Indeed the Convention itself by arguing the fair and equitable division of benefits precludes us from doing so. I shall return to these questions of the integration of the anthropocentric and the eco-centric later. I believe that there is a particular problem of communication and understanding on biodiversity which can get in the way of business and industry taking the issue seriously and more importantly taking the right measures. Whereas climate change is well understood, even if reaching agreement on the right remedial measures is more difficult, biodiversity suffers from a knowledge deficit among business decision-makers, and this is exacerbated if it seems to be a specialised subject for aficionados rather than a mainstream plank of social and environmental responsibility. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, for instance, has produced an admirable guide for the Private Sector, which I believe governments and NGOs might emulate in trying to find common starting points.
Business sectors connect to the biodiversity agenda in different ways.
The first category might be defined as those that use and depend on biodiversity. More can and should be done, including the universalisation of biodiversity impact statements prior to our developments or large extensions of existing activity. Then there is the sector I know best, as a former Director of and continuing Advisor to Rio Tinto, represented by companies which extract metals and minerals, oils and gas. Here the issue is how to make the environmental footprint as light as possible because although the areas occupied by development are relatively small compared to other industrial activities, the impact can be relatively intense. Yet with careful planning and pre-screening threatened species can often be protected, adverse environmental impacts during operations can be minimised and sensitive rehabilitation can return the disturbed land and surrounding areas to similar or enhanced biodiversity after closure.