Green Economy Not Taking Off in Latin America

By Emilio Godoy

A year after endorsing the principles of the green economy at the Río +20 summit, Latin America is making little progress towards sustainable development models, according to experts.

The region “is generally in a precarious situation; although there have been efforts in public policy-making to integrate natural capital as an element in economic sustainability, there have been few cases,” Isabel Studer, director of the Global Institute for Sustainability (IGS) at the private Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, told IPS. “There is no comprehensive, cross-cutting approach.

“Countries have based their economic growth on the exploitation of natural resources, and this has aggravated a situation that was not particularly promising. Environmental sustainability has not been integrated in economic policy,” she said.

The IGS is taking part in a study led by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) on successful experiences in the green economy in developed and developing nations, set to be completed by the end of the year.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the green economy is “one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.”

UNEP says green investment can contribute to reducing demand for energy and water while reducing the carbon footprint of production of goods and services, besides contributing to the fight against poverty and social inequality.

¨We have to understand the conditions in the economy, and later which measures can be applied,” said UNEP representative in Mexico Dolores Barrientos. “First there has to be an analysis of the methods and priority sectors for moving towards a green economy.

“The main step forward is the recognition of failures in the economic system, which can eventually be overcome by means of better public policies, and that can include the main issues of the green economy,” she said.

“The future we want”, the outcome document adopted in June 2012 by Río +20 (the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development) in Rio de Janeiro, considers the green economy one of the most important instruments for achieving sustainability, which can offer alternatives when it comes to policy-making.

At the same time, it recognises different approaches, visions and models, based on the specific circumstances and national priorities.

Governments, universities, NGOs and companies registered 741 voluntary initiatives in sectors like energy, transport, agriculture and health with the secretariat of the conference. Brazil registered 72, Mexico 47 and Peru 25.

By 2030, Mexico will require 64 billion dollars in investment in electricity, oil and gas, agriculture and forestry, energy consumption and transport to generate fewer polluting emissions, according to World Bank estimates.

The World Bank prefers to talk about “inclusive green growth” and puts the accent on experiences that are already being applied in many countries in the region.

But some governments, academics, and civil society organisations, especially in the developing world, argue that the green economy is turning nature into merchandise, without addressing deeper problems like poverty and inequality.

In the study “Development strategies of selected Latin American and Caribbean countries and the green economy approach: A comparative analysis”, UNEP studies the cases of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, whose governments “have expressed major concerns about the concept of green economy.”

The report says that “Although most of the countries analysed have integrated into their development strategies certain elements that govern the relationship of humans and communities with the environment and the pathways for achieving sustainability, there is a gap between the position of the countries, often very innovative, which is expressed in the international arena, and their current development policies.”

“The challenge is to bring about substantial changes in the national economy, in an integral manner,” Studer said. “Public policies involve macroeconomic, financial, fiscal and innovation policies. The green economy can be a motor for redressing inequalities.”

The academic said “the green economy is not optional, because today´s problems are only getting worse. It offers opportunities for development of new industries, renewable energy, recycling of materials; but it requires a gigantic effort to include externalities in prices and evaluate opportunity costs.”

Experts agree on the urgent need to adopt measures for more efficient use of energy and water, more efficient transportation, and more efficient handling of waste.

Mexico is completing a study on agriculture, natural capital, transport, water and green jobs, which could serve as input for policy-makers.

Other countries in the region are also beginning to study and analyse different sectors, from the point of view of the green economy.

“The key is for countries to accept the recommendations on the green economy and then carry out an important analysis on where the opportunities are for applying them, and do so,” Barrientos said.

The UNEP study says “it is necessary to establish international mechanisms that guarantee that a green economy will: contribute to poverty eradication, respect the sovereignty of nations, facilitate the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, and allow an equitable distribution of wealth”.

Green Economy Not Taking Off in Latin America

TYI (Water)

By The Water Channel

This video was created by the people of Aretika - a small village located along the Simsang river in the South Garo Hills, Meghalaya, India

Traditionally, the people of Aretika have always been dependent on fishery to provide for their daily bread. In recent years however, the Simsang river has become heavily polluted as a result of the exploitation of numerous illegal coal mines along its banks. The amounts of fish in the Simsang river have decreased severely, and the fish that are left are often found floating belly up already. The ongoing pollution of the Simsang river has forced the people living alongside its banks to find alternative sources of livelihood. Many have turned to the expanding coal mine industry to be able to provide for their families. Most families have begun to filter the coal debris flowing out from the mines into the river, in order to sell it, while others are transporting the coal in trucks or small boats, or are even working as daily labourers in the mines themselves.

