BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Update on Sustainable Development Conference 2012 (May10/02)
22 May 2010
Third World Network

The “green economy” debate unfolds in the UN
By Chee Yoke Ling and Saradha Iyer (TWN)

[An earlier version of this article was first published in SUNS #6928, 21 May 2010.]

The first preparatory meeting (17-19 May) of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development saw lively debate and interactive exchanges between UN Member States, UN agencies and Major Groups on their understanding of what a “green economy” means in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

The idea of making national economies more environmentally sound or “greening” an economy was accepted. However, there was a wide range of views with some fundamental differences, particularly between developed and developing countries, on how the “green economy” concept is understood in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and how it should be addressed at the international level to prevent “green protectionism” in trade and new conditionalities in financing for developing countries.

The UN General Assembly decided at its 2009 session to hold a Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, to be hosted by Brazil, marking 20 years after the historic 1992 Rio Summit that gave birth to the sustainable development agenda.  

There will be three preparatory meetings, with the first just ended on 19 May, and 3 more intersessional meetings of 2 days each leading up to the 2012 Conference. The various UN regional commissions will also convene regional consultations.

The objective of the 2012 Conference is “to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges”.

The focus of the Conference “will include the following themes to be discussed and refined during the preparatory process: a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development”.

To stimulate and guide the Tuesday (18 May) discussion on the theme of “Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” the Preparatory Committee’s Bureau had posed the following three questions:

1.  What is your understanding of the concept of “green economy”? How does the concept of “green economy” contribute to achieving the overarching objective sustainable development, including poverty eradication?

2.  Can this theme underpin a move towards a sustainable development paradigm?

3.  What are the challenges that countries may face in transitioning to the Green Economy?

How can these countries develop a tangible yet comprehensive framework of action, touching upon issues regarding policy decisions and possible reform, investment, and natural resources management?

This topic took up the most time over the three days with Egypt (supported by Grenada, Russia, India and Korea) proposing a study on this complex issue that was discussed in the plenary session – this is contained in the Summary of the plenary discussions prepared by Co-Chairs Park In-kook and John Ashe and presented at the final plenary on Wednesday (19 May) night:

“Several delegations requested that UN DESA, UNEP and other relevant organisations cooperate to prepare a study to be available for PrepCom 2 which would assess both the benefits and challenges and risks associated with a green economy transition. It was suggested that such a study could be undertaken with the assistance of a panel of scientists from developed and developing countries. Among the issues which the study should address are:

  • macroeconomic policy implications of pursuing a green economy transition;
  • potential loss of competitiveness of some industries, sources of comparative advantage of some countries;
  • risk of “green protectionism”, legitimation of certain ‘green’ subsidies which could distort trade;
  • potential of green economy to poverty eradication through the creation of sustainable livelihoods.

Some suggested that this work could include a compilation of existing experiences and good practices with green economy policies and measures in different countries. It was also emphasized that in this and other work the Secretariat should draw upon the substantial body of existing work within the UN system and avoid duplication”.   

A range of views on “green economy” was presented by government delegations, UN regional commissions and Major Groups.

[Major Groups are the categories of groups recognized under Agenda 21 and are constituencies that have observer and participation privileges in the Commission on Sustainable Development and the 2012 Conference process. These are women, indigenous peoples, farmers, children and youth, workers and trade unions, local authorities, scientific and technological community, NGOs and business and industry.]


Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP made a statement that evoked a lively exchange.

Ambassador Abdullah M. Alsaidi of Yemen, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, kicked off the Tuesday (18 May) debate by outlining in detail the Group’s concerns regarding the concept of green economy.  The thrust of the statement was on the need to understand the scope and possible benefits and the need to assess the risks and costs and to clarify the limits of the concept.

Expanding on the Group’s initial comment on green economy in the opening plenary on Monday, 17 May (please see SUNS # 6926 Wednesday 19 May 2010) he said that “there is no need to redefine sustainable development. No valid argument can be sustained for abandoning the concept of sustainable development and replacing it with an imprecisely defined, abstract concept”.

The Group stressed that in this preparatory process leading up to the 2012 Conference, UN Member States must assess if this new concept could lead to duplication of efforts or an attempt to sideline the concept of sustainable development and its requirements. The limits of the concept of “green economy” should be clarified in full.

