TWN Update on Sustainable Development Conference (Oct11/02)
26 October 2011
Third World Network

Divergent views continue on “green economy”

Beijing, 25 Oct (Chee Yoke Ling) – As governments meet in regional meetings to prepare for the June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to be held in Rio de Janeiro, differences remain on one of the two themes under discussion: “a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”.

Divergence was so deep at the meeting of the Latin America and Caribbean region held on 7-9 September 2011 that the conclusions of the meeting made no reference to “green economy”.

Similar concerns that have been voiced since the beginning of the preparatory process in May 2010 include the lack of consensus or common definition on “green economy”, fears that green economy could be used for trade protectionism and development assistance conditionality, as well as the replacement of the sustainable development framework with the three economic, social and environmental pillars by green economy.

Meanwhile the European Union has proposed a green economy roadmap for adoption in Rio. In turn, Colombia and Guatemala have jointly circulated a proposal for “Sustainable Development Goals”.

At the Asia-Pacific regional meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea held on 19-20 October, a wide range of views was reiterated on the “green economy” theme.

China said that the UNCSD presents an important opportunity for the international community to map out a global strategy for sustainable development. Since the 1992 Rio conference, the international community has made good progress in sustainable development. However, goals formulated at the UNCED (UN Conference on Environment and Development) have yet to be fully realized and countries still face many difficulties in achieving sustainable development.

It stressed that the Asia Pacific region is diverse in terms of national conditions as well as the level of development and expressed its readiness to work with other countries in the region to make concerted efforts to work for comprehensive, positive and practical outcomes at the UNCSD in 2012.

China said that due to diverse national conditions, there is no single model of developing green economy that can be universally applied. The international community should fully respect the independent choice of countries on the development path and model of green economy and ensure their policy space.

Emphasising that the region is home to the largest number of poor in the world, it said that the top priority for green economy is poverty eradication. Poverty bears heavily on the fundamental human rights and national development. For developing countries, reducing poverty is on the top of agenda in their efforts to develop green economy. Poverty reduction goals of MDGs should be taken as benchmark in green economy.

China said that the goal for green economy is sustainable development. As a means to achieve sustainable development, green economy should concentrate on the comprehensive, balanced and coordinated development of the three pillars of sustainable development, namely, economic development, social progress and environment protection. It should neither replace sustainable development, nor become an obstacle to the realization of development goals.

It also stressed that green economy should focus on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility”. Developed countries need to take the lead in changing unsustainable consumption and production pattern, and honor their commitments (in Rio 1992 and after at numerous UN conferences) in new and additional funding, technology transfer and capacity building. For developing countries, greater efforts should be made to integrate sustainable development concept into national development strategies.

It added that to foster favorable environment for developing countries to embrace green economy, trade liberalization and facilitation should be taken as stimulus for green economy.

China further said that in developing the green economy, the international community should act in accordance with the principle of mutual benefit and promote sustainable development for all. A green economy should offer new trade opportunities to all countries, and not become a pretext for “green protectionism” or “green conditions” in international cooperation and International Development Assistance. Least developed countries in particular would benefit from trade capacity building and facilitation to be able to seize new green product market opportunities.

India said that we are here to build on Rio 92 and the principles enshrined in the Rio Declaration. A green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication (GESDPE) essentially means that greening of economy has to be directed towards achieving the overarching objectives of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

It proposed eight guiding principles for this purpose:

ท Reaffirm the Rio Principles, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

ท Strike a balance between the three pillars of sustainable development.

ท Allow policy space for the countries to define their sustainable development strategies as per their national priorities and respective stages of development.

ท Build institutional capacities at all levels – global, regional and local.

ท Prioritize programmes for the inclusion and upliftment of socio-economically weaker sections of the society, women and youth.

ท Promote access to green technologies at affordable cost, including through greater financial assistance for R&D (research an ddevelopment) in the public domain.

ท Strengthen global partnership for sustainable development, including for access of developing countries to additional financing.

ท Avoid green protectionism in the name of green economy.

India stressed that in the pursuit of green economy, a critical challenge is to ensure universal access to modern energy services. In this sense, equity must be the bedrock of any vision on sustainable development. How do we reconcile the twin requirements of affordability and environmental sustainability with the scaled up needs of energy supply? How do we leapfrog?

