Pavan Sukhdev

McKluskey Fellow 2011, Yale University

Founder-CEO, GIST Advisory

Green Economy & Poverty Eradication

“A Green Economy is defined as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, whilst significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.”

UNEP, Feb 2011

Green Economy and Sustainable Development: Green Economy is the best economic vehicle to achieve sustainable development goals.

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative

Green Economy : Definition

UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE

FOCUS • Design and drive

transformation in key sectors critical / highly material for “greening” the global economy

STRATEGY • Establish “Enabling Conditions”

(regulations, subsidies, taxes and related reforms) • Promote public and private

investment

KEY SECTORS • Agriculture, Freshwater, Forests, Fisheries, Energy,

Transportation, Manufacturing, Waste, Buildings, Cities, Tourism

SCENARIO ANALYSIS • “T-21” model, includes Natural Capital , to forecast outcomes

on Capital stock, GDP growth, Employment

“Towards a Green Economy”

(UNEP)

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative

UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE

• Green farming practices have increased yields, especially on small farms, between 79 % (Pretty et al, 2006) and 180 %.

• 10 percent increase in farm yields -> 7 % reduction in poverty in Africa, more than 5 % in Asia

• Approximately 2.6 billion people rely on agricultural production systems for their livelihood. (FAO, 2009)

• 525 million small farms world wide, 404 million less than two hectares of land (Nagayets, 2005), Small farms cultivate 60 % of arable land (Herren et al. 2010)

An increase in overall GDP coming from agricultural labor productivity is on average 2.5 times more effective in raising the incomes of the poorest quintile in developing countries than an equivalent increase in GDP coming from non-agricultural labor productivity.

Agriculture : Importance of Small Farms

UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE

185,000 ha, 45,000 farmers (2004)

60%/ 359% increase

296,203 ha/ 206,803 farmers (2008)

OA Growth in Uganda

US$ 22.8 mil (2007/8) US$ 6.2 mil (2004/5) US$ 3.7 mil (2003/4)

OA Exports in Uganda

Environmental Impact

48-68% lower carbon emissions Carbon Sequestration

Low fertilizer use

Business Opportunity

Organic food & drink market 97% revenue in OECD countries 80% producers in developing countries

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)

Agriculture in Uganda

Solar PV in Bangladesh

Grameen Shakti (GS)

Innovative Business Model

Economic Benefits

Economic Benefits

Industry/ Highly profitable

Household/ save fuel costs (342 – 3321 yuan)

Environmental Benefits

Environmental Benefits

Reduce fossil fuel consumption

Save 348,000 t SCE of fossil energy/ year

Social Benefits

Social Benefits

Reduce risk of CO poisoning, Rheumatoid

arthritis

600,000 employed

China is world’s largest market for Solar Water Heaters • 2/3rd of global capacity

• 10% of population • 4o mil SWH systems

Implementation Plan on Promoting Solar Thermal

Utilization in 2007 (under 11th Five-Year Plan for New and

Renewable Energy)

Solar Heaters in China

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)

Rural Ecological Infrastructure in India

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA)

Objectives Guarantee wage and employment; Strengthen rural natural resource management Strategy Labor-intensive implementation in 615 rural districts

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA)

Objectives Guarantee wage and employment; Strengthen rural natural resource management Strategy Labor-intensive implementation in 615 rural districts

Ecosystem Initiatives under NREGA Financing for rural works addressing causes of drought, deforestation and soil erosion

Ecosystem Initiatives under NREGA Financing for rural works addressing causes of drought, deforestation and soil erosion

Key Benefits and Impacts Improved rural livelihoods &inclusive growth--

Improved rural ecological infrastructure-completed from 2006-conserved (in Uttar Pradesh,)-replenishment (in Andhra Pradesh)

Key Benefits and Impacts Improved rural livelihoods &inclusive growth -Work for 30 mln. families per year - Wage increases of 25 % in 3 years

Improved rural ecological infrastructure - 850,000 water conservation works completed from 2006-08 - Estimated 5 mln. liters of water conserved (in Uttar Pradesh,) - Increased crop yields and ground water replenishment (in Andhra Pradesh)

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)

1.9% rate of forest decrease 1.35% annual increase

1990s: Before community forestry

2000-05: With community forestry

Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)

Forest Management in Nepal

Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) manage 25% of forest area

Develop their

own

operational

plans

Set

harvesting

rules

Set rates for

products

Decide

surplus

income

distribution

Economic Benefits

Economic Benefits

Environmental Benefits

Environmental Benefits

Social Benefits

Social Benefits

Employment & income for local users

Increased forest area &

density

Community acceptance &

goodwill

Enhanced soil & water

management

Sustainable wood fuel

sources

Four key and broad goals of Sustainable Development are :-

1. Improved human well-being : Better health, education, & wealth for all ; high employment to ensure dignity of life and labour

2. Increased social equity : Ending persistent poverty ; improving the income of the poor farmer and city dweller; ensuring inclusion at every level – social, economic, financial

3. Reduced environmental risks : Concerted efforts to reduce damages from Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Hazardous chemicals, Pollutants, & excessive or mis-managed Waste

4. Reduced ecological scarcities : Freshwater availability (exported foodgrainmeans imported water shortage), Soil fertility (ecosystem degradation & excessive fertilizer use are root causes of lost soil fertility), Land availibility (for crops & livestock), Coastal & Coral seas (for fish)

Goals of Sustainable Development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A.

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

1975

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 1980

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 1985

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 1990

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 1995

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 2000

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

Cuba World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 2005

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

Cuba World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Human Development Index

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India China

Brazil

Japan

Australia

U.S.A. 2008

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

Indonesia

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select

Countries (1975-2008)

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India

China

Brazil

Cuba

Japan

Australia

U.S.A.

Kuwait

UAE

Indonesia

South Africa

Mexico

Canada

Russia

Afghanistan

Korea Rep

Nigeria

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Human Development and Ecological Footprint for ALL Countries (2008)

Eco

logi

cal F

oo

tpri

nt

Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Meeting the Goals of Sustainable Development

with “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”

means:

Green Development in developing countries

Reducing Footprint in developed countries

Meets minimum criteria for sustainability

World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species

Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development

India

China

Brazil

Cuba

Japan

Australia

U.S.A.

Kuwait

UAE

Indonesia

South Africa

Mexico

Canada

Russia

Afghanistan

Korea Rep

Nigeria

Thre

sho

ld fo

r h

igh

hu

ma

n d

evel

op

men

t

Human Development and Ecological Footprint for ALL Countries (2008)

Thank You! www.unep.org/greeneconomy

www.gistadvisory.com