Takashi Otsuka Programme Management Office IGES

Brief Report of the 3rd International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2011): The Asia-Pacific Multi-stakeholder Dialogue

on Rio+20

Takashi OtsukaProgramme Management OfficeIGES

Sixteenth Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) of NEASPEC1-2 September 2011, Seoul, Republic of Korea

IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp Sixteenth Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) of NEASPEC, 1-2 September, Seoul, Korea 2

About IGES

International Research Institute which conducts practical and innovative research for realizing sustainable development in the Asia and the Pacific.

IGES was established in 1998.

About 100 researchers, full-time and part-tie, from diversity of countries other than Japan (about 1/3 of staff : non-Japanese).


International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2011)~ New Asia-Pacific Perspectives towards Rio+20: Implications of

the East Japan Disasters~

The 3rd ISAP: 26-27 July 2011, Yokohama, Japan. Co-organized by IGES and UNU-IAS. Collaborators: UNESCAP, UNEP-ROAP, and ADB. Participants: about 850 people. ISAP2011 is designated as the Asia-Pacific Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Rio+20 Themes:

(1) Implications of the recent triple disasters in Eastern Japan.

(2) Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication (GECPE)

(3) Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD)

The summary of the discussion will be presented to the Asia Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for UNCSD, to be held in Seoul, ROK, from 19 to 20 October 2011.


Outline

(1) Introduction

(2) Resilient and Sustainable Society

(3) Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication (GECPE)

(4) Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD)


General views on Rio+20 Sustainable development could be only achieved by addressing the three

dimensions of sustainable development, namely economy, society, and environment, which are interdependent and should be addressed in an integrated manner.

Gaps in interests and priorities of each country has been one of the obstacles for enhancing international cooperation.

The international community can learn from the recent Great East Japan Earthquake and associated nuclear accident . Economic development Japan has been strongly pursued while underestimating social and environmental risks thereby undermining the resilience of society to manmade and natural hazards - with tremendous economic, social, and environmental costs.

One of the key concepts underpinning integration is ‘resilience’, which should be revisited by all countries to contribute to sustainable development.The emergence of an interlinked and resilient global governance and economic system based on the principles of sustainable development. The green economy is an important interim milestone in this system. At the same time, a better Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) is one of the necessary conditions.


The 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and subsequent accidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plant gave us a brutal reminder of challenges linked to energy supply and to where energy should come from.

There is a need to reduce energy demand and substitute nuclear energy with renewable energy. Although an intensive renewable energy pathway is not yet decided, early adoption of renewable energy substitutes (including geothermal) would offset initial price increase in the long run.

Fukushima is a lesson on strengthening safety protocols in countries with nuclear reactors, regardless of their plans for continued use of nuclear energy, through a sound system of governance emphasizing safety standards and measures, accountability, transparency and redress mechanisms which should be in place prior to nuclear energy promotion;

Lessons from around the region should be shared on disaster risk reduction and mobilizing communities in meaningful participation and decision making at each stage of disaster planning;

Policy frameworks need to be revised in view of the increasing number and severity of climate-related disasters and to enable better horizontal coordination between the ministries responsible for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

Disaster education should be further enhanced, as evidenced by successful examples in northern Japan of students evacuating by following the drills they had practiced.

Topic 1:Resilient and Sustainable Society

Outcome of ISAP2011


Building Resilient Societies 　 (1) – Multi-level and multi-stakeholder governance

The importance of horizontal and vertical cooperation – In order to build a resilient society, a multi-level and multi-stakeholder scheme needs to be developed in; and it is necessary for each of them to conduct actions which can be delivered most efficiently.

National governments having a facilitating and enabling role

Local government have the responsibility for decision making and implementation, and for promoting horizontal cooperation and participation of different stakeholders.

The integrated system of top-down and bottom-up approaches has the potential for providing the opportunities to learn from each other and can be built strengthen resilient societies.

National Government

Local government

NPO

Private Sector

Local government

Horizontal cooperation


Building Resilient Societies (2) – Community based pro-poor approach

Through experiences of climate change adaptation, the best way to manage disaster is community based pro-poor approach (i.e. poor communities are more vulnerable, facing on more risks, have less access to resources, funds, political connections, and information)

A local community has in-depth knowledge of local environment and society, and it is quite useful for the disaster prevention.

