive access to authentic Indonesian foods. In other words, SMEs are a perfect channel for MNCs based in Europe and the US to intelligently connect with new markets and producers in emerging economies.

In essence, this approach leverages larger organization’s capital and innovative capabilities with the contextual knowledge of local SMEs to accelerate delivery of innovative ways to address poverty. Pulling from data collected by an informal survey done by the WBSCD, Newberry notes that the more pleasantly surprising statistic is that this partnership is already commonly utilized by both parties.

The results of the survey indicate that many companies already understand this – with 44% saying at least half their suppliers worldwide are SMEs. Still, as with any business relationship, particularly across regions and populations with differing resources and business practices, these engagements are never perfect.

However, the survey also recognized the challenges. From the MNC perspective, reliability of the SME distributors appeared to be a major concern, while for the SMEs they were unappreciative of the bureaucracy that hindered their ability to do business.

Taking a step back as well, one must be careful to ensure that such relationships are not merely facades to reintegrate colonialism type mechanisms where the instead of the focus being on providing better products for the poor, it becomes the desire to utilize such relationships to extract and eploit indigenous knowledge or products to then be sold in the first world markets.

Was es alles gibt! Der World Business Council for Sustainable Development, ein loser Zusammenschluß von etwa 200 internationalen Unternehmen mit Sitz in Genf hat eine Ecology Patent Commons Initiative gestartet. Ein Blick auf die Mitgliederliste des WBCSD macht misstrauisch: Was verstehen adidas-Salomon, BASF, Bayer, Continental AG, DaimlerChrysler oder Degussa (um nur ein paar deutsche Riesen zu nennen) unter Commons?
Worum geht es hier? Wie die Initiatoren von Science Commons betonen, liegt ein Schlüssel, um den aktuellen (auch ökologischen) Herausforderungen zu begegnen darin, „wissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse leichter auffind- sowie nutzbar zu machen und einfacher zu teilen“. (Vgl. Beitrag auf dem SC-blog: Could the key to feeding the world be locked up in a company fridge somewhere?) De facto patentierte Technologien breiter, schneller und einfacher nutzen zu können entspricht im Prinzip diesem Credo. Doch wie funktioniert das? Wer entscheidet darüber wer was wie nutzen darf?

Mir scheint, Eco-Patent Commons setzt da an, wo es den Mitgliedern des WBCSD nicht weh tut: Denn -so die Selbstdarstellung- es gibt Patente, die sozusagen die Kronjuwelen eines Unternehmens sind. Die bleiben weiter unter Verschluss. Dann gibt es solche, die nicht zum Kerngeschäft gehören und von deren (relativer) Freigabe die Profite einer Firma nicht abhängen. Um die geht es. Sie werden von den genannten Mitgliedern der WBCSD anderen am Projekt beteiligten Firmen zur Verfügung gestellt. Als mögliche fehlende Puzzleteil für deren Forschungsprozesse.

Die Gründer des Projekts geben zum Start 30 Patente in den gemeinsamen Pool. Die Information wird auf einer projekteigenen Website veröffentlicht. Wer auch nur ein weiteres Patent beisteuert, und damit online geht, gehört automatisch dazu.

Zum Vergleich: IBM (Gründungsmitglied) hat allein im vergangenen Jahr 3125 US-Patente erhalten, und „spendet“ jetzt maximal eine Handvoll davon (z.B. zur Wiederverwendung von Schutzverpackungsmaterial für empfindliche Elektronikbauteile). Nokia steuert sein Patent einer Methode zum Handy-Recycling bei. Ob das in Anerkennung der Tatsache geschieht, dass die Patentierung von Methoden ohnehin mehr fragwürdig ist, wage ich zu bezweifeln. Offenbar konnten sie damit kein Geld verdienen.

Es gibt auch Patentinhaber, die sich v.a. deshalb an der Initiative beteiligen, weil sie sich einen Nutzen von der Veröffentlichung der Informationen anderer beteiligter Firmen versprechen. Welche Patente also in den Pool gestellt werden, ist freie Entscheidung des Unternehmens. Einzige Bedingung: Sie müssen -direkt oder indirekt- der Umwelt dienen.

Barrierefreien Zugang zu diesen Patentinformationen haben aber nur andere Patentinhaber, die sich für eine Beteiligung an den Eco Patent Commons entschieden haben: Nicht die Öffentlichkeit. Die Initiatoren nennen das: „defensive termination“: defensive Begrenzung.