"TYI" (Atong for water) shows how the people of Aretika are facing several issues, all related to water: pollution due to mining and water shortages caused by widescale deforestation.

Helen Clark on Women's Rights

Helen Clark comments on women's rights at the Women Deliver conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The conference launched a new interactive platform called "+SocialGood", part of the annual technology and human development event "The Social Good Summit".

Every nation must shift to sustainable growth - debate

By Megan Rowling, Thomson Reuters Foundation

The pressing need to limit damage from climate change means that all countries must start running their economies in a way that shares the world's resources more fairly, experts told an online debate hosted by Thomson Reuters Foundation and CARE International on Thursday June 27, 2013.

"Addressing climate change requires addressing the unsustainable consumption and production patterns of rich countries," wrote Amina Mohammed, special advisor to the U.N. Secretary-General on post-2015 development planning. For example, while energy is wasted in many places, there are 1.3 billion people without access to electricity, she noted. Food waste is another huge problem, panelists said.

The discussion asked whether a new global development framework - being crafted to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) when they expire in 2015 - can drive action to tackle climate change.

The recent report from the High Level Panel (HLP) on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, led by the presidents of Liberia and Indonesia and the British prime minister, also identified "an urgent need for developed countries to re-imagine their growth models".

"They must lead the world towards solutions to climate change by creating and adopting low-carbon and other sustainable development technologies and passing them on to others. Otherwise, further strains on food, water and energy supplies and increases in global carbon emissions will be inevitable," it said.

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and head of the Mary Robinson Foundation-Climate Justice, told Thursday's debate that the new development goals must be "universal", applying to all nations. "No country has reached true sustainable development, so every country has to adopt new approaches for a post-2015 world," she wrote.

Ruth Fuller, co-chair of the Beyond 2015 group for NGOs and international development policy adviser at WWF, argued that the HLP report does not go far enough. "The welcome messages on sustainable consumption and production are at odds with the prominence placed on growth as the solution to poverty, and the report fails to address high-impact, high-consumption lifestyles and the issue of redistribution of wealth and resources," she said.

Fuller proposed targets for consumption and production that are relevant to richer countries - including on efficiency, waste, low-carbon energy and corporate reporting.

'CRITICAL BATTLE'

There was general agreement among debate participants that bringing about seismic shifts in the global political economy would be no easy task.

"Tackling the fossil fuel industry means tackling a huge international consortia with huge resources and power," noted contributor Aedín McLoughlin.

Robinson replied that "powerful forces have been tackled before - in fighting apartheid, fighting slavery and targeting the tobacco industry". "This is the most critical battle of all, and therefore we need a broad constituency to ensure we succeed," she added.

Efforts are being made - including by Robinson's foundation - to bring the voices of those worst affected by climate change, including smallholder farmers and children, into decision-making circles.

"We need to engage young people, women, indigenous communities, the private sector, academia, trade unions, everyone!" Robinson emphasised. "We need climate action to catch fire. We need it to be a genuine movement."

To make this happen, many debate participants highlighted the need for more education on climate change issues - in schools, universities and beyond.

"It is important to ensure that we educate people at the country level and bring the urgency of the crisis to their attention," said Mohammed. "Without empowering communities with the requisite knowledge, it will be difficult to create that popular demand for action."

DECISIONS FOR THE VULNERABLE

Weak understanding of how extreme weather and other climate stresses worsen poverty is revealed by the MY World survey, in which more than 640,000 people from 194 countries, to date, have chosen the most important of 16 priorities for a better world. Of these, action on climate change is languishing in last place.

Robinson said people often don't separate out the causes of their hardships. "To those who live on the front line of poverty, climate change and development are the same issues," she said. "To respond to their needs, the international processes have to be more coherent and respond to the interconnected nature of the issues that make people poor and vulnerable."