At the recovery stage from the disaster, participation from local community with autonomy is important.


Safe, secure, and low-carbon energy (1) After the triple disaster, Japan faced serious shortages in energy supply Think, review and revise energy and climate change policy, it is possible in Japan to

abandon-nuclear energy from: (1) Right energy mix in the near future with moderate cost burden on the economy; and (2) Balance of supply and demand side of energy for households and small- and medium-

enterprises (SMEs).

(1) Right energy mix Based on the preliminary result of various research scenarios, renewable energy scenario is less

expensive than other options, which avoiding high cost energy import and strengthening energy supply security. This is the potential to be the most valuable policy option in Japan.

Japan’s indigenous resources like geothermal and tidal potential needs to be explored further and renewable energy needs to be aggressively promoted in the country to achieve energy security

[Ref.: A. Bhachattarya]

JPN_FFS_LR JPN_FFS_SR JPN_REN_LR

FIX 0.35% -1.60% 1.83%

INV 0.82% 2.93% 2.15%

VAR 4.10% 5.36% -6.37%

Total 1.11% 2.41% 1.12%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

% c

hn

age

to

bas

elin

e

% Change in system costs compared to baseline

1000.0

1050.0

1100.0

1150.0

1200.0

1250.0

1300.0

1350.0

1400.0

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

ton

Total CO2 emissions comparison

REF

FFS-LR

FFS-SR

REN

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

2020 2030 2040 2050

% Change in cost of electricity production to REF

FFS-LR

FFS-SR

REN

Preliminary Result


Safe, secure, and low-carbon energy (2) (2) Balance of supply and demand side of energy for households and small-

and medium-enterprises (SMEs) – “Green Innovation” initiated by local government

Comprehensive energy system management: demand and supply side framework for sustainable and stable households and SMEs –reform of energy supply system considering demand side energy saving.

A combination of reducing energy consumption and strengthening energy efficiency regulations of products, housings, and buildings, promoting both life and work styles reforms

windsolar

biomass

hydrobattery

Energy Supply

<SMEs>Green electricity

<Households>Home electrical

appliance

Energy Demand

Energy System Management Initiated by Local Government


The implication and definition of a green economy may vary depending on each country’s development stage, but all countries share the common goal of sustainable development. Establishing a green economy is a key interim implementing strategy for sustainable development. The existing economic system does not fully account for environmental and social costs; the nuclear disaster in northern Japan is a clear case of the necessity of developing a green economy by incorporating resilience and the precautionary principle. A green economy should have the twin goals of poverty alleviation and quality of life.While poverty exists in every country, developed countries should take the leadership for promoting a green economy by shifting their consumption from goods to services and shifting their economic behavior towards increased quality of life. Education and technology transfer are critical components of a green economy.

Topic 2: Green EconomyOutcome of ISAP2011


Key challenges for greening economy

•Economic context

Incorporation of social and environmental costs in the global economic system

•Environmental context

•Social context

Eradication of poverty and fulfill the basic human needs of all individuals

Keeping the ecological capital sound and sustainable

•Political contextShift from short-term thinking to longer-term and integrative view

•International contextDevelopmental gap between developed and developing countries


Measures for global green economy (1)

Production

Sustainable Consumption and Production

Decoupling between economic growth and resource use through promotion of green technologies and industrial transformation from brown to green

Consumption

Shift towards green lifestyle from mass consumption and promotion of governmental green procurement

Inter-linkage

Contribution to employment and poverty reduction

Intergrated policy intervention

Visualisation of environmental impacts e.g. green tax and subsidies green labelling

Full examination of the appropriate stage of product life cycle for intervention in terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency.



Development of Alternative Indicators

Scaling up the existing incentive mechanisms and developing innovative implementation tools will be a first step

Alternative or supplementary indicators to the current GDP for integration of social and environmental aspects

e.g. gross national happiness, green accounting

Contribution to change in value of the people from income maximization to enlargement of quality of life

Contribution to enable political decision making based on a longer-term perspective

To visualise externality, thereby to elaborate and adopt such indicators....



