oxford pgd dissertation 2012 final version
TRANSCRIPT
GREEN GROWTH IN EAST ASIAN
ECONOMIES: SENSE MAKING,
ISSUES AND TRENDS
Post Graduate Diploma in Diplomatic Studies
Wilson Ang
Total Word Count: 12,941
1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSADB - Asian Development BankAPEC - Asia-Pacific Economic CooperationASEAN - Association of South East Asian NationsBAU - Business As UsualCBDR - Common But Differentiated ResponsibilityCCICED - China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and DevelopmentCDM - Clean Development MechanismCOP - Conference Of PartiesCSO - Civil Society OrganisationDAC - Development Assistance CommitteeEACP - East Asia Climate PartnershipEU - European UnionESCAP - Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the PacificFDI - Foreign Direct InvestmentFTA - Free Trade AgreementFYP - Five-Years PlanG8 - Group of EightGDP - Gross Domestic ProductGE - General ElectricGEC - Green Economy CoalitionGGKP - Green Growth Knowledge PlatformGGGI - Global Green Growth InstituteIMCSD - Inter Ministerial Committee on Sustainable DevelopmentKOICA - Korean International Cooperation Agency MCED - Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the PacificMEWR - Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (Singapore)MNC - Multi National CorporationMND - Ministry of National Development (Singapore)NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation NPO - Nonprofit OrganizationODA - Official Development AssistanceOECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentRio+20 - 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable DevelopmentRMB - Chinese Reminbi (Currency) also known as CNYSAARC - South Asian Association for Regional CooperationSEI - Strategic Emerging IndustriesSGD - Singapore DollarsSINGG - Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth SME - Small and Medium EnterpriseUN - United NationsUNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992UNCSD - United Nations Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentUNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
2
UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSA - United States of AmericaUSD - United State DollarsWB - World BankWSSD - World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002
3
CONTENT PAGE1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 5
a. Objectives
b. Background
c. East Asian Economies
2. Literature Review ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 10
a. Commitment towards Growth
b. Asia’s Economic success and limitations
c. Green movement influence in Asia
d. Definitions: Green Growth, Green Economy and Green New Deal
3. Methodolgy of Research -------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg18
4. Case Studies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 20
a. China
b. South Korea
c. Singapore
5. Discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 41
6. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 43
7. Appendixes
4
1.INTRODUCTION
While the concept of marrying “Growth” and “Green”, is not new (Chung and Quah, 2010), there
has been a recent shift away from the perception that one would have to choose between economic
growth and environmental protection (Ekins, 2000). Literature on “green growth” suggest many
seemingly divergent discourses on its meaning and what the outcome of this “marriage” is, one idea
is that this concept is being perceived as a “western” ideology being sold to less affluent countries
to limit their growth so that the west can retain their global dominance (Firehammer, 2004). There
also exists another school of thought that firmly believes that green growth is the way to go to avoid
environmental destruction of the planet while also resolving the various social problems we are
facing (Ekins, 2000).
Of the many ways of describing this merger, “Green Economy” is one that has spread quickly and is
used extensively in all sectors of society, particularly as we approach the 20 year anniversary of the
Rio Earth Summit1. Its definition is still up for grabs at this moment with different countries
interpreting it in their own ways, and looking at ways to position themselves as the leader in this
field. While we see several reports and recommendations from other continents such as Europe and
North America on what their perception of how things should work, it is likely that these ideals and
suggestions may fail badly in other continents such as Africa and Asia, who are growing
exponentially and facing very different dilemmas in this new century.
(a)Objectives
This study is aimed to explore the recent interest in “Green Growth” and its various derivative
labels such as “Green Economy” in East Asia. The focus is to find out what stakeholders understand
by these terms, what various governments are doing in that regards, and what their motivations in
doing so are. “Green Growth” is a relatively new term and there is no consensus on its definition or
how states should adopt it, compelling us to explore this further.
5
1 Green Economy is one of the main thrusts of the Rio+20 Summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 20-22 June 2012.
The thesis looks at a few case studies in East Asia focusing on the early adopters of this concept.
The specific research questions include the following:
1. What does Green Growth mean to these countries?
2. What motivates these countries to adopt Green Growth?
3. How successful are these countries in adopting and promoting Green Growth?
4. What are the roles of different stakeholders or actors, specifically the youth and businesses, in
influencing ideas and policies for “Green Growth”?
(b)Background
Firstly, the paper aims to address the current state of play of the concept because going green has
gained significant attention recently, especially so with the upcoming Rio+20 Summit in June 2012,
twenty years since the first Rio De Janeiro Conference in 1992, where many significant documents
were adopted. Rio conference itself was the continuation of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, where
the negotiation about the environment at the United Nations (UN) intergovernmental level truly
began.
Anticipation of Rio+20 has brought together governments and other stakeholders to begin dialogue
on one of its key themes, “Green Economy to Eradicate Poverty”, with possible recommendations
on what can be expected out of this summit, and more importantly, the commitments they are
willing to put in thereon. Other stakeholders such as civil society organizations, businesses and the
scientific communities have also organized several independent sessions in the hope of conveying a
more neutral perspective on the matter.
Given the exponential increase of green events and discussions globally by all the stakeholders, it
can be inferred that going green is something that has gained significant interest at various levels.
Although brushed aside by skeptics as another exploitation excuse or to soften the image of
capitalism (Athanasiou, 1996); there are those that believe this concept has substantial potential to
address the growth crisis we face (Heinburg, 2011).
6
The paper is motivated by the idea that it would be critical to have a good grasp of the current state
of thoughts, ideas and political interests of states regarding the ideal of “Green Growth”.
Secondly, the paper focuses in East Asia because the concept has gained tremendous momentum in
this region. This can be inferred by the progressive efforts of the respective governments through
the allocation of funds from their budget towards green initiatives in recent years as shown:
- China: $468 Billion investment in greening key sectors by 2015
- South Korea: 2% GDP annually into green sectors in South Korea
- Indonesia: 7-41 target (7% reduction of carbon based on BAU by 2041)
- Asia Pacific: 23% of global green stimulus investment
Given East Asia’s seemingly unstoppable economic growth, it would be interesting to learn if the
region is truly interested in developing the concept of “Green Growth” into a viable alternative
growth strategy, or are states just superficially capitalizing on the opportunity to better package the
old way of growth paradigm. The dilemma the region is facing is that while it has benefitted greatly
economically over the past decade, many of its states are are still classified as “developing” status
that looks towards traditional progress as a necessity for them to grow out of the poverty cycle.
Therefore, States will need to juggle between two things; first, its interest in continued economic
growth to generate revenue and provide for its people, and secondly, managing the environmental
degradation and the impacts it would have not only to them, but globally. It may seem that East
Asia would be forced to, or at least it may be beginning, to deviate from its traditional capitalist
growth strategies into bolder ones, breaking new grounds.
7
(c) East Asian Economies
While the region may seem as very similar on the surface, there is actually very high diversity in its
governing system, culture, heritage, and of course economies. In order to do a better study of the
region, we will need to sub divide the study of the region into North East and South East Asia.
The countries selected as case studies for the paper are namely China, Singapore and South Korea,
because of their leading economic development and recent environmental interest in the region. We
first identified Singapore and South Korea because these two of the four Asian Tigers while
experiencing strong economic growth, have proven to create a highly green and sustainable
environment in their country amidst the limited resources they have access to. Also, these two
countries are at the two different parts of East Asia, North and South, which will allow us to better
analyze the situation in each sub region.
Having identified the first two nations to study, China was added to the list because of its size and
prominent position both in Asia and globally. China is now one of the most important economies in
the developing world alongside with Brazil and India. These countries have come under pressure to
re-look at the way they grow by the more affluent countries. And most notably China, has taken
8
tremendous efforts in pushing for “Green Growth” which will be elaborated in the chapters later in
this paper.
