2.4 Green Economy
2.4.1 Transition from Sustainable Development to Green Economy
The environment is worse today than it was 20 years ago and in the face of the 2008 global financial crisis, the environmental crisis and the failure to implement the broad concept of sustainable development, the UNEP put forth the alternative paradigm of green economy in the
hope that this tool can finally place the world on a sustainable and socially equitable path (Stevens, 2010; UNEP, 2011; UNEP, 2012) While the concept itself is not new, having received some recognition at the Rio Summit, it has recently gained traction in the hope that it will solve the global financial and environmental woes (Stevens, 2010; UNEP, 2011; Musyoki, 2012; UNDESA, 2012).
Green economy is defined by UNEP (2011a, p.9) as:
“an economy that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. It is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive”.
In other words, the paradigm aims to produce a new economic growth model that is environmentally friendly, can contribute to poverty alleviation efforts through job creation and by protecting ecosystem goods and services that the poor depend on for their livelihoods, reduces the cost of manufacturing goods, and enhances competitiveness (UNEP, 2012; UNDESA et al., 2011).
According to the UN Environment Management Group (2011, p.39), the green economy is expected to:
Provide new sources of income and employment in the form of green jobs
Create a “low carbon emission” economy, reduce the use of (finite) resources, and reduce the generation of waste and pollution by managing consumption and production patterns Contribute to the social development goals of sustainable development which include social equity and inclusion, and poverty alleviation
Green economy is not meant to supplant sustainable development- rather it is an approach that recognises that the latter cannot be achieved without “getting the economy right” (UNEP, 2011a, p.
9). Furthermore, this approach is not meant to be a “one-size-fits-all path towards sustainable development” (UN Environment Management Group, 2011, p. 9) as approaches will vary according to a nation’s level of development and its human and natural capital. The approaches will differ according to the different roles and responsibilities of the government, the private sector, civil society, market and institutions. Therefore, there is a need for policy- and decision-makers to align the ideas with their sustainable development objectives (UN Environment Management Group, 2011; UNEP, 2011a; UNRISD, 2012a). UNEP (2012) adds that green economy measures can only succeed if the previous resource-intensive, unsustainable policies are amended.
Against this backdrop, some countries have begun to successfully transition to a green economy.
Examples of initiatives in developing countries include:
Uganda’s shift from traditional agricultural practices to organic agricultural practices- organic farming is a more sustainable source of income and it provides livelihood security for smallholder farmers. In addition to contributing to economic development through exports of organic products, organic farming contributes to climate change mitigation by emitting fewer greenhouse gases (64%) into the atmosphere than conventional agriculture and by sequestering more carbon (UNEP, 2010). Employment levels have increased in the agricultural sector as the number of farmers has increased by 359% since 2003 (UNEP, 2010).
In Seychelles, the UNEP and UNDP, in their joint programme, the Climate Change and Development- Adapting by Reducing Vulnerability (CC DARE) funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, contributed to a rainwater harvesting project which is providing water in schools which face severe shortages as most of the rain is lost through run-off. This project has not only allowed for the schools to save US$250 on water bills, but also demonstrates a form of climate change adaptation (UNEP and UNDP, ud).
In Tunisia, in 2009, the government put forth a Solar Energy Plan to reduce the country’s over-dependence on oil and gas and increase its use of renewable energy from 1% to 4.3%
by 2014. The plan, which entails the use of solar energy, includes solar water heating systems, solar voltaic systems and solar concentrated power units to generate electricity.
Funding for the project will come from the government’s National Fund, the public and private sectors, and the international community. It is estimated that energy savings could reach 22% by 2016 and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is expected (UNEP, 2010).
UNEP (2010, p.4) asserts that such examples prove that “green economy strategies can take root wherever there is a vision and leadership to make the transformation- it is not limited to national or government policy levels”. Furthermore, when fully integrated into comprehensive strategies, such initiatives present “an alternative development pathway that is pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-poor”
(UNEP, 2010, p. 4).
With this in mind, the fourth environmental mega-conference, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (commonly dubbed the Rio +20 conference) was held in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, with the main theme being “a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty alleviation” (UNDESA, 2012, p. 8; UNDESA et al, 2011). UNRISD (2012a) asserts that this coupling of green economy with sustainable development and poverty eradication draws attention to the social aspects of development which have been ignored.
2.4.1.1 The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20 Conference)
The Rio +20 conference was held over a three-day period from 20-22 June 2012, under the themes:
“A green economy in the context of poverty alleviation and sustainable development” (UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs et al., ud, p. 3).
“The institutional framework for sustainable development” (UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs et al., ud, p. 3).
The conference was attended by more than 100 heads of states (more heads of states attended this one than the original) and 50 000 other people including organizations, civil society, civil society groups and academics (Vaughan, 2012; Walsh, 2012). This attendance record, which surpassed that of previous conferences, was one of the only successes of the summit as it illustrates that people are committed to a sustainable future and are willing to take action at grassroots level to accomplish this goal (Vaughan, 2012). The final outcome of the conference was a political non-binding, 283- paragraphs-long document called The Future We Want which re-confirmed promises made in Agenda 21 and underscored the need to implement the goals of sustainable development through the integration of the three pillars (Mahapatra, 2012; Monbiot, 2012; UN, 2012b).The document has been criticized for being lacklustre and being a copy of previous outcome documents. IDS (2012, no page number) asserts that the document “does little to achieve what is needed in order to protect our planet from the negative effects of globalisation and climate change”. Monbiot (2012, no page number) also states that:
“190 governments spent 20 years bracing themselves to ‘acknowledge’, ‘recognise’ and express ‘deep concern’ about the world’s environmental crises but not to do anything about them”.
Dankelman (2012) adds that The Future We Want failed to provide a guideline promoting a low carbon green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.
Moreover, the document has been criticised for failing to link gender issues with climate change and other environmental issues. On a positive note, however, the nations in attendance agreed to create a list of sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) when their target date is reached in 2015 (Mahapatra, 2012; Vaughan, 2012).
The overall failure of this conference has only made people sceptical as to whether environmental mega-conferences are necessary. Mahapatra (2012, no page number) asserts that these conferences fail to secure the future we want because “the world’s leadership is divided too geographically, politically, and economically to reach an unanimous decision about the safety of the planet and
future generations”. Conversely, Musyoki (2012) argues that the failure of international agreements should not prevent the preservation of environmental resources for future generations. As it is becoming increasingly obvious that these summits cannot save the planet, it is important that civil society groups and individuals unite in local level initiatives to green the brown economy, thereby, placing the world on a sustainable path. Top- down development approaches are not working, but bottom-up, holistic approaches can contribute to socially-just green economy solutions (Hezri and Ghazali, 2011; UNEP, 2011a; Vaughan, 2012; Walsh, 2012).