Accordingly, India said, making available appropriate and cost effective technologies, particularly in the realm of renewables, is fundamental. Towards this end, development of technologies should be supported through collaborative public platforms. Centres of excellence as nodal points for technology research and development in developing countries may be identified and provided appropriate resources.

It also said that the dependence of developing countries on fossil fuels for economic growth is expected to continue for some time and in this context, availability of cleaner fossil fuels through augmentation of refining capacities and measures like beneficiation of coal, in line with national priorities and capabilities, also becomes relevant. In addition, per capita energy consumption in the developed world also needs to be rationalized to tackle the energy crisis holistically.

It called for investment in natural capital in order that Green Economy policies result in the creation of jobs and contribute to eradicating poverty. Suggestions were made, including on programmes related to reversal of land degradation, water shed management, sustainable agriculture strategies according to national circumstances and particularly taking into account the special needs of the small and marginal farmers, forest management and sustainable use of biodiversity.

India emphasized the urgent need for change in lifestyles to reduce the pressures on natural resources. Developed countries must reduce their unsustainable patterns of consumption and the resulting ecological footprints and release ecological space for developing countries to achieve equitable and sustainable growth.

It also said that sources of new and additional international financing to supplement domestic funds would be imperative in a GESDPE framework. One way to achieve this could be by creation of a ‘Sustainable Development Fund’ for investments in green infrastructure and augmenting natural capital.

Finally, India said that we cannot blindly support quantitative targets or goals. Since the Principles of Rio guides us – foremost amongst which is the principle of CBDR (common but differentiated responsibilities), we need to be mindful of whom we are setting targets for. CBDR exhorts developed countries to take on commitments first. We cannot afford this principle to be ignored, as the context of sustainable development goals is different from that of MDGs (the Millennium Development Goals).

Indonesia said that the global financial crisis has shown that the current model of development was not in line with global needs, it needs to be redesigned to promote sustainable livelihood. Achieving progress in that regards requires changing the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption so that it will be based on the sustainable development principles; based on resource efficiency; internalization of the cost of natural resource depletion on environmental degradation; restoration and strengthening of the natural capital; and ensuring sustainable economic growth.

Indonesia views green economy as a vehicle towards sustainable development. An approach that requires economic development to not only boosts on real growth, but must also be in line with environmental sustainability and poverty eradication. Therefore, it is a way in which externalities costs will be internalized in economic activities related to production, distribution and consumption of goods and services at all level. This approach is important in order to achieve a better balance in the economic, social, and environment dimensions.

It also said that it is important for Indonesia that green economy will not be used as a tool to impose restrictions on trade or ODA (overseas development assistance) that will become a wedge that ushers in protectionism. Moreover, it is important to ensure concrete and doable action in the area of financing, technology transfer, and capacity building for developing countries to soundly move towards green economy.

The Russian Federation said it welcomes the goals, pursued by the masterminds of the concept of Green Economy. We completely agree that the world needs an updated paradigm of sustainable development with due regard to social, economic and environmental aspects. It is a universal truth that we cannot postpone saving the planet from pollution, hazardous wastes and environmental degradation. Our firm belief is that each individual country should focus on developing a feasible model of reaching these goals not to harm its economy and people.

It believes that energy and resource efficiency, energy conservation, minimization of anthropogenic impact on environment which are the core means of reaching our goal are basic elements of the Green Economy. The delegation went on to outline some of the Russian domestic actions.

Russia said that it is early to speak about shifting to Green Economy at the moment since the discussion on understanding and defining this concept continues. There are still no reasonable arguments to remove our concerns that Green Economy may be used as a trade and technological discrimination tool or put conditions on development assistance cooperation, including financial and trade aspects. Shifting to Green Economy cannot push countries to committing themselves to some global ecological standards, which have not been agreed upon.

It said further that we all are well aware, that through Green Economy new “green jobs” are being created by introducing new environmentally sustainable goods and services. At the same time not even the authors of the Green Economy concept deny that jobs in new sectors of economy appear due to elimination of traditional industries. The issue we all should seriously consider is whether the “green jobs” will be able to compensate the number of jobs in traditional industries.