Mohammed agreed decisions on climate change "must be in the interest of the most vulnerable". "As we design the future of development, low-carbon and climate-resilient solutions need to be centre-stage," she said.

She proposed building stronger alliances that will scale up climate finance, create jobs and deliver sustainable energy systems on a massive scale. "It is time to accelerate progress and create on-the-ground impact," she added.

2015 is a crunch year for those working on climate and development, because it is also the deadline for a new global deal to tackle climate change (although this won't take effect until 2020) and the next international plan to boost disaster risk reduction.

"By the end of 2015 we need a robust, fair climate agreement to keep us below 2 degrees (of temperature rise) above pre-industrial standards, and we need a post-2015 development agenda with Sustainable Development Goals that work fairly for all countries, within that 2 degrees limit," Robinson said.

Kit Vaughan, director of CARE International's Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network, called for a much stronger focus on making sure that governments and others actually meet the promises they make.

Every nation must shift to sustainable growth - debate

Rio+20 one year on and the value of innovation on the web

By Nick Ishmael Perkins - Director, SciDev.Net

It is now a year since the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference came 20 years after the Earth Summit and so was referred to as Rio+20. In the lead-up to the event, it was generally felt that the first conference and its outcomes had failed to live up to expectations. One year on from Rio+20, we see a lot of promise in what the money invested in the event has achieved.

But there are also concerns — many of them lessons that both the scientific and development communities should already have grasped.

First, the positive signs. Perhaps the most significant is that discussion on the next set of development goals after 2015 is focused on sustainability. The High Level Panel report submitted to the UN secretary-general in May reflects an awareness that poverty reduction is a necessary but insufficient condition for improved development outcomes, because our limited environmental resources leave us all vulnerable.

This was underscored by another report, this one by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, also commissioned by Ban Ki-moon. A UN Working Group on Sustainable Development will also be convened and the secretary-general has called for its work to be integrated with that of the other two reports.

In addition, there is an active lobby at the governmental level mobilising around sustainable development. The Group of 77 (G77) coalition of developing nations endorsed the Rio+20 outcome statement and a panel of developing countries has been convened to help push this agenda. This makes the outcome of the UN's multilateral negotiations over the next two years more likely to respond to sustainability concerns.

The second positive sign is that there have been tangible funding commitments for the sustainability agenda. A special request at Rio+20 for voluntary commitments from various institutions resulted in more than 700 pledges estimated to be worth more than US$500 billion in total.

Finally, a significant number of potentially important initiatives emerged from the meeting's fringes. For instance, Future Earth is an ambitious research initiative related to environmental change that prioritises working across disciplines and building coalitions.

New trajectory

These developments suggest a new trajectory for the sustainability discussion and a policy environment more concerned with linking poverty to a broader range of environmental and social issues. However, some concerns threaten the application of scientific evidence and technological innovation in support of the sustainability agenda.

First, the post-2015 process is not the only policy mechanism through which we can leverage necessary change. Widespread structural changes are required in relationships — from the manufacturing industry to consumer groups to energy providers to food standards agencies. Many of these operate in their own politically complex value chains but they are worth engaging with because their norms are legally binding — unlike any of the expected outcomes from the post-2015 process. Various development agencies are seeking to work with 'unlikely partners', but few know how to do so or have the required capacity. This was the single biggest failing following the 1992 Earth Summit.

Second, the bottom could still fall out of the sustainable development agenda if there is no case for economic growth. Easily the most contentious bit of the High Level Panel report has been the way it has addressed — or not — the issue of equality.



While equality is held as a moral pillar of our societies, so is capitalism and its promise of progress. The Economist recently claimed that the one billion people lifted out of absolute poverty over the last 20 years have the markets to thank. [1] But the High Level Panel report conflates all the possible drivers of such poverty reduction — including aid, improved governance and economic growth — astutely skirting this idea.

Last year, SciDev.Net conducted a series of discussions with readers across the Pacific. Their enthusiasm for science depended on what kind of development they understood the science was supporting. A similar response can be expected from policymakers around the world, so a convincing way to reconcile wellbeing and growth must be found.