„The Commons will be open to all – with global participation by businesses in diverse industry sectors. It will be fed with … patent pledges by companies that become members of the Commons. Through the Commons, the patents will be made available for free use by all, subject to defensive termination.

„In contrast to dedicating patents to the public, the Commons allows the pledger to terminate as to those who assert patents against the pledger. With respect to defensive termination, one pledger may assert patents, outside the field of the Commons, against another pledger without losing rights inside the Commons field.“

Diese Konstruktion der “Freien Nutzung bei defenisver Begrenzung” („free use subject to defensive termination“) ist etwas, was wir aus natürlichen Ressourcensystemen kennen. Nur die Mitglieder einer bestimmten Gemeinschaft haben freien Zugang verbunden mit konkreten Nutzungsregelungen zu einer bestimmten Ressource (einer Weide oder einem Wassermanagementsystem). Ähnlich wie Clubgüter (z.B. ein Sportclub): Man zahlt einmal Eintritt, gehört dazu und darf dann alles nutzen, während der Rest außen vor bleibt. Das schützt vor Übernutzung. Macht aber bei nichtrivalisierenden Ressourcen keinen Sinn – es sei denn, man will die Vermarktungshoheit über sie behalten.

Anders gesagt: Im Zusammenhang mit Wissen und Ideen, bedeutet “defensive Begrenzung”: Free use nur für jene, deren Nase mir passt und die meine Bedingungen erfüllen. Hier stellt sich also die Frage, ob es  wirklich um das Teilen, schnellere Innovation und den Nutzen für die Menschheit und den Planet (der in der Selbstdarstellung in dieser Weise angesprochen) geht. In der Selbstdarstellung jedenfalls heißt es:

„The Eco-Patent Commons will provide global recognition for the businesses whose leadership is contributing to the acceleration of sustainable development.”

Oder wie David Kappos, IBM – Patentrechtsexperte und -berater, formuliert: Die drei wesentlichen Vorteile dieses „Commons“ Systems sind: “Effizienz, Umfang und Sichtbarkeit”

Die Initiatoren beziehen sich auf die Open Source Community, die bewiesen habe, dass das Teilen von Wissen eine fruchtbare Basis für Zusammenarbeit und Innovation liefere. Das ist der Fall. Vorausgesetzt allerdings, dass man es mit dem Teilen Ernst meint. Die Initiatoren sagen auch, dass Eco Patent Commons dem Rest der Welt nutzt. Wie genau, wird nicht klar: Freien Zugang jedenfalls hat sie nicht: Stattdessen – möglicherweise und sehr indirekt:

„…the improvement of the environmental aspects of their (the business) operations.“

Ich will mein Urteil mal so zusammenfassen: Schaden tut’s nicht. Besser halbseidenes Eco-Patent-Sharing als gar kein Sharing. Nur sehe ich den Commonsbegriff in solchen Initiativen nicht gut aufgehoben. Der birgt ein emanzipatives und demokratisierendes Potential, von dem hier keine Rede sein kann.

Update vom 14.12: Hier etwas unkritischer bei der Piratenpartei. Und hier das Selbstdarstellungsvideo.

Foto on flickr by adulau: patents are only for the old machine!

Companies able to tackle issues such as poverty, climate change and population shifts are those most likely to succeed in the future, or so say the World Business Centre for Sustainable Business Development. This YouTube Video outlines views shared by eight global business leaders on the matter. It’s called ‘From Challenge to Opportunity’ and it sets out a “manifesto for tomorrow’s global business” as defined by the Tomorrow’s Leaders group of the WBCSD. Most interestingly, they discuss in the video why and how four key areas of business and sustainable development need to be profitable in order to be effective.
Enjoy……….
Em

I’ll start off this blog with a comment on Thomas Friedman’s article in the New York Times magazine from this weekend. I’m glad that such a listen-to voice has laid out what is a rather comprehensive view on how “green”issues/concepts/technology/politics can be used advantageously by developed countries rather than being viewed as a potential enemy to economic growth. As a student of green economics I’ve read a lot of what Thomas Friedman lays out in his article already. Thinkers like Daniel Esty, Thomas Homer-Dixon and my personal favourite Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute have covered these issues for their entire careers in far more depth. Friedman could be the right person to make it mainstream.

A great resource if you are interested in learning more about the possibilities of cooperation between business and governments for finding solutions and creating a sustainable future is the word done by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.