9
2.LITERATURE REVIEW
(a) Commitment towards Growth
One argument is the world of international relations is shaped by the conditions of anarchy with an
absence of any form of dominant governance structure (Waltz, 1959 ; Bull, 1977). At this moment,
there is little evidence on the possible emergence of a fully integrated global political system
(Giplin, 2001). The transnational structure which globalization has helped to shaped has rise to
partial governance of various issues internationally by those who share similar ideas and interests
(Grande and Pauly, 2005).
Despite the different interest of states, and their adoption of the various existing governance
structures, they have settled on a common commitment path towards growth as a normative. This is
the “Growth paradigm”, and can be seen as a kind of governance of the global political system.
(Purdey, 2010).
This paradigm is currently bumping against the planet’s limits and has reached a stage where it is
said to be threatening global environmental security and livelihoods (Meadow et al, 1974;
Heinburg, 2011). States generally tend to recognize the limits to growth but find it difficult to
implement alternative strategies, because everything is already set in motion to promote growth, it
would require very strong political will to look into alternatives (Purdey, 2010).
Therefore, it would be important to accept the growth paradigm as the foundation and motivation
for the promotion on the idea of green growth.
(b) Asia’s Economic Success and Limitations
With sixty percent of the world’s population residing in Asia, its time has come for its human
capital, with sufficient capacity building, to be leading the world’s economy (Bloom et al, 2000).
Some of the key success factor includes states having effective governance structure, a society of
continue learning, a more quality oriented growth where it values community benefits over
individuals and lastly, the response to externalities such as potential threat on their sovereignty after
the second world war (Rowen, 1998).
10
However, these are limitations to this growth which the respective governments have recognized as
potentially impeding their interest in continued economic growth. They include:
Population
Although efforts were made to curb the population in the 1930s, Asia’s still holds sixty percent of
the world’s population. Economic progress has increased the regions’ population’s life expectancy,
as well as the demand of resources it would require to sustain their livelihood. Coupled with the
continued increase of birth rates, the respective governments would need to be able to ensure
sufficient resources to provide the fundamental survival of a larger populations (Bloom et all,
2000). These would include food, water and energy. Specifically for the later, this would be a
critical element for the growth to carry on. Despite there are ongoing efforts of alternative
renewables, these are only able to provide for a fraction of the global energy demand.
Natural Resources
The current consumption and production puts the natural resources under pressure since resources
are not unlimited resources. While there are various programs for recycling, a good majority of the
time these have had limited impact on preserving valuable natural resources Given that more than
fifty percent of the world population currently resides in cities and with an increase in the standards
of living, the demand on resources are every growing (UNFPA, 2007). This puts stress on the
planet’s ability to provide for the “wants” instead of the “needs”. A focus on consumption habit
change, efficiency and innovation would be critical to avoid resource depletion.
Reduced Export Demands
There are two key factors that will affect supply and a possible third factor. Firstly, it is the current
economic crisis of the eurozone and financial debt of USA, which are the predominant importing
countries that consume Asian manufactured goods. Secondly, supply might slow down due to
market penetration has reached its depth. Lastly, it would be the lost of Asia’s competitive edge of
cheap labour, where once, it was able to function with low or even at times, zero social welfare.
11
However, as more scrutiny are placed on Asian products to meet environmental and social
standards, it may increase the cost of production, impeding the edge they once had.
(c) Green movement influence in East Asia
The degradation of its natural environment at the expense of economic progress has given rise to
several green movement in the region. However, the idea of “Green Growth” has recently been
aggressively embraced by the government of many Asian countries. Some attribute it to the western
power’s influence and pressure putting onto Asia’s growth, while some believed it was more of a
practical approach that Asia has finally decided to do so because of the limited resources there are
available to allow the region to grow.
While not having too much evidence on the world stage on its environmental efforts until the recent
years, one should note that there are a couple of initiatives at governmental level in South and East
Asia that began their roots as early as in the 1970s.
Firstly, the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN recognizes the synergistic
benefits in addressing common environmental problems on a regional basis and has Sub-regional
Environmental Programmes. The region’s environment ministers had eleven meetings with thirteen
agreements and declarations on sustainable development strategies as a bloc. ASEAN also included
a “plus three” member states in North East Asia, namely China, South Korea and Japan, from 1997
onwards with priority on Energy and Food security issues.
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), during the third summits of the
Heads of States in 1987, commissioned a Regional Study on the Causes and Consequences of
Natural Disasters and the Protection and Preservation of the Environment. This was followed up by
periodic meetings of it environment ministers on regional cooperation since 1992.
However, evidence of stronger commitment towards sustainability has only progressed with much
greater momentum in East Asia only in the recent decade. Apart from Japan, the traction of the
environmental movement, especially from civil society, only came about for the rest of Asia from
the mid 2000 onwards.
12
In 2005, the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific
(MCED) organized by the UN Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
in Seoul led to the formation of the Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth (SINGG). Al Gore’s
movie in 2006, “An Inconvenient Truth”, helped pushed the environmental movement further
among the people and private sectors to lobby for more active works to be done at governmental
level, sparking off several national level initiatives.
Despite the differing opinions on the findings, the release of Stern Review in 1997 brought the
attention of various governments to realize the higher cost involved of non-action than an action
required to tackle climate change. Subsequently, the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) 13th Conference of Parties (COP13) session in Bali jolted the largest
country in South East Asia, Indonesia, to look into climate issues seriously. There, Indonesia took
its strongest asset, forestry, as its key pillar in tackling climate problems. Subsequently, the
President of Indonesia launched its “7-41 strategy” with a commitment to 7% reduction of carbon
based on BAU projection by 2041.
An increase in other stakeholders’ participation from 2006 to 2010 at relevant green sustainable
related UN events was also observed. Economically strong states in East Asia began to look into
matters more seriously towards COP15 where pressure by the people sector had been placed on
governments in 2009 to bring forth their respective commitments, if any. This is a first in history
that an environmental event had gained center stage attention. In Asia, it can be noticed that as
states put together their strategies on climate change, they did not limit their initiatives to those of
this genre. Rather, these countries came up with commitments that includes the importance of
continued growth, specifically economic ones.
Through the various national strategy documents of the government that are available online, one
would observe that there is a convergence of climate change and issues of sustainable development.
These strategies have a connecting node that converges on the terms “Growth” and “Environmental
Sustainability”. Therefore, it is not surprising to notice that all the strategies of East Asia places
their priority still on “Growth” in many of their documents and these documents are presented at
COP, and events leading up towards Rio+20.
13
Since the relative success of COP16 at Cancun in 2010, civil society movement began to refocus on
more regional and national level strategies on climate change but in kept themselves abreast of
strategy towards Rio+20. At the intergovernmental level, UNEP also began actively promoting the
idea of Green Economy.
In February 2012, ESCAP, UNEP and ADB launched a report “Green Growth, Resources and
Reliance” stating that the Asia Pacific region is ready to lead the way to green growth. ESCAP’s has
also recently launched a Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap in April 2012.
We see here that the idea of having a more sustained growth isn’t something that only came about in
recent years as pressured by the global community. Arguably, while the global community and the
people movement did play a role to make the states step up their green efforts, one should also
consider that another reason is that the region has successfully acquired economic progress and
prosperity. There is little doubt that growth is still something in the core strategy of every
government for the betterment of its state and its people. However, it is about how to continue to
achieve this growth and respond to growing environmental crisis going forward that East Asia is at
a crossroad now.
(d) Definitions: Green Growth, Green Economy and The Green New Deal
At current, while there is no clear definition what it means, we can conclude that loosely defined, it
is a term to describe a path of economic growth which uses natural resources in a sustainable
manner, a possible alternative concept to traditional economic growth.
OECD recently published a report at its Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2011 as part of their
Green Growth Strategy. Ministers welcomed green growth strategy and provided guidance on its
future work. They affirmed that there is a need for a set of growth tools and indictors that would
allow the expansion of economic growth. In this report, it is suggested that “Green growth means
fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide
the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies. It states that investment
and innovation will underpin sustained growth and give rise to new economic opportunities.” The
report also states clearly the need to mainstream green growth into national strategy, recognising
different states will require their own kind of framework of it.