A number of questions were raised by the Group: Does an approach based on “a green economy” add value to the paradigm of sustainable development? Or does it compete with the agreed multilateral conceptual framework for sustainable development? Moreover, how does it relate to the fundamental principles agreed in Rio (Agenda 21, Rio Declaration) and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Declaration, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation)?

According to the Group, “up to now, the approach offered by ‘green economy’ does not reflect clearly the disparity between countries, which translates as different development challenges and the many possible interactions among environmental, economic and social factors.

The underlying differences in the development processes and the structures of the economies and societies between the developed and developing countries have been captured in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. This distinction also points to the fact that there is not one single model for sustainable development, much less for a ‘green economy’ that would fit all countries.

‘Green economy’ definitions would thus require a certain degree of flexibility and the consideration of the different levels of economic, social and environmental development in different countries. A universalist and uniform approach to the concept of ‘green economy’ is not warranted”.

The Group said that in order for the benefits of applying “green economy” as a concept to outweigh the risks, it should be firmly rooted under the paradigm of sustainable development, respecting the policy space of each country to define their own paths towards sustainability in their economy and society, in accordance with their own circumstances and priorities.

On a potential benefit, the Group said that since implementation of the internationally-agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the multilateral environmental agreement is still lagging, the approach offered by a “green economy” might prove useful if it would assist in the implementation of policies that provide incentives to production, consumption and resilient economic development, protect and use environmental resources sustainably, and promote social well-being, in the short and long term.

The Group cautioned that “transition to a ‘green economy’ should not lead to conditionalities, parameters or standards which might generate unjustified or unilateral restrictions in the areas of trade, financing, ODA or other forms of international assistance. Illegitimate barriers to trade – tariff and non-tariff – could emerge if the discussions are geered towards or captured by protectionist interests, which might ultimately lead to ‘green protectionism’ proposals that would run counter to the multilateral trading system”.

The Group added that there should be no attempt to limit the sovereign rights of developing countries over their natural resources, as reflected in Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration.

In this context the Group posed several more questions: How could the “green economy” approach contribute to the implementation of policies for poverty eradication and for the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs, in particular MDGs 7 and 8? How can the concept advance the development, deployment, and transfer of sustainable, environmentally-sound technology, the sharing of know-how and the provision of new and additional financial resources, including increased ODA, to developing countries? What would be the implications to macro-economic policies and to international trade of a green economy approach? How to avoid "green protectionism"? How are parameters to define what falls under the general banner of “green economy”?

Spain on behalf of the European Union said that the EU supports the Green Economy as a “relevant, timely and politically challenging theme” for the 2012 Conference.

It said that “the EU and its Member States seek to engage in a constructive dialogue to develop a common understanding of the concepts related to the theme Green Economy in order to speed up subsequent action to implement policy measures and tools for greening the economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. Attention should be focused on instruments and actions which enable the transition to an economy which is compatible with sustainable development, taking into consideration the varying contexts in developing countries, emerging economies and developed countries”.  

The EU said that, “the Green Economy debate has moved on from greening the handling of the global economic crisis to the recognition that a global transition to an economic system which supports sustainable development is needed” and that such a transition “provides new opportunities yielding benefits in all three dimensions of sustainable development”.

The EU emphasized the role of the private sector and setting the right prices, adding that the right social policies are also required.

The EU called for international cooperation and support to Green Economy strategies, including regional and national policy measures and said that “promoting a green economy is closely linked with efforts to promote sustainable consumption and production, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energies” and that it encompasses, inter alia, technology transfer, energy efficiency and promotion of renewable energy, sustainable resource use and management, policy investments for promoting eco efficient and competitive economy and building on the ongoing work of assessing the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services”.

China stressed four points, supporting a green economy in the context of sustainable development with changes in consumption and production patterns but “resolutely oppose … trade protectionism under the pretext of environmental protection”.

According to China, “First, developing green economy has become an important trend of our times. It is widely recognized that developing green economy can not only conserve energy and reduce emission, but also make more effective use of resources, expand market demand and create new fields of economic growth. Thus it is a remarkable conjunction of environmental protection and economic development.

“Secondly, countries should implement policy measures conducive to green development and put in place operational mechanisms for virtuous development characterized by economic and social development in harmony with resource and the environment. In this way, we can maximize the sustainability of resource utilization and environmental improvement and minimize the damage to the natural environment and human health caused by industrial development, thus promoting the sustainable development of the world economy.