Russia then referred to studies that have recently been made on such an experience in Spain, which is a developed country, that vividly demonstrate that the “green jobs” lead to higher unemployment rates. In this case it should be studied and calculated how the Asia Pacific region will handle a shift to “green jobs”. With growth rates and numbers of the poor in the region increased unemployment can lead to disastrous consequences. We believe that ESCAP has a capacity to do a study on this issue, if member states make such a request, it added.

Stressing that food security is also a matter of paramount importance to the region Russia said that it should be studied whether genetically modified food production can be considered green.

It also strongly believes there is a need for a continued discussion on the regional perspectives on Green Economy and for further evaluation of its consequences. While countries should promote environmental cooperation, introduce clean and innovative technologies to minimize hazardous influence on the environment, we would like to note that Green Economy cannot substitute the Kyoto protocol commitments, as implied in the Secretariat meeting paper. At the same time we believe it inappropriate to use in the UN document such ambiguous notion as “equitable management of ecosystems of global importance, ensuring that benefits are fairly shared”.

The Republic of Korea that is one of the strongest and most vocal proponents of the green economy concept said that faced with formidable challenges such as climate change, energy and food crisis, Rio+20 will offer the best opportunities to provide a renewed momentum for sustainable development established in Rio twenty years ago.

It said that in order to push forward green economy, acceptable targets, general guidelines, capacity building, global partnership for financial and technological support, and improved institutional arrangements have to be taken into consideration.

It said that without stable economic development, we cannot make proper momentum for a paradigm shift toward a green economy. However, we can also regard the economic crisis as a good opportunity to make a genuine change.

Korea regards the green economy as a new growth engine that can create new markets and new jobs. It stressed that green economy is already a matter of survival rather than choice.

(Civil society groups from Korea that participated in a workshop prior to the regional meeting circulated a statement questioning their government’s “green economy” highlighting that more than 40% of the country’s energy is nuclear and the ongoing national controversy over the “Four Rivers” infrastructure project that the government says is green but opponents say is not.)

Japan said that the transition to a green economy is to achieve sustainable development and that the green economy should be affirmed in Rio (UNCSD 2012). It added that every country should have a road map for a green economy.

It also said that green economy alone is not a panacea and that it should be people centred stressing the importance of human security as a guiding principle. It further said that Rio+20 would be important for discussion of goals beyond 2012 for international development (the UN Millennium Development Goals have 2015 as a deadline for achieving the goals concerned.)

(At the North-east Asia sub-regional meeting of senior officials held on 1-2 September 2011 Japan said that the outcome document of Rio+20 should be “a focused political document,” that should be a concise political declaration focusing on the two themes of Rio+20.)

Samoa represented by the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment stressed the importance of meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the rights of future generations, adding that the inability to incorporate the social and environmental dimensions into marker decisions has created new risks and hazards. It stressed that a green economy strategy must be linked to poverty eradication.

In a presentation of the outcomes of the Pacific sub-regional preparatory meeting (20-22 July) that was at a ministerial level, the Minister said the Pacific has adopted the “green economy in a blue world” as its Rio+20 theme.

Australia agreed that the theme of green economy is an important means to achieve sustainable development and that it must be flexible for adaptation to national circumstances. It welcomed the Pacific’s promotion of the “Blue Economy” (referring to the special situation of countries with large areas of seas and oceans as part of their territory).

Malaysia outlined its national efforts on a green economy and shared its concerns on the concept. It said that thus far there is no consensus on the definition of the term, and while it carries the promise of a new economic paradigm that is friendly to the earth’s ecosystems, the concept should not be used as a protectionist tool or as a condition for international financial cooperation.

The Philippines also voiced concerns over green protectionism. It said that there should be discussions and appropriate recommendations and statements on the avoidance of trade protectionism and tying conditionalities to official development assistance at the 2012 Conference. The Philippines, as a developing country, sees green economy consistent with upholding trade policies that prevent unfair competition that arises when countries protect their own production sectors through subsidies and when poorer countries’ natural resources are used unfairly by developed countries.

In addition, the Philippines also sees the possible implication of green procurement policies on goods. The issue on possible blocking of products coming from developing countries that are not considered “green” based on standards of developed countries should be carefully revisited. These standards should not be used as non-tariff barriers. An agreed accreditation, certification and eco-labelling of products should be established in order to avoid green trade protectionism.+