14
UNEP in 2008 launched the Green Economy Initiative indicating that Green Economy should
“...result in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing
environmental risks and ecological scarcities.” They emphasized as well that this is a working
definition and that it has to be redefined by respective governments in their own countries based on
their circumstances. UNEP has also launched a “Global Green New Deal” which contains a set of
recommendation of what governments should do in their policies to promote a more sustained
future.
ESCAP followed up with the 5th MCED by launching “Green Growth”, an online portal supported
by ESCAP secretariat, to push forward the idea. It states that “Green Growth is a policy focus for
the Asia and Pacific region that emphasizes environmentally sustainable economic progress to
foster low-carbon, socially inclusive development.”
The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), founded in 2010, an international organization that
aims to be an open global laboratory to support experimental efforts and share the collective
learning among countries to build confidence in implementing green growth strategies as part of
their national policies. GGGI notes that while it did not have any clear definition of what green
growth means officially, they are working along the lines of the South Korea’s definition. It is
interesting to note that the current President has a dedicated Green Growth Presidential Committee
team which says, that “Green growth is an action-oriented paradigm which promotes a mutually
supportive relationship between growth and the environment by holistically embracing the
framework of sustainable growth.”
The Green Economy Coalition (GEC), a global network of international organizations from NGOs,
research institutes, UN organizations, businesses to trade unions, aims to promote green growth
through green economy. They state that green economy is “...a resilient economy that provides a
better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet”. And to achieve this, they
identify five key areas to achieve this state. These include, “investing in natural capital”,
“investment in people, greening high impact sectors and services”, “driving investment and
financial flows”, and “Improving governance and measurement” (GEC, 2011).
15
While the European Commission is not presenting any explicit green growth strategy, the path to a
‘greener economy’ is a key element in the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. Particularly in
view of climate change, the EU goal is “… to reduce the environmental impact of economic growth
by saving energy and promoting new, environment-friendly technologies.” (European Commission,
2010) In the context of the economic and financial markets crisis in particular, the European
Commission is stressing the importance of green innovation, so that companies can improve their
competitiveness and keep pace in international competition. In its concept for ecological industrial
policy, the German government stresses the need to decouple economic growth from resource
consumption to satisfying the needs of a growing world population with minimal environmental
degradation.
As one would notice, the other terms such as “Green Economy” and “Green New Deal” are often
used interchangeably in various documents with “Green Growth”. It is difficult to find a pattern on
what are the differences between these terms. Despite not being able to determine the definition on
what it means, we can conclude on a few converging points.
Firstly, “Green Growth” is about being able to continue “Development” while being responsible to
the “Environment”. However, what cannot be ascertained here is the order of priority.
Second, would be an emphasis on common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), a key element
of the UNCED declaration text. In all the examples, the defining entity recognizes that there is no
one size fit all definition on what it means, and definitely no absolute approach. This is because
they acknowledge that every state has their own unique situation they have to deal with.
Third, it does seems that while the term has a focus on “green” and “growth”, and its various
derivatives, there is a strong element of “Social” that is being highlighted. This gives an
impression that social element can be addressed by itself once the environment and economic
matters are being addressed aptly.
Fourth, it would be the importance of “Innovation”. While the OECD and the EU explicitly
mentioned it, the other published documents often cite the importance of thinking out of the box, or
highlighting the need for a new paradigm shift among decision makers that is needed.
16
Last but not least, would be the need for a set of indicators. Despite a lack of agreement on these
indicators, it should be noted that they seem to overlap and one may even infer the possibilities that
they are being built on each other. These proposed indicators seem to have a convergence on a few
broad points as follows:
Human capacity - this would include job creation, and people’s education towards a more
responsible consuming society.
Resource efficiency - with the aid of technology advancement and knowledge transfer, to maximize
the current resource we have as a collective.
Natural Capital - the amount of natural resources available for our basic consumption, these are the
ones needed for human survival which includes water, agriculture, fisheries and renewable energy
sources.
Regulations - the importance of mainstreaming environmental regulations into national level
policies to ensure a balance of economic investment as well as environmental protection.
17
3. Methodology of Research
(a)Gathering of Data
This part of the dissertation will review method used conduct the research. The concept of green
growth is relatively new so much of the data gathered was based are online materials. These
documentary sources were complemented with interviews and questionnaires distributed among
various actors in the three case countries. Use was also made of the few existing literature that are
relevant to the theme.
i.Current Sources
These includes traditional published book readings and up-to-date information of the mainstream
media such as the television, radio, magazines and newspapers, as well as the various new media
tools that the internet can provide. These sources may counter the hypothesis will be taken into
consideration and critique or even provide additional angle or elements into this paper’s findings.
ii.Questionnaire
In order to get a good sense of perceptions and issues on the ground sensing, I created a
questionnaire which I aimed to distribute to about 20 to 40 participants from each of the three cases,
22 from China, 28 from Singapore and 52 from South Korea. The questionnaire was carefully
structured in a manner that it would be easily understandable, as well as concise enough so that it
does not take longer than 15 minutes for each volunteer to fill it up. The questionnaire consists of
multiple choice questions, as well as open ended questions to allow them to express themselves.
The questionnaires were sent to people who were judged to have a substantial number of prior
knowledge in this area (see copy of questionnaire in Appendix I).
iii.Interviews
Initial interviews are conducted specifically with identified stakeholders that are important within
the governmental institutions. The interview allows me to gain better insight from their views and
opinions on the state of play within and outside of their state. Some of the interviewees were being
selected from among those that had completed the questionnaire. In these cases the interviews were
used as a means to expand on the views expressed in the questionnaires.
(b)Categorization of Candidates
18
Public Sector:
This category includes the Central Government, Municipal Government, and its various ministries
or agencies. This is where policies are formed and determined. Hence, this is an important or key
stakeholder we have identified that we need to cover as part of our research.
Private Sector:
Multi National Companies (MNCs) and Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that bring businesses
into the state, providing economic progress. This group plays an integral part in influencing the
state policy and vice versa.
People Sector:
Made up of Individuals, Non-Governmental Organisations / Civil Society Organisations (NGO/
CSO) and Informal Community Groups. Better known as the voices of the people, which the
government should be held accountable to, and the very group that businesses aim to influence.
19
4.CASE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
Case studies would aid us to understand the current state of play in the respective countries, their
views, their motivations and their actions. Through the study of the case study, we hope to draw
conclusion from them individually at the end of each country, and as for the collective discussion, it
will be done so in the later chapter.
20
(a) Case Study: China
i.Introduction
China has gained significant prominence globally in its growth with a staggering GDP growth
sustaining at an average of 10% annually since 1990. This growth has brought China forward to
where it is but has also brought upon the state challenges such as unemployment, greater divide
between the rich and the poor, higher energy consumptions, environmental degradation and natural
resource depletion. It has to find a ground to reduce these implications while with a strong interest
to sustain its growth with 1.6 billion populations. Recognizing the challenges that it would face,
China began to reflect this in its five year plans on the importance to address the challenges
anticipated in its Five-Years Plans (FYP) with clear goals to maintain its economic advantage but
addressing social and environmental issues. In this case study, we will explore the interest and
motivation of its government, the current sense felt by the different stakeholders and more
importantly, what the term “Green Growth” means to the giant economic superpower.
ii.State Challenges and Environmental efforts
China’s official green efforts documentation can be dated when its leaders announced their 10th
FYP for the years 2001 to 2005 that focused on the reduction of pollutants. In November 2004
during an official announcement by Chinese President Hu Jintao at an APEC summit in Santiago,
he urged the world to work together for a more sustained way of developing through win-win
cooperation by highlighting the importance of protecting the natural environment. Chinese Premier
Wen Jiabao announced the adoption of Green GDP index as a replacement to the usual GDP index
for its internal accounting in the same year. The results for the data of 2004 alerted that the
economic loss was found around RMB287.4 billion (1.80% of GDP) by pollutant treatment cost
and RMB511.8 billion (3.05% of GDP) by environmental degradation cost.