“Thirdly, it is necessary to cultivate the value of harmony between man and nature, incorporate the culture of conservation and ethical value of environmental protection into social activities, and predicate economic activities on resource and environment sustainability in order to effect changes in the mode of production, people’s life style and their pattern of consumption and promote green consumption.

“Fourthly, the international community should create an enabling environment for green development. We should resolutely oppose the practice of erecting “green barriers” and engaging in trade protectionism under the pretext of environmental protection. The developed countries should help the developing countries to nurture green economy and promote economic development by means of providing technological transfer, financial assistance and market access”.

Bolivia was the most skeptical. Ambassador Pablo Solon said that Bolivia attaches importance to this discussion “because we care about on how the fact that the concept behind the concept of green economy is a new proposal for the commodification and privatization of nature”.

Amb. Solon said that we must first ask ourselves why we're in this situation. We are at this time facing market rules that favor the maximization of profit above human welfare. So far we have lived under a system that recognizes nature as a commodity from which it takes resources. Now we must recognize that nature is not an object but a system in which we all belong.

Cuba agreed with Bolivia while Uruguay said any definition of green economy should encompass international trade and not impose commercial restrictions which impede markets.  

India emphasized space for national authorities to make their own choices and said we should not let green economy emerge as a normative straight jacket and that there was a need for an upfront disavowal of trade protectionism so that the debate can move forward.

Indonesia underscored the green economy’s linkages to trade and insisted the transition to green economy must lay emphasis on technology transfer and cautioned against setting unachievable targets.

Mrs. Dewi Savitri Wahab said that Indonesia views green economy as a vehicle towards attaining sustainable development.  

She said that, “The depth of the recent global economic crisis has raised questions on the path and method of our current and past economic development. This presents us with an opportunity to redesign national and global economic policies and strategies, toward implementing the concept of green growth and green economy”.  

She stressed that it must be implemented in a comprehensive manner and that it is also important to ensure a bottom up approach, i.e. the policies and strategies for the transition to green economy must be taken at national level, and not be made as multilateral or international prescribed conditionalties. This will ensure that policy space as well as natural resources and cultural peculiarities are respected.  

She added that, “Having said this, a conducive international environment is however central for successful implementation of green economy. The international financial system and the multilateral trading system must support and facilitate the transition towards green economy.  

“Green investment must be encourage and made more attractive. Tariffs on green products such as organic agriculture products must be reduced and eliminated. While agriculture subsidies provided to non-green farming must be eliminated.  

“Also important, particularly during the transition process towards green economy, is to ensure that green economic policies are not use as a disguised protectionist. Process Production Method (PPM) standards must not become a non-tariff barrier. At the same time it is critically important for Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on green products and services be established between developed and developing countries”.   

She further said that, “Moving toward a green economy entails a process of transition that requires both developed and developing countries undertake fundamental changes in the design and implementation of economic, social and environmental policies. It is important to emphasize that given their level of development and readiness, developing countries will require considerable assistance to move towards green economy”.  

Indonesia then made a number of proposals for the 2012 Conference preparatory process. It was emphasized that the Conference must in particular ensure concrete and doable action in the area of financing, technology transfer, and capacity building for developing countries to move towards green economy.

Ecuador called for a definition of the scope of the concept and what mechanisms and resources will exist to help developing countries.

Mr. Carlos Alberto of Ecuador said environmental sustainability is a crosscutting issue in all development guidelines and that it is necessary to work to agree a clear vision and common on the green economy. He also stressed green economy’s relationship and impact with concept and vision of sustainable development, international trade and technology transfer, as well as the need for a consensus by states on issues of green economy.

Brazil spoke of constructive doubt about green economy and said that the response to the economic and financial crises highlights the need to reinstate the State as the driver of sustainable development.

Colombia said the (2002) Johannesburg action plan helped us to advance the definition of sustainable development, and that the 2012 Conference is a unique opportunity to make an important contribution in the discussion. The green economy should be a means to achieve sustainable development.

It understood green economy as changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and said that today we have the means to advance in great strides on this issue and to transfer knowledge and ability to developing countries to improve their economies on a to protect the environment.

Colombia said that the discussion should not be framed as a clash between sustainable development and green economics.

UNEP’s Achim Steiner offered assurances in an effort to bring greater comfort to the process saying that all important points raised in the course of discussion were being noted.  He conceded that in view of the central role of the green economy theme to the Conference, there was need to work on a clear definition and set of principles to guide the transition to a green economy and ensure the establishment of an enabling and supportive environment.