The third issue is that technology's impact depends on how it is used. Calls for increased innovation in support of an integrated set of social, economic and environmental objectives seldom acknowledge that this is not a panacea in itself. Some innovations might respond to desires that go against sustainable goals. How these innovations play out and the focus of investment requires what UN special advisor Jeffrey Sachs calls practical roadmaps for problem-solving.

Scientific engagement

The scientific community needs to engage with a cross-section of policy spheres. This is how science can encourage positive trends for sustainable development and navigate the concerns. And this is where entities such as SciDev.Net can help.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development that commissioned the report that shaped much of the content of the Earth Summit, wrote something then that is pertinent this week: "The 'environment' is where we all live; and 'development' is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable." 

This is a fitting call to arms over what will be a crucial two years. In a way, it also expresses the inspiration behind our web revamp. The Internet is where SciDev.Net and its network operate and our journalism is what we do there to try to improve societies. We need to ensure we balance our efforts for improved content with keeping abreast of communication opportunities offered by the web.

Investing in one and not the other could become a problem for our sustainability.

Rio+20 one year on and the value of innovation on the web

Obama’s grand climate plan doesn’t add up

By Chandra Bhushan, DownToEarth

President Obama yesterday gave the most important speech on climate change in his tenure so far. In the words of Al Gore, it was the best “by any president ever”. It is a different matter that all the big cable news operators in the US chose to ignore this speech.

Let’s see what the plan looks like. It takes up a host of issues—setting carbon emissions standards for power plants (which will reduce coal use), shift towards domestically produced natural (mostly shale) gas and oil in the near future, emphasis on renewable energy, fuel efficiency standards for heavier vehicles, funding for adaptation against extreme weather events in the US, end to US public financing for new coal plants overseas, launching negotiations towards achieving global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology and working for an ambitious global deal in 2015.

Frankly, on its face value the plan indeed sounds ‘grand’. But dig deeper and you will find his plan doesn’t quite add up. Worse, this plan might end up jeopardising an “ambitious deal” that he so eloquently advocated for, in his speech.

Let me begin with coal and coal-based power plants. Obama’s big idea is to make coal-based power plants unviable in the US and stop and reduce coal use across the world. Though the intent is noble, it will backfire at the world stage. Let me explain.

With cheap shale gas, coal will become history in the US. It is a matter of time before companies start moving to gas-based power plants on their own. Obama’s new standard will hasten this transition. In fact, the US is likely to see huge reduction in energy prices because of this transition. But the same will not be viable in countries that import gas at a very high price. This will ensure US businesses out-compete manufacturers in other countries. How then would other countries respond to such a situation? They will certainly not move to the cleaner but more expensive renewable energy. They, too, will dig for gas and oil and coal—whatever is cheaper. And we have examples.

China has already started moving on shale gas. India’s shale gas policy is long awaited (in fact, India is now demanding import of cheap shale gas from the US). Russia and many European countries are moving to the Arctic for cheap oil and gas. The result of all this—we will see use of more fossil fuels, not less. It will also put to rest efforts to mainstream renewable energy. Renewable energy will remain marginal. With increasing global population and economic prosperity, and a gas and oil future (even if we get rid of all coal, however unreal it may sound), we should ready ourselves for real scorching heat.

Now coming to technological innovation, I am especially wary about Obama’s call for “launching of negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology”. Instead of supporting transition in developing countries, this might actually lead to trade wars on clean energy technologies. The fact is solar energy trade wars have already started in the US, China and the EU. India’s solar manufacturing has greatly suffered because of dumping from China and cheap loans (and mandatory purchasing) from the US. We don’t need free trade that is going to stymie development of clean technologies in different countries. We need a global cooperative model that fosters innovation for clean energy development.

Speaking on leading by example the President categorically said that when the US phased out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to protect the ozone layer, “it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant”. He lauded American businesses to figure out replacement technologies “without harming the environment as much”. But today, the same replacement technologies, first hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and now hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), has led him to join hands with China to jointly phase down production and consumption of the “dangerous hydrofluorocarbons”. To Obama of course, this deal with China is an example of strengthening ties with emerging economies. He clearly does not see this as the failure of American industry to produce chemicals that may not deplete the ozone layer but are extremely harmful greenhouse gases.