This report made a significant impact as it puts an economic value to the kind of repercussions
faced. Based upon the findings, the importance of integrating environmental protection and
resource conservation efforts has been further discussed and watched. It was reported that China
failed in reaching the two environmental targets in the past 10th FYP. Coupled with the economic
21
loss anticipated with the Green GDP report, it led to detailed strategy in addressing environmental
matters in the following FYP. In the 11th FYP, a significant portion of the strategy was dedicated to
population, resources and environmental management that include energy and water consumption
reduction, increased in forest coverage, stricter pollution targets and a reduction of cultivated land
to protect the eco system.
Complementing its grand plan, works were propelled forward with China’s successful bid to host
the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. This bore witness to the launch of the “Blue Sky Initiative”
where the aims to keep the sky as clear for at least 245 days annually, to meet the requirement it has
promised for the games. This translated down to a series of policies implemented by the
government such as an increase in greenery in urban environment and tightened standards in the
vehicle emissions. (He, 2008).
With rapid urbanization, this led to the need of developing more cities that would cause further
environmental degradation and resource depletion. The Dongtan Eco-city project, dubbed as the
world’s first eco-city, was China’s attempt in this area. Even though it met with a less than desired
outcome (Cheng, 2010), it spun off several other Eco-city initiatives around China taken up by
various province mayors and international partners. In particularly with the Sino-Singapore Tianjin
Eco-city, it has once again gain global attention on the ability to be a model for sustainable cities to
be actualized.
In 2010, $51 billion of the global $234 billion invested in new clean energy projects were in China.
Given the challenges poised, it is not surprising that “Green development” was clearly highlighted
in China's 12th FYP for 2011-2015. Indicated in the document were goals of addressing rising
inequality and creating an environment for more sustainable growth by prioritizing more equitable
wealth distribution, increased domestic consumption, and improved social infrastructure and social
safety nets. There was a clear indication that the Government understands the economic
opportunities in reducing energy use and carbon emissions. A key component of the plan is the
development of seven ‘strategic emerging industries’ (SEIs) signaling China’s intention to balance
its growth with ‘social harmony’ and ‘environmental sustainability’. Four of the seven SEIs are
closely tied to clean technologies. This sets an international precedent in tying a nation’s future
economic growth to the growth of the clean technology sector. Furthermore, the plan sets long-term
growth goals and engages a wide range of industrial sectors and provincial and city governments.
22
iii.Energy Needs for Growth
"Green growth focuses on energy conservation, reduced energy consumption, sustainable
development and environmental protection,” Premiere Wen said during a meeting with the foreign
participants of the 2011 annual meeting of the China Council for International Cooperation on
Environment and Development (CCICED). China’s large coal deposits have until recently been able
to meet three-quarters of the country’s energy needs, but most of the coal is of poor quality, and
burning more of it adds to the already-bad pollution. Worker health and safety standards are
inadequate, so miners toil in appalling conditions which places PRC as the leader in the world in
mine-related deaths.
From 1990 to 2007 saw 380 million people moved to cities; from then till 2030, another 380 million
are expected to follow suit (Zhou, 2011). As it turns out, this task requires an enormous amount of
energy. Its energy consumption grew dramatically as the country’ economy did. Despite bring an oil
exporter in 1993, imports were needed to meet one-third of China’s domestic needs in 2002. Even
with that, by mid-summer 2003, two-thirds of its provinces had announced power restrictions
(McGregor, 2003). According to the latest official data from its National Bureau of Statistics,
China's total primary energy consumption measured 2.91 billion tons of standard coal equivalent in
2008, of which 70.3% came from coal (Beijing Electric Power Company, 2011). Similarly, China's
electricity production is also overwhelmingly reliant on coal. In 2008, 83.3% of China’s electricity
was generated by thermal power plants, which are mostly coal-fired with only a few natural-gas
power plants. Hydroelectric power generated 13.8% of electricity. Nuclear power contributed 2.0%
to the total generation, wind 0.8%, and all others such garbage incineration plants, solar energy, and
geothermal power contributed 0.1% (State Electricity Regulatory Commission 2009, 10).
In a recent report (Chang et al, 2011), the finding showed that because of China’s need for a cheap
and abundant energy source, coal will remain the dominant energy source in the foreseeable future,
even under the most optimistic scenarios. And nuclear, under the precondition of ensured safety, is
an area of interest that China is exploring to provide for its growing consumption. To that end, the
government is investing heavily not only in energy efficiency programs and non-fossil fuel energy
sources, but also in new coal fired power plants and high voltage transmission lines to connect both
new coal and new renewable sources to the state grid. Despite this massive investment, with $49.8
billion in funds into renewable, China is still rationing electricity and dealing with power outages in
23
2011. Therefore, the key challenge that the government faces, is not how to replace coal with
renewables, but instead, to supplement existing energy sources with new sources and generate
enough electricity to meet the growing demands.
iv.Ground Sentiments
Firstly, we found that 82% have heard of either the term “Green Growth” or “Green Economy” and
has elements of understanding what it means. If one have been to China, especially in the cities
along the coast, it would not be difficult to notice the amount of efforts put up through public
messaging of banners and posters spreading the word of green growth and how important it is on
the habitual change. One of the key strategies that China has adopted is the transfer of ownership to
towards its people as consumers, and getting them to take responsibility of the environment. The
strategy includes dovetailing the message with positive social habits and that one should follow.
Such messaging can be heard extensively via radio broadcast and television programme. On this
front, in terms pushing of awareness of the term, China can be said to be very successful. However,
in terms of awareness to action level, it is yet to be determined by any statistical study. Quoting a
central government official in the interview mentioned, there is still a lack of understanding on the
importance of green economy, most people do not have long term perspective and short term gains
still means more to them.
Secondly, it was clear that almost everyone we’ve interviewed with indicated that it is the
government role that is of most importance in ensuring “Green Growth” or “Green Economy” can
be achieved. Despite not having an understanding what it means, a further probe allowed us to
recognize that this is not only the case for environmental challenges, rather, in almost anything such
as economic problems, job employment, social welfare and even business trade opportunities.
China‘s current governing structure was what has brought it to the economic success of what it is
today, where power has been retained centrally. Given this is something that the state has been
doing since its inception, its people may have come to terms with this way of doing things, giving
up their individual responsibility towards a collective, a higher and presumably more capable body,
in managing their wellbeing. With globalization, the knowledge of its environmental degradation
becomes more transparent, and with the high expectation of the government, from its people, and its
agency to provide continued economic growth, it becomes increasingly important for the
government in power to deliver in order to be relevant to its people.
24
With high expectations, comes a high chance of disappointment. Apart from just needing to deliver
environmental sustainability successes, it should be noted that there are still large majority of the
country that is currently still in state of poverty living at barely USD1.25 a day that requires their
daily survival be taken care of. At the point of interview, we’ve managed to learn as well that the
sentiments of the interviewee is that they are aware the kind of projects the government has done.
Albeit there were failures made in some initiatives, such as the Dongtan Eco-city initiative and
three gorges dams, it was felt that this is understandable and that the government has to be more
serious in looking in future plan.
Thirdly, while there are challenges faced and mistakes made by its government in trying to grapple
the balance of having economic growth and environmental sustainability, 86% of the interviewees
still believed that “Green Economy” or “Green Growth” holds the key in addressing environmental
problems with minimal impact to the country’s economic progress.
