By Najib Saab
September 2007

Responding to objections over pollution from cement and chemical plants located inside residential areas, an Arab Minister of Environment used the concept of “sustainable development” to justify pollution. “Impacted villages should bear the consequences of pollution from the Phosphate factory”, the Minister stated, “because its closure will hit development.” He considered the protests “a service for imperialism.” The Minister explained that protecting the environment is becoming something from the past, as the concept of ‘sustainable development’ is currently the norm, which forbids damaging the economy for pure environmental reasons!

The Minister adopts a “savage” interpretation for the relationship between environment and development, that considers environment as a mere decoration or a menu that we can chose what suits us from its ingredients, based on the wishes of the proponents of unregulated economic growth. They interpret ‘sustainable development’ according to narrow economic and political interests, by putting fast industrial production on top of any other consideration, regardless of its impacts on the environment and human health.

The prevailing understanding in the Arab world considers that environmental damage is a price that we must pay for accomplishing economic growth, that can later be followed by remediation of environmental impacts. Instead of emphasizing the need for pollution reduction through the transition to cleaner production methods, managing industrial waste is limited to end-of-pipe measures, at the lowest possible cost. Instead of working on waste reduction and reuse options, treatment is almost confined to the establishment of more landfills. This contradiction can never be solved without the internalization of the cost of environmental and social damage in the budgets, and include it as a main factor of the decision making process. This means the inclusion of environmental accounting in budgets of businesses and states.

The Minister is right, however, by saying that environmental problems cannot be solved at once, especially in developing countries that face complex social and economic challenges. This situation requires a commitment to a set of priorities that takes into consideration the severity of the problem, the non-reversed damage, impacts on health and the quality of life. Within this framework, environmental policies should urgently stop any action that results in an environmental damage that cannot be reversed, even if such a measure may hold back the economic development process. Environmental protection within the context of sustainable development requires an action plan that is based on policies and implementation measures, including general economic and institutional policies that have impacts on environmental quality and management.  Such policies are developed within financial, pricing policies and legislative frameworks. Financial measures can take the form of taxes and incentives that aim at regulating the production and consumption and life style patterns which impact environmental degradation. It also includes subsidies and tax incentives that support the adoption of alternative environmentally-friendly patterns. Legislation places guidelines and restrictions on economic, urban, production, consumption and general developmental activities, to guarantee compliance with environmental requirements.

While economically sound policies can be environmentally useful sometimes, like removing pervasive subsidies on water, fuel and electricity, this cannot be the norm. Regulating the maximum emission level from industries can be of high environmental value, but it has an economic cost that must be paid.

When we face such twisted explanations of the true meaning of ‘sustainable development” that aims to divert it from environmental protection, we understand why some of the experts who have first developed and launched this concept are reconsidering it to the level of regret. The only meaning they sought was that development cannot continue to serve humanity unless it maintains the balance, diversity and quality of life.

Sustainable development is not the only concept that has been twisted from its objective in the last years. After the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the theory of “Corporate Social Responsibility -CSR” gained momentum. The majority of big companies in the world have integrated CSR in their business practices and they often produce annual reports on their activities within this context. When this wave started it was agreed that commitment to environmental protection is an integrated component of the wider CSR concept. The practical outcomes were different, though. 

A big car producing company promotes one of its production plants as the “most environmentally sound” in energy efficiency and recycling. This factory however produces one of the most environmentally polluting cars in the world. A major producer of soft drinks conducted a promotional campaign against the reuse of empty cans under the slogan “drink it and do not return it”, effectively encouraging waste while trying to fight a competitor who embarked on a recycling programme; this same company was providing financial aid to an environmental NGO for a campaign aiming to plant a few hundred trees, covered by a wide-ranging PR campaign.

This is how the concept of CSR was twisted in order to be only expressed in charity actions, while ignoring real environmental issues that should start by applying clean production practices in business operations. As if we are allowed to continue committing the act of pollution for maximizing profits and wasting resources, and then ask for remission through paying some “dirty money” as charity.

Luckily enough, the real picture is not that bad. Some companies do indeed commit to practical programmes for environmental management in their activities and operations. A good example is TNT, one of the biggest companies in the world for transport and logistics, which has committed itself to maximum levels of emissions from its fleet, that exceeds the standards implemented in the countries where it operates. It also imposed strict standards on the type of company cars its employees are allowed to use, based on maximum carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption. It has limited the use of paper and energy inside its offices and banned any rental or purchase of office buildings and warehouses which do not pass stringent standards of green architecture, including energy efficiency, prevalence of natural light and proximity to public transport nodes. The company compiled its green rules in a policy document called ‘Code Orange’.

Corporate commitment to strict environmental standards is not enough by its own. This has to be within national policies that are implemented on every company. Otherwise, voluntarily ‘committed’ companies might lose their competitive edge.

One of the highlights within the quest for developing national policies that support environmental compliance in the private sector is the plan that was declared by Abu Dhabi government last month entitled ‘Policy Agenda 2007-2008”. The document has allocated a special section for environment that went beyond the identification of general policies and strategies, by declaring specific detailed objectives for management of air, water, land, energy and waste. What is noteworthy in Abu Dhabi’s Agenda is that it did not limit the environmental considerations under one theme but integrated it in all of its chapters, from energy to transport, tourism, urban planning and education. This is a major step on the right path, as public bylaws are the most influential element that regulates private sector’s commitment to environmental standards.

Sustainable development should not be misinterpreted to override the priority of environmental protection. Likewise, the concept of corporate social responsibility should not be used as a pretext to neglect environmental responsibility.