In a reference to India’s concerns, Steiner agreed that green economy is not one singular recipe but a series of pathways with each country being allowed to choose its own pathway.

He also specifically said developing country concerns such as differential benefits, risks and possible trade distortions will all be addressed. He added that while UNEP played an active and pioneering role on green economy, it was now embedded within the UN system and that there will be a systematic and system wide view of the issue.

In a formal statement, Steiner said that UNEP’s work on green economy was born out of multiple crises, does not replace or compete with sustainable development but adds to urgency.

He said that equity is a key issue for green economy, which is about both within generations and between countries, mentioning also the issue of ecological footprint and historical use of carbon space.

Mootaz Ahmadein Khalil, speaking for Egypt, said that the green economy should be a means to achieve sustainable development, and not be an alternative concept that would alter the agreed definition of sustainable development, or the balance between its economic, social and environmental pillars.

However, he stressed that the challenges that countries may face in transitioning to the green economy are many, especially for developing countries: First, the economic, technological and social costs, as following the path of the green economy might entail foregoing entire sectors of the economy.

Secondly, countries may face an additional set of indirect obstacles like green protectionism, artificial barriers to trade, conditionality to international support and a conceptual legitimization of a certain type of subsidies practiced by the wealthy for their benefits, along with the de-legitimization of other types of subsidies directed to the less advantaged, at least in the short term.

He added that other challenges may relate to the creation of a new dependency on ever evolving modes of production that are generated only in developed countries that keep experimenting new technologies and concepts. All these challenges may lock in the existing competitive advantages for developed countries.

In response to Steiner’s question on whether we need a (1992) Rio type, trend setting conference in 2012 or just another review conference, Egypt said it believes that we need both.

Rio+20 should focus on the means to implement the green economy in practice and the ways to prevent the potential negative consequences of the green economy from happening, especially in developing countries. It should not be restricted to just defining another set of standards that may be misused in the future for the benefit of some more advantaged and competitive developed partners at the expense of the many less advantaged developing countries.

Egypt then suggested that UN DESA could, in cooperation and coordination with UNEP and other relevant agencies, commission a study to objectively assess the challenges, risks and benefits of the green economy, to be discussed in the next session of the Preparatory Committee. “This study should be prepared by a panel of economists and scientists from both developing and developed countries. This may help to focus the actual work of the Summit on the ways by which the international community could cooperate to implement the green economy concept in practice in a sustainable way.”

This idea was supported by Grenada, the Russian Federation, India and Korea.  

Switzerland expressed some reservation on this score and the debate became highly interactive from this point onwards.

Ambassador Dessima Williams of Grenada made a strong plea on behalf of the AOSIS countries saying climate change was the greatest threat they faced, that it posed challenges to their attainment of sustainable development and that it adds stress to their vulnerabilities and also weakened their resilience.  And so she said green growth has to take account of these points.

In response to this matter Director of DESA’s Division on Sustainable Development, Tariq Banuri, explained that the Issues Management Group involving all UN agencies would link up the conversation on green economy and come up with proposals.  “We have long experience and we can help,” he said.

Norway agreed that that a green global economy is created by a million choices and different national paths rather than any one choice, or singular path, but there are some key features in improving sustainable development results.

It said that it is not looking to attach exact monetary values to ecosystems and their many services to us. It is about the right people being able to make the connections, seeing what lies behind the expenses connected to health problems, premature deaths and lost productivity, how badly managed natural resources hold back economic opportunity. We can also increasingly count the expenses connected to trying to reestablish services that used to be freely available once they are lost, for example forest cover, or a clean and lasting natural source of water.

The Russian Federation expressed several misgivings saying green economy sidetracks from sustainable development goals and was worried that protectionism may rise and jobs will be lost. One pertinent issue it raised related to who will award green labels and what if they become like the Ratings Agencies (in the financial sector)?

It was the only delegation to raise the issue of genetically modified organisms and if these will be insisted upon to achieve food security.

Senegal said that “the transition to green economy is the only way forward” and that the 2012 Conference should achieve consensus on a New Global Green Deal taking into account common but differentiated responsibility.