A particular interviewee, aged 23, and speaking as part of the people sector stakeholder highlighted
that “Corporal and political interests that often conflict with such idea would likely to cause
hindrance in the promotion and fulfillment of this concept”, therefore concluding the view that this
while idea is nothing but a talk shop and remain skeptical of the feasibility of it. Another
interviewee, aged 22, also noted that she felt strongly that there is a lack of political interest and that
this concept is actually capitalism repackaging itself to be more accepted by the public.
Fourth is the prioritization of economic, social and environmental benefits. In an interview with a
consultant to the Chinese central government, aged 48, he mentioned that although sustainable
development has three key pillars, at this moment, what is important is to be able to get the balance
right between economic and environmental matters first. Only upon resolving these two issues, then
would the social aspect be resolved by its own in due course. And in his view, the environmental
problems faced here, is really about meeting the growing energy consumption both by the people,
but as well as by the corporate and industries.
This somewhat reflects the ground senses of the rest with 55% chose environmental and 36% on
economy is the first priority over social with 9%, the same people also stated one of the key
challenges of development in area of green growth would be to ensure there are funds and resources
to implement the concept. This further strengthen the notion in order to achieve the ideals, some
fundamentals needs of the people needs to be addressed first.
25
Lastly, it would be the ability of the people to relate to the country’s energy crisis. In almost all the
interview and focus group study, only one had actually mentioned about the importance of energy
as a resource to growth. The rest of the volunteers look primarily in funds and from the interview,
the awareness on “energy” and its limitation does not seem to seep into their consciousness. As
highlighted in several documentation and interviews, one of the key challenges the government has
to address is the balance of an access to energy for growth and reducing its environmental impact
such as its carbon emissions. And with the state intended strategy to build ownership among its
people for responsible energy consumption habits, it does seem that this work has been much
lacking.
v. Green Growth with Energy
Commitment to green growth can be seen in various reports and public statements made in recent
years by top political leaders of China, both the current and their anticipated upcoming successors.
Therefore, it would be difficult to imagine that China does not take this seriously.
A continued interest to grow economically is of any state’s interest as it is for China, except one
should note China’s strategy in growth is heading towards what called a “Harmonious Society” that
would look at growth from within. Perhaps it is because the nature of the Chinese culture that dates
back to the ideals of Taoism, where man and his environment should be living as a single
complementary entity. The commitment to growth is still there, but at a realistically reduced
expectation to 7% instead of the 10%-14% BAU model of growth. Here, we can say we are
witnessing growth turning from quantitative towards a more qualitative approach.
China’s growth strategy is clear; the priority now would be on providing energy supply to its
population and industries. Recognizing that this is the key limiting factor to its growth, a significant
sum of money is invested in this area. Also, since the first report of green GDP, it gave China a clear
tangible figure to base on, that the cost of cleaning up later would be much higher than what it
would put in now to develop more sustainably. These constitute to the foundation on what their
“Green Growth” is based on. This would include searching for energy sources, energy efficiency
and energy consumption habits of its people.
Apart from just economic reasons, it also concerns the interest of China to be seen taking the lead in
the global stage as leader of the developing countries. Globally, including the government, knows
26
that it would be impossible to emulate the growth based on per GDP as of the developed countries.
With the economic power that China holds, much pressure has been placed on China, as part of the
developing nations group, to show their interest in doing their part. It is unsure if this plays a critical
role in China’s government decision, but it has definitely place China on the centre stage, and often
as role models, taking the lead in promoting green developments by NGOs, other governmental and
intergovernmental agencies.
The study demonstrated its people strong reliance on their government to take action, be it because
it has become a normative or that they truly trust their political leader; we can expect China being
able to do much more. However, one would need to wary that there are limitation as well on how
much a top down approach can do, and more efforts need to be from bottom up. This can be done
through working with other institution and stakeholders, both from within and outside of China.
Other benefits China has seen would be the opportunity of foreign direct investment, even though
the potential is still uncertain. However, it can be seen that private environmental companies, such
as wind and solar power companies, are scouting around for place to build their manufacturing
plant. By being seen as the forefront for green development, and given its relatively cheap labour at
this point, it becomes an excellent candidate for such investment. And ideally, along with it, they
would bring along more modern technology and jobs for its people.
Therefore, green growth to China has the potential to solve its energy need while allowing it to still
grow economically. Bringing along with this strategy is global recognition, inflow of finances,
technology transfer which will resolve several of China’s social challenges once the monetary
foundation has been addressed.
27
(b) Case Study: South Korea
i.Introduction
Within East Asia, it would be difficult not to notice South Korea’s government playing an active
leadership role in promoting green initiatives at the global stage.
South Korea’s environmental efforts in Green Growth can said to be propelled forward by its
current President, Mr Lee Myung Bak. Since his successful election as a Mayor of Seoul in 2002,
he began a series of initiatives to restore Cheonggyecheon, currently a popular stream in Seoul for
couples in the city centre. During his tenure as the Mayor, he also saw the creation of a Seoul Forest
Park among many other things. He was credited in 2007, along with Al Gore in Times Magazine as
“Hero of the Environment”.
Lee won his seat as President in 2008 and under his administration, led a series of policies to ensure
“green” is top of the national strategy and that South Korea should take on the role as a global
leader. He declared that ‘low carbon green growth’ would be the new development paradigm for the
next 60 years, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Republic. Here, we explore “Green
Growth” in South Korea under his administration.
ii.South Korea’s Growing Green Efforts
The term “Green Growth” can be said to have first been witness in East Asia officially at the Fifth
MCED in Seoul. During the meeting in 2005, South Korea’s Ministry of Environment, led by Dr
Rae Kwon Chung, actively pushed for the adoption of the term among member state while leaving a
gap in what it means, yet concluded with the formation of the SINGG to pursue the ideals of what it
would entail.
The Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) put in place the “East Asia Climate
Partnership” (EACP) launched in 2008 providing grants aid programs, in the form of ODA, for
developing countries in Asia to combat climate change and promote green growth. Mentioned in
28
one of President’s Lee that the Green Growth Strategy encompass the means of tackling climate
change, while ensuring sustainable development.
Prime Minister Han Seung-soo made an announcement in January 2009 confirming Korea’s
commitment to invest 50 trillion won over the next four years on environmental projects in a
"Green New Deal" to spur slumping economic growth, creating about a million jobs.
Korea’s Presidential Committee on Green Growth kicked off in February the same year, functioning
as the highest body for consultation and coordination of the nation’s green growth efforts. This
committee prepared and released the National Green Growth Strategy, a long-term blue print for
green growth till 2050, as well as a FYP for Green Growth lasting till 2013. The strategy document
identified three goals, that is, climate change mitigation and adaptation, improvement of the quality
of life, and creation of new growth engines. The FYP, among other things, commits 2% of the
annual GDP to green growth policies and projects
A Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth was passed by the National Assembly in
December. The act authorizes the government to intervene in the market to pursue green growth in
all manners necessary, with support by both its key political parties. This coming together gave the
act strong legitimacy, and demonstrated to the global community on Korea’s interest to pursue the
ideals of green growth at the highest level. Led by the government of Korea, GGGI was launched in
January 2010 to actively promote the implementation of green growth strategy globally.
In turn, GGGI has collaborated with the OECD, World Bank and UNEP, to launch a Green Growth
Knowledge Platform (GGKP), serving as its secretariat. GGKP has already emerged as the foremost
global network of researchers and practitioners of green growth and development policies and
projects. The government also recognizes the importance of engagement of its people which
motivated the strong efforts seen in public campaign of promoting the message of green lifestyle,
green habit and green choices in almost every corner of the cities in South Korea, especially so in
Seoul.
In April 2012, President Lee and Mexican President Felipe Calderon called for "Green Growth" as a
key solution to overcome the global financial crisis and pledged to work together with other G20
29
nations for the environment-friendly drive. A joint article to Germany’s Financial Times urged the
need to re-look at the growth paradigm to be more sustainable.