And finally on his vision for a global deal, Obama said: “What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious—because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands. We need an inclusive agreement—because every country has to play its part. And we need an agreement that’s flexible—because different nations have different needs”. Other than the ambition part, this has been the US’s position since the Rio conference in1992. It is a bottom-up, pledge and review model that the US has been advocating for far too long now. This model doesn’t take into account the demand of science or the imperatives of justice and equity. This obtuse position of the US is the primary reason we have all failed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The fact is Mr President is still talking about the US reducing its emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 (or about 3 per cent reductions over the 1990 levels).
This is not leadership. This position is not going to define a sustainable future for this generation or the next, let alone deliver on the lofty goal of averting the climate crisis.

Obama’s grand climate plan doesn’t add up

Children are the makers and the markers of sustainable societies

By Richard Morgan, UNICEF

The world is gearing up for the 2015 target date of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the same time, work has started on a new framework to guide priority efforts for human progress – including the eradication of poverty in all its forms.

Collectively, we now have another opportunity to set the course for a global sustainable development agenda. That brings many priorities and concerns different people will want to see included.

It will come as no surprise that the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is making the case that children are at the heart of what sustainability requires.

Those of us immersed in all things “post-2015” speak about integrating the main dimensions of sustainable development - social, economic and environmental, underpinned by the principles of human rights, equality and sustainability - as the cornerstone for a new agenda. We hope it will take a people-centred approach, in which future human progress is led by and accountable to those whose lives are at stake.

We see children at the centre of this because they are both the makers and the markers of healthy, sustainable societies. They are the canary in the coalmine - the earliest warning we get when things go very wrong.

They are the first to suffer the adult sins of omission (neglect of their needs) and commission (violence and other violations of their rights). Children’s nutrition, health, safety, education and other rights are inextricably linked to future economic growth and shared prosperity, to a safe environment and more stable societies. We neglect these rights at our peril.

Evidence shows that how a child develops in the first 1,000 days of life will have lifelong implications for that child, and for society as a whole. Safe, healthy and well-educated children make up the foundation for society to thrive.

A lack of investment in child nutrition, health, care and education can lock individuals and their families into cycles of poverty for generations, and can be an entrenched barrier to their countries’ future progress.

Take stunting, for example. Dozens of countries report up to 40 percent of young children still suffering from stunted growth, with six countries exceeding 50 percent, according to the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Report 2012.

Preventing childhood stunting can help break the cycle of poverty and increase a country’s GDP by at least 2 to 3 percent annually, avoiding billions of dollars in lost productivity and healthcare spending. Childhood deaths and stunting are warning signs of failing, unsustainable development.

Exposure to violence also has life-long implications – from brain injury and physical trauma to depression and development delays. Children exposed to violence can often turn to drug abuse, criminal, violent and other risk-taking behaviours later in life.

Because their bodies and brains are still developing, children are also more vulnerable to environmental pollution and the stresses of climate change. They are physiologically less able than adults to adapt to heat and other climate-related extremes. The effects on children of scarce and contaminated water and food are well-known.

INNOVATORS

Children today will shape and determine the societies in which they live. When a child is in poor health, has compromised brain functionality due to poor nutrition or trauma, does not receive a quality education, or does not feel safe at home, school or in the community, that child will be less likely to fulfil his/her potential as a parent, employee or entrepreneur, consumer or environmental protector.

Denying the individual child his or her rights deprives the entire human family of the benefits that derive from those rights.

Lastly, children are not passive recipients of development. They are the group with the most to win or lose from its success or failure.

At a recent U.N. Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals in June, a young woman called Ralien Bekkers spoke on behalf of the Major Group on Children and Youth. She challenged governments to “Talk, listen and work together with us for the challenges of our futures…We must become partners and allies for sustainable development.”

She pointed to examples of young people who are coming up with innovative solutions to major global challenges: an 18-year old Indian-American student who built an energy-efficient 20-second cell phone charger; a high school student in the U.S. who invented a fast and inexpensive cancer detector; and a 19-year-old boy from the Netherlands who has proposed a system to help clean plastic from the oceans.

We need children and young people to be empowered, supported and motivated to address the challenges we face globally and in our own societies. And they will only be able to meet those challenges if we invest in their health, nutrition, safety and learning opportunities today. Our common future depends on them.

Children are the makers and the markers of sustainable societies