Developed countries – show initiative

International Cooperation

Developing countries – follow direction

Mechanism to promote international

cooperation and technology transfer

But bear in mind….

Not to promote green protectionism

Not to encourage export of brown industries from one country to

another

Green economy cannot be achieved within a single country, as economy is interlinked between countries in a globalised world


Need more emphasis on integrating sustainable development concerns in other policy areas; especially cooperation between different ministries Regional institutions can help persuade national governments from the top down, but sub-national governments and civil society organizations can also work from the bottom-up. Need increased understanding by policy makers and the public that Sustainable Development can make significant contributions to poverty reduction and economic development. Need a global or regional agreement on access to information to support genuine, informed multi-stakeholder participation in decision-making.East Asia has many underfunded regional cooperation mechanisms resulting in fragmentation and overlap, similar to the global situation. A regional organisation for information and capacity development could improve coordination and effectiveness. Such an organization could be new or based on existing ones.

Topic 3: IFSD

Outcome of ISAP2011


Key Challenges

Much stronger institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD) is needed

Institutional changes with coherent SD goals at global, regional, national and local levels

Leadership, coordination, effectiveness, information, participation, compliance and enforcement

Proper incentives, regulations, policies and actions

……


Problems can’t be solved at only one level Different levels have different advantages & disadvantages Solutions need cooperation between & within levels ** Promote multistakeholder participation (at all levels)

Solutions at all levels: Multilevel Governance


Proposals on UN Structure—Institutional Structure for Sustainable development (IFSD)

1. Need an umbrella organization for sustainable development.

Option (1) ECOSOC with official sustainable development mandateOption (2) new Sustainable Development CouncilOption (3) reformed CSD

Should undertake assessments of the progress towards SD Should have participation of environment and non-environment

ministers

2. Need a high level individual person to promote sustainable development

e.g. High Commissioner of Sustainable Development

3. Greater Participation and Coordination with Bretton Woods Institutions and Multilateral Development Banks


Proposals on UN Structure—International Environmental Governance (IEG)

4. UNEP enhancement – 2 phases reform

Short-term: Universal membership of UNEP Governing Council

Enhance legitimacy of UNEP’s actions and decisions Enable better coordination of multilateral environment agreements

(e.g. timing of meetings)

Mid- and Long-term: World (or UN) Environment Organization Increased mandate and autonomy Enhanced capacity building function in national policy formulation

and reporting, in MEA implementation, coordinating with others such as UNDP and World Bank, in line with the “One UN” concept.

Should have more regular and predictable funding


Proposals on UN Structure—International Environmental Governance (IEG)

Source: Thrust of IEG Reform (Olsen, 2011)


IEG implications for Asia-Pacific region

Many countries are facing serious environmental challenges

Need more capacity development & information sharing Many underfunded small existing international cooperation

mechanisms resulting in fragmentation and overlap

Regional organization for capacity development and information sharing, e.g. Asia-Pacific Environmental Focal Point with Asia-Pacific Topic Centres

An organization could be new or based on existing ones


Funding for Environment

Environment funding is low

Need to Consider New Potential Sources– e.g. Reallocation from national defense budgets (e.g. 0.5% )

Investment for avoiding security issues derived from environmental problems, resource scarcity, environmental refugees, etc.

– e.g. International tax on currency transactions, international air travel, etc.

Collaborative international efforts (not dependent on contributions from governments)


Overall implications for NEA

Information sharing and further cooperation on resilience and sustainability could be promoted in the existing frameworks, such as NEASPEC and TEMM.

Green Economy/Green Growth concepts and activities, actively promoted by the Republic of Korea and UNESCAP could be further mainstreamed in other countries. Cooperation frameworks in NEA could be further strengthend.

Strengthening IFSD/IEG is necessary at a sub-regional level. Streamlining the current institutional frameworks could contribute to this objective.


Thank you very much for your attention.

http://www.iges.or.jp/

Date post:	18-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joie
View:	38 times
Download:	0 times

Takashi Otsuka Programme Management Office IGES

Documents