In May, they launched a Green Technology Center to promote international cooperation, including
those with the developing countries, on green technologies. South Korea also aims to deliver a
roadmap for global green growth strategy at Rio+20.
iii.Possible Economic Option
South Korea, as one of the Asian Tigers, experienced dramatic economic growth from 1960s with
heavy industrialization through adopting an outwards looking strategy in its automotive, mining,
shipbuilding, armaments and construction industries. A strategy that was particularly well suited to
that time because of Korea's poor natural resource endowment, low savings rate, and tiny domestic
market. This proved to be successful and brought them on average of more than 8% GDP growth
annually, even during the Asian Economic Crisis in 1997.
Growth fell back to 3.8% in the early 2000s because of the slowing global economy, falling exports,
and the perception that corporate and financial reforms had stalled. (U.S. Library of Congress,
1990). Here, Mr Lee Myung Bak proposal of the “747” plan of pushing for economic progress for
the country won him the seat as its President in 2008. The proposal was a commitment by him and
his administration to achieve 7% economic growth, increase per its peoples’ capita income to
USD40,000 and making Korea the 7th largest economy in the world. His success as Mayor of
Seoul, turning its concrete jungle to what the media would label as a renewed paradise, led to
several expectations on his ability to duplicate this success. However, it would be worth of note that
at this moment, there was no “green growth” element being mentioned in his campaign. The only
environmental effort that was included in this plan was the Grand Korean Waterway project, which
met with controversy despite his active claims that it would revitalize the interior of the country
with renewed tourism and investment.
The “Food-Fuel-Finance Crisis” was brought up by French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde
while attending a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of Eight (G8) club in June 2008.
South Korean government therefore proposed at its G8 extended summit, the launch of EACP and
successfully became the first nation to turn into an aid-donor from an aid-recipient country by
30
joining the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD in November 2009. With
growing interests in ODA, Korea’s grant aid for developing countries increased by more than five
times from USD159 million in 1996 to USD752 million in 2005.
The “Green New Deal” functions as a statement on the state’s focus on the environment as its
priority. On top of just creating about a million jobs for its people, it is believed that it will also
allow South Korea to attract investment from green businesses abroad. South Korean companies are
already in talks with major green businesses in North America including GE Wind, Ballard, the
leading developer of hydrogen fuel cells, and Hemlock Semiconductor, the world’s largest
polysilicone manufacturer. Australia’s Macquarie Group has also agreed to set up a fund of $1
billion with South Korea’s Woori Bank directed at the development of South Korea’s green
infrastructure and alternative energy sources. New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, has agreed to
promote bilateral cooperation in the areas of science, agriculture and green growth with South
Korea.
In a report by Financial Times in 2010, Mike Scott mentioned that the Green Industry is
undervalued at this moment; there is a real opportunity because it is at its lowest valuation. While
the initial investment is high, later stage growth business are quite cheap.
As such, the green efforts has demonstrated to be a viable potential that should any state who takes
as early investors, will reap its benefit eventually by being able to export these technologies and
human resources skill set. Especially apt for the trade-dependent South Korea as a strategy to boost
its slowing economy (AP,2009).
iv. Ground Sentiments
Firstly, while we can see from various evidences that there is a strong political will to push the
agenda of “Green Growth”. However, our finding suggests that this does not seem to reflect down
to its people despite the efforts done by its government. “Here in Seoul, we see a lot of public
messaging of going green, it can be seen at train station, television, corporate advertisements and in
the news. But I am not too sure what it means, but can what we do really help?” mentioned by a
current male student aged below 21.
31
Despite having strong top level efforts in promoting the message, our focus group revealed 65% of
them indicated either a “No” or “Maybe” when asked if they were aware of their country’s effort.
About 10% of the group expressed their concerns that this may be capitalism repackaging itself to
be more acceptable or just a pure talk shop. A 24 old lady from Pusan said “The Grand waterway
project is creating more damage than assistance. Some of the local communities have raised
concerns they have yield less produce than what they had before. I am concerned if they are doing
what they say, and this is not just a cover up for something else or just another publicity effort.”
Concerns, skepticism or both are normal and acceptable since Lee and his administration only
implemented this national strategy beginning 2008. However, what stood out were interviews with
governmental agencies. Of the six candidates interviewed, two from the municipal agencies
mentioned they aren’t sure of any initiatives to promote green growth, one from the central
government stated “maybe”, three from the central government said “yes”. A lady aged 27 working
in the central government expressed, “I know we are doing something, but it feels like something is
not right. Not sure if people know what they are doing. Are we really talking about sustainable
growth? I am not too sure but sometimes I feel disappointed that we don’t seem to be walking the
talk. Some of my colleagues feel the same as well.”
Therefore, it displays a clear disparity of political leaders and the people on the ground on what is
being done. Perhaps the reason for this is because of conflicting goals where during the execution of
the various initiatives and policies, too much focus was on preserving the economy aspect of
matters, while the public messaging was to ensure the green image is being portrayed as the
priority.
Secondly, would be the faith of the people towards the idea of “Green Growth” and its derivative
terms. The interviews shows that about 85% of them believes that the concept is the next step in
addressing the environmental, sustainable development and climate change problems, despite only
35% of them thinks they know what it means. This is evidence that the people on the ground largely
believes or at least are open to the new idea where economic progress and sustainability is
something that can come together.
Thirdly, would be the responsibility and priority of how green growth should be. For Korea, 52% of
the interviewees stated that it should be the responsibility of the government to do so, followed by
32
responsibilities of the people sector entity and lastly the corporate as their first choice. In an
interview with a senior official in their Ministry of Environment, he said, “Over the past 10 years, it
was impossible for the world, least to say Asia, to achieve the three pillars [of sustainable
development] as it is not realistic. So far, there isn't any success story of any nation who is able to
do so. Asia has placed priority on economic growth since the 1990s and now it is time to tackle the
second pillar "Environment" thru the idea of Green Growth which merges the pillar of environment
and economic.” We see a reaffirmation among of the people through the questionnaire where they
perceive the work towards a sustained future should give priority to the Economy over Social.
v. Green Growth with Investments
It would be safe to conclude that at the political level, there is interest to push for green growth as a
long term strategy. For itself, green growth represents an opportunity of trade for a new range of
more environmentally friendly industries. As one of the Asian Tigers, it is a product of globalization
where trade is an integral part of its success. Therefore, we wouldn’t be expecting the strategy
would change or be dropped off the radar even with the change of its top leadership. The only
possible variant would be how actively the new administration wants to push forward with the
concept.
"In order to make this numbers game work, we have to agree on how to have a global paradigm
shift." said Dr Chung, at COP15. Chung noticed that South Korea and its Asia-Pacific neighbors
shared a problem where they spent billions of dollars to import oil from the Middle East. Instead of
just seeing a problem, Chung saw a market, and even though when he first brought forth the
concept it was contest or put down by several economists in the USA, they are turning around now
and have intent to be on board.
In South Korea, its government actions infer the importance to focus on economic growth. And
despite the secondary effort would be for the environment, they are planning to close up the gap in
the two pillars. With that, comes the birth ideal of green growth, presenting several opportunities
such as job creation, foreign investment and the opportunity to export the skills and technology that
Korea would acquire at this moment, to the global market. With all the momentum set in place, as
part of the FYP due in 2013, the key focus area is to develop new growth engine. It seems to be on
track for South Korea to be working towards its target through its top down approach. However,
33
there should be more meaningful engagement instead of standard marketing efforts to promote
green ideals of the state. Stakeholders’ involvement should be more sought after to strengthen their
position, but also to be able to work with these institution as the extended arms and legs to spread
out the positive ideals of what green growth means.
The paradigm shift of growth mentioned by Dr Chung, ideally can be led forward by the current
government for its region, and even on the global stage. And from possibly the various action and
statements made by South Korea’s leader, it may seem to be the case that they are here to look at
changing the growth from pure GDP quantitative measures, to one that of quality growth, looking at
alternate way of measuring growth.