It cited the Report by the UN Secretary General (paragraph 23) for the preparatory meeting:

“ … most indicators of environmental improvement have not demonstrated appreciable convergence with those of economic and social progress …”

So we need to find an institutional framework that allows ensure a growing convergence between the three pillars of sustainable development, said Senegal. “This result may be a change of institutional location of the CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development) as some Delegations have recommended, but in any event, the Rio Conference seems to be a historic opportunity to place the Commission truly at the heart of sustainable development”.

Mexico said that the green economy is a new paradigm and that its should not lead to a dramatic change in the agenda, approaches and options for responding to the challenges that the (international) community has not solved in terms of sustainable development.

It said that in the framework of the OECD, Mexico has insisted that the transition to a green economy will not be achieved as long as there are basic market failures.

With regard to the challenges that countries may face in this transition to green economy, the new paradigm has to be defined by the international community and each country must decide what policies and what measures can be applied to incorporate it into their development strategies.

In addition to economic performance, there should be improvements in the worldwide equitable distribution of job opportunities and the effect they have on subsidy policies on food production of developed economies.

Mexico said it is also essential that developed countries transfer technology that contribute to the abatement of environmental degradation and support proper absorption and implementation in developing countries.

The United States affirmed that the Obama Administration in committed to a “Green Economy. It agreed with Senegal that the transition to a green economy was the only way forward and also agreed with Mexico and Norway in recognising that what it means and how it is implemented will vary from country to country.

It said that, “Rather than fear it, embrace it as a new awakening …” and proceeded to list several domestic initiatives “that we would like to introduce as models and best practices in our future discussions on the Green Economy”.

Switzerland, a strong supporter of putting green economy on the international agenda, said that the “Green Economy does not replace Sustainable Development”.  

It said that, “As indicated by several delegations, while the outcomes of Stockholm (1972), Rio (1992) and Johannesburg (2002) continue to be relevant and have to shape our thinking, the world has changed significantly since then”.  

It said that, “The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development will provide an important opportunity to reflect these changes by sharpening the lenses of sustainable development on the specific Green Economy theme and to strengthen our common commitment in this regards”.

Switzerland said that it “agrees with the G77 and many others that Green economy should clearly not become a jazzy catchword to replace the concept of sustainable development”. It “does not believe that the theme of Green Economy should be seen as an attempt towards a new development paradigm, to change or to replace the concept of sustainability which still remains relevant, but as a concrete contribution in one specific area, in the economic area, towards the overarching goal of sustainability”.

It “expects the Conference on Sustainable Development to focus on this specific area of sustainable development with a view not only to express and strengthen our political commitment to this important issue, but also to provide concrete guidance by adopting a broad political Green Economy Roadmap and by supplementing such a political commitment with concrete tools and measures to greening our economy”.

Australia said green economy is an omnibus term and can enhance the convergence of the three pillars but said the social pillar needs to be given greater consideration.

Korea shared its experiences with green growth strategies and said it invested 2% of GDP on green growth to move towards low carbon growth.

Japan touted its Hatoyama Initiative and outlined some of its domestic actions.

Two UN regional commissions, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) made a joint statement.

Ms. Carol Chouchani Cherfane (ESCWA) said that first, green economy concepts should not be construed as an alternative to sustainable development, but rather a component that can highlight opportunities and offer new avenues for pursuing the integration of the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development. The pursuit of a green economy – or a greener economy – should thus reinforce, not redirect the path towards sustainable development.

Secondly, restricting green economy approaches to those that promote a low-carbon economy – as referenced at times during the deliberations – should be avoided. As green economy instruments present opportunities for advancing sustainable development, so do low-carbon solutions contribute to the development of a green economy portfolio. However, green economy approaches must be more comprehensive than those focused on reducing carbon emissions if progress towards sustainable development and poverty eradication are to be achieved. This calls for facilitating financing, investment, trade and transfer of appropriate and sound environmental technologies that can reduce pollution, improve natural resource management as well as increase access to environmental goods and services – such as access to safe and reliable water supply and sanitation. Green economy interventions should thus seek to assess and respond in a balanced manner to the multiple crises that are impacting food security, water security, energy security, job security and indeed national security as we seek to reactivate political commitment and progress towards sustainable development.

The Commissions stressed that Member States must retain the flexibility to set their own path towards sustainable development and be afforded the policy space to incorporate green economy concepts in their development plans in accordance with their national interests. At the global level, the concept should be elaborated with a view towards the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities.

The next preparatory meeting for the 2012 Conference will be in March 2011.+

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER