Yvo de Boer, who is KPMG’s special global adviser, climate change and sustainability, has transitioned from being the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). He tells Kirtika Suneja that this shift has been fun and though businesses are enthusiastic about the opportunities thrown by climate change, a lack of clarity in international negotiations impacts their working. Edited excerpts:
How has the transition from negotiating with countries to negotiating with companies been?
The shift has been fun and there is a huge enthusiasm on the business side to see new opportunities to save the climate and grow in a new way by doing so. Some see it as a threat while others view climate change as an opportunity. Those in energy intensive companies consider this as a constraint because of policies. So, companies need to understand where they are in this space and on that basis, develop plans and strategies to change the environment.
How do they perceive policies in such a scenario?
Policies give clarity on national goals, objectives and taxes and a lack of clarity affects businesses. In such a case when international treaties are not in place, investment in power stations and steel plants may not happen. At the moment, almost 100 counties have committed to climate change actions and an increasing number of companies are also looking at such accounting for sustainable growth.
What do you expect from the climate talks in Cancun that are to be held later this month?
At Cancun, we expect a political outcome on how national actions can be registered in terms of critical elements like international finance, technology transfer and capacity building in developing countries. We need a global agreement on a market based mechanism for intellectual property rights (IPRs) by creating investment opportunities for renewable power generation in developing countries.
Countries have mixed reactions on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its first commitment period of 2012 and the inclusion of the US in a legally binding treaty...
Some industrialized countries have a concern that with the continuing of the protocol, if nothing binds the US, then why should they be legally bound. They want the US to be legally bound as part of a treaty. So, there is a trust deficit in case of leadership. The theory of fear and suspicion needs to be removed.
What would you call as success in Cancun?
There has to be a consensus on how outcomes- real outcomes- determining how country actions are measured. We need to close the mitigation tap and then mop the floor for adaptation as Adaptation affects competitiveness less than mitigation.
How can businesses contribute in the success of the talks?
We can’t repeat what the West did and businesses have to come up with innovative solutions as this is what is at the heart of the intergovernmental negotiations. India, for instance has demonstrated that it can contribute to solutions and use the economic crisis to move economic growth in a sustainable direction.