34
(c) Case Study: Singapore
i.Introduction
A city state holding 5 million worth of population, it has been cited as a successful case study in
many journals on how it has retained its economic advantage as well keeping it a clean and green
city. Apart from being a natural trading hub since its colonial days, Singapore attracts multiple
investors from the world who hopes to have a reach out to East Asia to have their based setup here.
Singapore still holds a steady GDP growth of 4% to 6% annually.
While “Green Growth” or “Green Economy” doesn’t get mentioned in any official documentation
of Singapore government’s strategy, it would be hard to ignore the success it has in sustainable
development. These include its successful urban green planning, to its waste management approach
by building an offshore landfill, named as “The Eden of Trash” by the New Scientist Magazine in
2009. With all the accolades it has gained in terms of being green, it’s no surprise it was assessed
by experts as being able to take lead in building a green economy (CNA, 2009).
Singapore's "City in a Garden" approach to urbanization exemplifies a small, resource-limited city-
state striving to balance the three pillars of sustainable development with proper land-use planning;
promotion of green corridors and mass transport; and measures to limit vehicle usage and
rationalize water use (Teng, 2011).
In this case study, we take a look at the efforts Singapore has in terms of creating its global
advantage since independence, and how it is like for its people on the current efforts and way
forward.
ii. Singapore’s “Clean and Green” Comparative Advantage
Unlike the other states in the region, Singapore’s greening roots can be traced back to colonial times
under the British administration, where they were concerned about its natural depleting resources
because of the commercial cultivation of cash crops such as Gambier.
35
Upon its independence in 1965, it was a city state that has no natural resources and its people per
capita income was only USD400. Under its first prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he recognised
the need to strengthen its unique trading hub position in Asia, build up infrastructure support for
industrial growth to create more jobs, and increase the knowledge capacity of its people to make it
world ready and competitive, that capitalised greatly on its trade hub status. These can only be done
by attracting foreign investments in, both their finances and human capital.
To do so, Singapore would need to position itself to be a safe and stable to place their capital. And
greening up Singapore was part of a “dramatic way to distinguish ourselves from other Third World
Countries”. Lee also mentioned “For if we had First World standards, then businessmen and tourists
would make us a base for their business and tours of the region....to achieve First World standards
in a Third World region, we set out to transform Singapore into a tropical garden” (Lee, 200)
Singapore’s success in environmental measures was a combination of social action and more
importantly, political commitments through its legislation that allowed it to be where it is today.
Singapore learned from the mistakes from others by incorporating environmental concerns with
development strategies from the very beginning (Smith, 1993).
In keeping Singapore clean, an Anti-Pollution Unit that governs the air and water pollution status in
Singapore was being setup. This unit oversees the industries and ensures they kept to certain
standards that would not damage Singapore’s environment. This was coupled with an Economic
Incentives Act in 1967 to benefit businesses that engages in environmentally prudent behaviors.
In terms of greening Singapore, a conscious efforts was done to ensure trees were planted, which
led to the formation of a “Parks and Trees Unit” with goals of having 10,000 new trees yield
annually (Ghani, 2011).
Since these efforts were very much a top down approach, and there was a need to get involved its
people and build common ownership and not in our backyard” syndrome. These included the
formation of Garden City Action Committee where high ranking government officials will lead by
doing, and the creation of the annual “Tree Planting Day” in 1970, which has evolve to our current
“Clean and Green Week”.
36
In view of the oil price busting USD100 per barrel in 2007, Singapore also began to turn into
renewable energy by investing SGD350 Million to ensure it would be a key player. Although
declared as alternative energy disadvantage, Singapore leveraged its hub status to attract investor to
use its facilities for R&D for the region. This attracted several interest such as Vestas, AES
AgriVede (Business Times Singapore, 2007) and Neste Oil Corporation (weekend TODAY
Singapore, 2007) of a total investment of about USD1.20 Billion in the region.
Its Prime Minister commissioned for an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development
(IMCSD) in 2008 to formulate a national strategy for Singapore’s sustainable development. A report
was subsequently published in April 2009, after consulting with 700 people in various focus group
discussions and about 1,300 suggestions from the public, which became its blue print for
sustainable development.
The report highlighted broadly three key challenges of: growing demands, resource constrain and
climate change. And it aims to address it the “Singapore Way” through long termed, integrated,
pragmatic and cost effective manner. Its four anchor strategies is to boost resource efficiency,
Enhancement of Urban Environment with more greens, building capabilities for regional research
work and knowledge sharing in new technologies, and lastly, fostering community action (MEWR
and MND, 2009).
At current, the blue print serves as the major document that the various ministries plan their
strategies around which helps to centralize Singapore green efforts collectively. These would
include green building acts, enhanced green urban space planning, water catchment, waste
management and energy security matters.
iii. Ground Sentiments: An Observation
As mentioned, Singapore is the only case study in this paper that does not use study terms apart
from the word “Green” in its national strategies. Nonetheless, it is a value that it has been integrated
as its advantage since it began industrialization. Here, we raise some interesting observations on the
people’s attitude towards the study’s concept.
37
Firstly, would be on the basic level of awareness of its people on the globally discussed topic.
Despite none of them are used in its governmental strategies and outreach, 79% have heard of the
terms and 46% were certain they know what it means. We could attribute this to Singapore’s small
population and accessibility of information from the internet, that has aided the result of this
finding.
When dwell deeper to ask what it means, 18% of them chose to reserve their comments with 4%
feeling it is a pure talk shop and 79% feel that it is a means towards solving environmental,
sustainable development and global warming problems. A student aged 22, mentioned, “Singapore
is already green. I heard of green economy and green growth but aren’t we already doing this? I’d
like to think this is the solution to our problem we see, but I am also little worried this is nothing
more than a green washing effort. I would keep the comment to myself for now and see where we
are being led to.”
Secondly, would be in terms of responsibility of promoting the idea of “Green Growth” or “Green
Economy”. 71% opted that it is the government’s responsibility, followed by 18% of the corporate
and finally 11% would be the people sector. We also observed a 71% who feels that the people
sector should be the last group that is responsible in taking responsibility, this stands out much more
than any of the other country case studies. It is possible that due to the nature of the “nanny
state” (Lee, 2000), a country that has such a strong success in growth, it is the very thing that may
cause its downfall. While there are people and even groups who are very active and passionate
about this area of work, it usually ends up putting everything on the government’s plate to get
things done, a high expectation that doesn’t always get addressed accordingly.
Thirdly, when asked about the views of ranking the priorities of the three pillars of sustainable
development, both the environment and economy pared out as the top two first choices, at 43%
each, that the people feel should be prioritized. The social element is being placed as the second and
third choices of priority. This is an interesting observation for the fact that Singapore, as compared
to the rest of the other case studies, has been better balanced in its overall economic growth and
spread of wealth. One can infer that it seems that the people still feels that there is a need for
economic growth as much as environmental. As one female, aged 33, expressed, “I chose economy
as a priority over environment because we need an economy to be able to generate wealth to finance
environmental works.”
38
Nonetheless, two candidates, both men aged 26 and 29, expressed that Singapore has benefitted
from its economic progress through being green, and now it is time to really go in further depth in
terms of being green.
Lastly, what stood out throughout exercise is that given the successes Singapore has gain on the
international stage on its green efforts, the senses from the feedback as what is the greatest
challenge for green growth, apart from changing the mentality of its people and corporate
regulations, the government was being mentioned several times in different ways as the greatest
challenge in fulfilling a green economy concept. These expression are expressed as “Need for
political commitment”, “Political apathy” and “Government’s prioritization”.
