What the hell is going on in the cozy world of Sustainable Development Inc.?

Introductory note by E. Britton of 18 July 2012 - http://www.facebook.com/SDES.MasterClass Read on here, but first a quote from this analysis to which you may wish to give some thought: "This brings us to another question. Why does the UN, the World Bank or even the WHO continue to partner and recognize perverse industries like tobacco companies? The answer is simply money. Starved of public financing, the UN agencies rely upon voluntary contributions like donors, private philanthropies and companies. Private funds are earmarked for specific purposes, thus circumventing ethical control. In the 1970s, such donations constituted a small proportion of the UNs budget. By 2008, it comprised more than 70%. For the WHO this is nearly 80%, as public health agenda get shaped by private interests. The distortion in priorities is clear."

The article:

The curious case of tobacco companies and eco prizes

Pranay Lal | Agency: DNA | Monday, July 16, 2012 Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_the-curious-case-of-tobacco-companies-andeco-prizes_1715496 Late last month, on the sidelines of the Rio+20 conference, Indias largest cigarette maker, ITC (formerly Indian Tobacco Company) received the World Business Council for Sustainable Developments highest prize for improving the environment and removing poverty. In tow were the UNDPs administrator and former New Zealand prime minister, Helen Clark, and the top executive of the UN Global Compact. The award is possibly the biggest travesty of justice even by the UN and the World Banks weak ethical standards. Heres why. ITC is primarily a cigarette maker and tobacco trader, even though it would like to claim that it is a diversified company selling soap, biscuits and hospitality. It started exactly 100 years ago in Bihar and migrated to Andhra Pradesh to grow tobacco and make cigarettes. Growing tobacco and making cigarettes is toxic to the environment. It needs to clear forests and fields to grow tobacco, requires chemicals to ensure that the tobacco plant is free of pathogens, and trees to be hacked to cure the tobacco (one kilogram of tobacco needs roughly eight kilos of dry fuel wood), add more than 4000 undisclosed chemicals to make the cigarette addictive, and top this with glossy packaging of paper, cardboard and plastic, which we see littered on the streets and choking waterways. In addition, ITCs factories have over-extracted water and polluted rivers. In April 2011, for example, desperate farmers of Bhadrachalam and Irivendi villages had to go to court when the district collector could not stop ITCs factory from overextracting water from a drying Godavari. In a nutshell, this is the lifecycle of a cigarette. Imagine cutting down dry forests of central India to fuel an addiction! Organisations that conduct ITCs environmental diligence do not use the full historical environmental cost of their business. They use an annual energy and input-output analysis and this makes them look good. Even this, however, is not the full impact of ITCs business. Smoking kills more than one million adults prematurely in India. ITCs cigarettes have been a major contributor, both directly for its smokers and those exposed to its smoke, and also to the youth, many of whom who are poor and aspire to smoke its cigarettes. Smoking also is a leading cause of poverty. One study using government data suggests that direct expenditure on tobacco by households can potentially impoverish nearly 15 million Indians annually. Another study has found that treating just four major tobacco-related diseases account for 4.7% of Indias national healthcare expenditure. This will grow in the future as more youth will take to smoking cigarettes.

The lifecycle also explains ITCs logical extension into its business of paper (and, therefore, also making notebooks), e-choupal (to reduce its procurement cost), among others. ITC has used its tobacco profits to diversify into related and, increasingly, unrelated fields like fatty foods and even tried tying up with alcohol companies in the 1990s. Like tobacco companies around the world, ITC supports environmental NGOs like WWF and TERI, sits on influential boards and even runs a hospital in Kolkata! Much as ITC would like to change its name and get into new businesses, it remains primarily a cigarette maker. Even after 50 years since its first non-tobacco venture, it gets more than 60% of its profits from cigarettes. This brings us to another question. Why does the UN, the World Bank or even the WHO continue to partner and recognise perverse industries like tobacco companies? The answer is simply money. Starved of public financing, the UN agencies rely upon voluntary contributions like donors, private philanthropies and companies. Private funds are earmarked for specific purposes, thus circumventing ethical control. In the 1970s, such donations constituted a small proportion of the UNs budget. By 2008, it comprised more than 70%. For the WHO this is nearly 80%, as public health agenda get shaped by private interests. The distortion in priorities is clear. The WHO allocates funds based on mortality around the world. Extra-budgetary funds, however, are invested in special focus areas. In its 2004-05 budget, 91% of extra-budgetary funds were earmarked for diseases that account for just 8% of global mortality. Tobacco, the leading cause of death (more than AIDS, TB and malaria combined) is allocated an incalculable fraction. Companies like ITC have made the most of the UNs desperation. IFC and the UNs Global Compact have exclusion criteria that prevent seven sin sectors (tobacco is accorded the highest rank followed by arms trade, pornography, among others). Yet these companies not only participate but also get rewarded for their contribution to society by them. In 2009, the Global Compact reluctantly recognized WHOs fight against tobacco but expressed its inability to exclude tobacco companies from its membership, and states so in its Tobacco Company Policy. The UN Compact has as members ITC and Brazils largest tobacco producer Souza Cruz. What is tragic is that Helen Clark, a responsible prime minister and wife of a respected public health expert could not have given this award in New Zealand or any other developed country. WBCSD is a curious club of organisations ranging from the most wanted corporate criminals (Dow Chemicals) to good Samaritans (Infosys). Through this award at Rio+20, the UN has compromised the efforts to fight environmental degradation, public health and the MDGs. It is time we excluded tobacco companies like ITC from civic engagements and development processes, and stop recognising them as model. The writer is technical advisor (tobacco control), the Union Southeast Asia