"I am one of those enthusiasts who believe that science can help solve problems."

The "Green Economy" initiative was overwhelmingly rejected in September 2016. Were you disappointed with this result?

Gunter Stephan: No, I was expecting it. It is difficult to get across that it is possible to achieve increased prosperity while still conserving resources. Many people seemed to think that protecting the environment inevitably involves a reduction in prosperity.

So are you saying that the vote was lost mainly because of a communication problem?

Partly. Also, there were too few facts on the table. People simply don't know enough about what the "Green Economy" really means – both for the economy and for individual citizens.

This is the gap in knowledge that NRP 73 aims to close. First, though, we have to ask how you define the concept of a "sustainable economy"?

Sustainability means different things to different people – such as fairness between the generations or reducing the consumption of resources.

I understand it to mean that we run the economy within natural boundaries and don't keep exceeding these boundaries – as is clearly the case regarding climate change or the overfishing of the world's oceans – while at the same time ensuring continuing prosperity.

Such prosperity requires the ability to compete. Aren't there conflicts of interest between economic competitiveness and conserving resources?

I don't think so. The ability to compete has a lot to do with how productive a national economy is. In turn, productivity is highly dependent on the innovative capacity of a national economy – in other words on creating new products and processes that offer advantages compared with other countries. Production methods that conserve resources are always more efficient, thus boosting competitiveness. A "Green Economy" tries to foster innovations that conserve resources – by developing manufacturing methods and processes that facilitate a recycling economy, for example.

A sustainable economy is also supposed to ensure social welfare. What does "social welfare" mean in an economic context?

A competitive national economy must be able to compete on the international markets at international prices. However, this must not be at the expense of employees.

But from the consumer's point of view, price is often the key factor – even if textile workers in Bangladesh, for example, are suffering as a result.

That is the crux of the issue. We need to ensure that prices are fair. I think everybody now realises that you don't get something for nothing. Good things come at a price. This also means that sometimes we have to sacrifice our convenience. Today, though, we are already paying a very high price for our high standard of living. We are highly dependent on imported resources. At the moment we are riding on a wave of cheap oil. We can therefore afford to use a lot of energy. But what will happen if OPEC actually operates as a cartel? Prices will rise rapidly worldwide, and a great deal of capital will flow out of Switzerland. We need this capital for necessary investment in our own country. Over the longer term we are thus harming our economic growth, because we are always having to buy resources from other countries at high prices. It would be much more efficient to use resources sparingly and focus on renewable resources in our own country wherever possible.

Is economic growth still a goal worth striving for?

It depends how growth is measured. If it is measured in terms of gross national product – all manufactured goods and services put together – then it is indeed questionable. However, if it is measured in terms of quality of life, growth is also possible for intangible goods such as health care, education and the arts. This "dematerialisation" of the economy is behind the concept of the "Green Economy". We are already in the first phase of this dematerialisation. This trend will continue in the future. As a result, economic growth will come to mean better quality of life rather than more goods.

What exactly does "conserving resources" mean?

Achieving a set production target using the smallest possible amount of resources. Transport is one example: efficient vehicles can be used, or logistics organised so as to avoid empty trips.

And when is an economy "future oriented"?

I understand this to refer to being able to sustain a certain quality of life and level of prosperity for the population in a world where resources are becoming ever scarcer. Even in countries that have been very wasteful with energy, such considerations are starting to be an issue. Who would ever have believed that China and the USA would sign a climate agreement? If you want to be future oriented, you must first develop and establish an action plan to ensure quality of life and prosperity while at the same time conserving resources, including by constructing the necessary infrastructure – such as in the housing, food and transport sectors.

NRP 73 has hardly started, yet it is already coming in for criticism. One allegation is that science is allowing itself to be used by politicians, or as the puppet of the Federal Council as the latter attempts to implement the green economy action plan. What is your response to this?

I have often heard this criticism. NRP 73 has been commissioned to use independent research to produce previously unavailable knowledge. It is therefore not about using scientific arguments to legitimise a political proposal. We want to show how the national economy could be remodelled to conserve resources and ensure long-term prosperity. We want to conduct research into the measures that can be taken, the tools that could be used and the processes that could be developed. It is therefore a matter of providing the knowledge needed in order to make plans and take action.

Critics allege that the very programme itself is ideologically biased.

I am also aware of this criticism. In order to make rational decisions and develop viable solutions, we need to know what problems we face. And Switzerland does not stand in isolation here: basically, this country is a wholesale and finishing plant. We import goods and resources and process them into high-quality products. Switzerland therefore needs to survive on the global markets. A glance at the international situation shows that similar programmes are being set up all over the world. However, if the "Green Economy" is established worldwide, products from Switzerland will be eyed very critically. Production processes therefore have an impact on competitiveness.

You are the president of the NRP 73 Steering Committee. What motivated you to accept this role and expose yourself to criticism?

I am convinced that we have a knowledge gap, and that science can fill this gap. Where science is concerned, I am still one of those enthusiasts who believe that science can help solve problems. In this sense, NRP 73 is an investment in Switzerland's future sustainability.

Pre-proposals for NRP 73 had to be submitted by the end of September 2016. How are things looking so far?

Nearly 100 project proposals were submitted, and they cover the different research topics relatively well. A number of projects are being organised in cooperation with businesses and industry. This will result in real practical knowledge which indicates how to implement something, rather than just theoretical knowledge. I am therefore very happy with the pre-proposals received. We will now select 40 to 50 projects for more detailed evaluation.

Author: Astrid Tomczak-Plekawa