for the United Nations Conference on for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Sustainable Development

19-20 October 2011, Republic of Korea19-20 October 2011, Republic of Korea

Asian and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting Asian and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting

Rae Kwon ChungDirectorEnvironment and Development

DivisionUNESCAP

Participation and outcomeParticipation and outcome• 300 delegates from 40 countries• over 60 civil society delegates• Hosted by the Republic of Korea, organized by ESCAP in

collaboration with UNEP and the Asian Development Bank• Opened by H.E. Ms. Yoo Young-Sook, Minister of

Environment of the Republic of Korea, and Mr. Sha Zukhang, as Secretary General of the UNCSD Secretariat

• Report2 from the meeting includes:Overview of proceedings

Chair’s Summary (annex I)Seoul Outcome (annex II)

• 1http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/Rio20/pages/documents/List-of-Participants-Final-0111.pd

• 2http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/Rio20/pages/documents/APRPM_Report_final_0911.pdf

• Pacific Preparatory Meeting/ Joint Ministerial Meeting, July 2011, Samoa.

• Senior Officials’ Meeting of the North-East Asian Subregional Programme for Environmental Cooperation (NEASPEC), Sept 2011, Republic of Korea.

• High-Level Symposium on the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Sept 2011, China. (Beijing Symposium)

• High-Level Dialogue on an Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, July 2011, Indonesia. (Solo Dialogue)

• Delhi Dialogue on Green Economy and Inclusive Growth, Oct 2011, India.

Inter-Governmental Preparatory Inter-Governmental Preparatory meetings in Asia-Pacificmeetings in Asia-Pacific

• Major group meeting “The Road to Rio 2012: Charting our Path” held 17-18 Oct 2011, Republic of Korea

• International Council for Science Regional Committee for Asia and the Pacific, April 2011, Malaysia.

• International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific, July 2011, Japan

• Promoting a transformative agenda for Sustainable Development: A strategy workshop on Rio+20, Aug 2011, Thailand

• Asian Women’s Forum on Gender Justice and the Green Economy: Special focus on water, energy and food security, Sept 2011, Thailand

Non-Governmental preparatory Non-Governmental preparatory meetings in Asia-Pacificmeetings in Asia-Pacific

Seoul Outcome: Regional Seoul Outcome: Regional Position on Rio+20 Position on Rio+20

• AP Unique Regional Dimension

• Diversity / High Growth and largest number of Poor

• Countries with special needs : SIDS, high-mountain & land-locked States

• Reaffirming Principles from Rio 1992 & Objectives of UNCSD : Secure Renewed political commitment for SD

• Assess progress and implementation gaps

• Addressing new and emerging challenges

Qualifications of GEQualifications of GE• Based on the Rio Principles• Action-oriented• Forward-looking• Consensus-based• Inclusive• Supportive of global partnerships for SD.

• Green economy has to be seen in the context of SD and poverty eradication.

• Common but differentiated responsibilities.• Sustained economic growth for poverty

reduction• A means to achieve SD

Qualifications of GEQualifications of GE

• Facilitate trade• Address 3 pillars of SD in a synergistic manner• Policy space and Flexibility based on national

circumstances• Inclusive of vulnerable groups, women, youth, • Involve all stakeholders• Facilitate technology innovation and transfer• Countries with special needs; SIDS, Land-locked• Not a pretext for green protectionism

Principle for IFSD Principle for IFSD IFSD should:

• Strengthen coherence and coordination • Enhance implementation at all levels• Strengthen governance in all three pillars• Promote the spirit of multilateralism• Improve balance and integration among the 3 pillars• Promote institutional capacity-building • Be aimed at enhancing the role of the United

Nations at all levels, including regional and sub-regional levels.

Seoul Outcome Seoul Outcome • Constructive framework for Rio+20 • Identified essential qualifications and

concerns in pursuing GE • laid a comprehensive & balanced guidance

on IFSD • could serve as a basis for Outcome of Rio+20• Result of forward looking engagement &

interactions of AP member states

Major Concerns on GEMajor Concerns on GE

• Conditionality & Protectionism• Dilution of existing commitments• Might replace SD • Policy Space and flexibility • Could weaken social dimension: • Might distort balance of 3 pillars of SD • Provision of Technology/Finance/Capacity

building

• Countries in AP region are already taking national initiatives in line with the idea of GE: Green Development of China, Green Vision of India, Green Growth of Korea, Green Bridge of Kazakhstan, etc.

• GE Rio+20 Outcome can build on AP Regional Experience

AP Perspective AP Perspective

• While many countries are taking national initiatives, • Concerns on potential negative impacts of shifting

towards GE• Uncertain whether double dividend/win-win synergy between “Green” and “Economy” is feasible • Comprehensive policy options/roadmap are not yet

fully established and available: Gap of policy options

AP Perspective AP Perspective

GE: Double Dividend GE: Double Dividend • Rio+20 objectives are - assessing and filling gaps in the implementation - addressing new and emerging challenges• GE can be defined as generating double dividend/win-

win synergy between “Green “ and “Economy,” thus filling implementation gap address new emerging challenges: energy, food/fuel, resource, climate crises by improving energy/resource/carbon efficiency

• GE could have positive impacts on poverty reduction, but not the ultimate solution

• GE has to be supported by inclusive social policy initiative on poverty: No automatic guarantee that cost and benefit of GE will be evenly distributed among population

• Developing countries are the most vulnerable: - 42 million will fall back into povertypoverty due to

food/fuel price rise in 2011, 19 million already 2010

GE to be supported by GE to be supported by Inclusive Social Policy for PovertyInclusive Social Policy for Poverty

• Distinction between IEG & IFSD Critical • IEG & IFSD has to go hand in hand IEG: International Env Governance is not IFSD strengthening of Env Pillar IFSD: integration of 3 pillars, mainstreaming SD into UN System as a whole

ex: ECOSOC SD Council, has to cover 3 pillars DESA DSDA (Dept for SD Affairs) ESCAP RSDC (Reg SD Commission)

IFSD: IEG & IFSD IFSD: IEG & IFSD

• AP: Green Economy is not new adopted Green Growth at MCED5 in 2005 adopted Green Bridge at MCED6 in 2010 • ESCAP : now developing a roadmap for Green

Growth; a compilation of policy options that can generate win-win synergy

GE & AP GE & AP

1. Quality of Growth: not to deny quantity, improving quality could even end up higher quantity of Growth

2. Changing Invisible Structure: tax, fiscal, regulation, life-style, social value

3. Changing design of Visible Structure: physical Infra; transport, urban planning, energy, water, waste system

4. Promotion of Green Business 5. Institutionalizing Low Carbon Economics

5 Tracks of ESCAP Roadmap 5 Tracks of ESCAP Roadmap

Vision for Rio+20 Vision for Rio+20 1. Global Consensus on definition for GE/IFSD 2. Launch a process to elaborate Policy Options (Roadmap) 3. Launch a global partnership for GE to support DCs 4. Mobilize Political Commitment of Government because the Market cannot and will not deliver GE not as ecological Conditionality but as an economic strategy to cope with multiple crises, for which DCs are most vulnerable

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Rae Kwon ChungDirectorEnvironment and Development DivisionUNESCAP

chung1@un.org