When interviewing a government representative, aged 42, he mentioned, “We have always commit
ourselves to going green and being sustainable. It is in our blue print since we began. We are just
not there yet to use the term ‘Green Economy’ or ‘Green Growth’ because no one really know what
it means. We are still trying to understand what it means within ourselves before we commit to
anything”.
iv. Green Growth Embedded
Singapore’s directive under its first Prime Minister has made a resource barren state to what it is
now a first world nation using the advantage of being green. An intangible benefits that it gained
learning from other developed countries. Not only being safe and stable, but by creating a
conducive place and environment for its people, this attracts visitors and investors to bring in
finance and therefore creating jobs, including building up capacity for the local population. For
Singapore, going green is not a fad, but something that was given enough strategic thinking and
bore fruit by generating economic benefits for its people.
The economic benefit doesn’t just limit to get investment from overseas in, but it does get exported
overseas because of the strong track record it has gain in the past years. Countries are now looking
at Singapore and its agencies to duplicate its success, and through such opportunities, it forges new
relations.
39
A government official based overseas, aged 29, said “Working with China for the Eco City project
in Tianjin is a way for us to prove that we are able to duplicate our success. But on top of that, it is
about using this as an advantage to build closer ties with China and its government. The Eco City
has proved to be a great platform to allow leaders to meet up and discuss matters beyond just this
project.”
This model has served Singapore and its citizens well in the past years, but as any kind of
successes, it may have already reached the limits of its time. Singapore was able to implement these
policies because of its political stability of one majority party for the past 47 years. However, as we
observe the local political situation, it is beginning to shift away and people, being more educated,
may not necessarily be interested in going green as part of its long term strategy.
From the exercise with the various candidates, one would realize the need for this government to be
more active in engaging its people, not only through campaigns, but also in terms of strategic
thinking and make them feel as if they are part of the process. The latest blue print, despite being
portrayed as a consultative paper, has but one main flaw in this process as stated by a consultant,
aged 34. He said, “We were ‘consulted’ but I am not sure if they are just picking up what they
already have in mind to do, and using this as a means of a pacifying exercise to its people. This blue
print should be a living document with more than just the ministries coming together, but other
sectors should have a long term stake in it as well”.
Officially, Singapore is still trying to grasp what the ”Green Growth” means, but in doing so, has
turned its focus to build its unique form of green economy, married happily with economic
prosperity from overseas investment, ensuring energy security and aims to become the environment
hub for the region so it would be able to exports its human capital.
40
5. DISCUSSION
The study set out to investigate how key actors in some prominent Asian countries understand the
concept of Green Growth; what green growth policies and programs these countries are putting in
place and what motivates them to pursue such policies. The project also sort to explore the
challenges these countries are facing in understanding and promoting green growth. Here, we’ve
identified the principal findings of research done.
Commitments towards Growth
Growth and development is still very much at the core of the states identified for this study,
regardless of its current economic status or size. At the political level, there is recognition that the
way of traditional growth is something that will not sustain and there is a need to look at
alternatives, while retaining its growth. Green Growth presents itself as a good synergy of the two
concepts but from the case studies done, we learned the priority of Green Growth in these states
would place priority on “Growth” or development more than “Green”.
Energy Security
Through the literature and interviews done, states indicated they are well aware that apart from the
finances that are required for growth, the key engine for growth is to be able to secure it energy
supply in providing for its people and industries. Hence, this is an area that needs to be looked into
in depth, especially for China given its massive population. On the same note, the climate impact is
heavily taken into consideration when planning for its energy strategy. At this moment, nuclear
seems to be the best option as the immediate or interim solution before fully implementing other
renewables. Also, apart from the kind of energy sources sought after, a strong focus by state is
placed on Energy Efficiency, both through regulatory means of the industries, and likewise is the
interaction with public to promote active participatory from its citizens.
Financial Benefits
In our case studies, states have managed to reap financial benefits from the environmental efforts
they have put in; China with technology plant being setup in its country for production and
benefitting from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), South Korea with agreement on
finances to its state in the green industries and Singapore being an ideal healthy and conducive
environment for MNCs to anchor their regional headquarters. Therefore, there are growing
41
expectations of financial gains from Green Growth, especially in terms of foreign direct investment.
However, it should be noted that at this point there is still no definite means of measuring the
magnitude of FDI’s contribution to green growth.
International Pressure
The pressure for growth from the international community appears to be minimal. In all of the
interviews conducted with the governmental representatives, what came across clearly was the
interest of self-development progress. While one would perceive China to be responding directly
because of the pressure put on its growth limitation by the international community, its government
were well aware about the challenges they would face and integrate such plans as early as in the
10th FYP. South Korea, on the other hand, has chosen to take up the role of in leading the
movement, and hopefully be able to function with enough pressure to propel the international
community to follow suit.
While Asia has been very inwards looking during its infant stages of growth dealing with domestic
economy, and taking a safe path during towards being an economic stronghold, this is an
opportunity that they can take leadership on. This leadership would not only attract investment, but
also allow trust to be built in their respective free trade agreements (FTA). By going green, they
would have portrayed a positive image that they have recognize they play a role and would consider
the larger good instead of just themselves. This would negate possible tension at several
international negotiations.
Internal Pressure
There are definitely pressure from the communities and groups within the country as states are
accountable to these people, but we are unable to what extend these groups have on governments to
implement “Green Growth”. It is noted that the citizens feel strongly that their government should
be responsible in pushing forward this concept. We do see government actively playing a role to
engage its people, with relative success, in hope they would be supportive of their strategic
directives. This can be viewed as well as the government being accountable to its people.
42
6.CONCLUSION
From the paper, we can conclude that “Green growth” has no cohesive definition, and it will be
almost impossible to expect a total alignment of definition among states, even in East Asia. It is
because of a lack of an absolute definition that states are more inclined to buy into the concept;
allowing them to chart their own path, based on their respective circumstances towards
sustainability under a few agreed guiding principles.
From the study, we see China’s interest is driven primarily to address the fundamental energy access
for its people to improve their quality of life. While both South Korea and Singapore see the
concept as a means to increase its comparative advantage in the international community, South
Korea has chosen to take on a leadership role and put pressure on the global community to adopt
“Green Growth”. While Singapore seems to be taking a back seat, it should be noted that
Singapore’s strategy has been well embedded since its independence, whereas South Korea’s
interest is relatively new under the administration of its current President.
The states we have studied have implemented these ideas on the ground, although not all citizens
feel strongly about “Green Growth”. These states have achieved a fine balance between growth and
sustainability, through analysis of their elements needed for growth while minimizing its
environmental impact. Their cautious approach has gained international recognition and
encouragement.
In all the case studies, “Green Growth” is seen to be a top down approach. However, in order for
this concept to sustain forward and not fall off the agenda, genuine states should begin looking into
having long-term engagement with its various stakeholders to develop “Green Growth” as a living
document strategy, that would be able to adapt to the dynamic world we currently live in.
43
REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHYANIELSKI, M. (2005) ‘The Greening of china: Is China on the Genuine Wealth path?’, Adbusters
Magazine, December 2005.
ASIA DEVELOPMENT BANK (2011) Environment Program: Greening Growth in Asia and the
Pacific, Mandaluyong City, Asia Development Bank.
ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE (2012) South Korea’s Green Deal (online). Available from:
<http://www.asiaecon.org/special_articles/read_sp/12538>
ASSOCIATED PRESS (2009), “Green New Deal” for South Korea: $38.1 Billion, January 6.
ATHANASIOU, T. (1996) ‘The Age of Green Washing’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 7, No.
1/25, pp 1-36.
BRANDON, C. (2012) Can China Go Green?, Amcham China News (online), 9 May. Available
from <http://www.amchamchina.org/article/9616>
BRANDON, C. and RAMANKUTTY, R. (1993) Towards an Environmental Strategy for Asia,
Washington, The World Bank.
BLOOM, D.E, CANNING, D. and MALANEY, P.N (2000) ‘Population Dynamics and Economic
Growth in Asia’, Population and Development Review, Vol 26, pp. 257-290, Population Council.
BULL, H. (1977), The Anarchical Society, New York, Columbia University Press.
BUSINESS TIMES SINGAPORE (2007) PM LEE Declares Singapore alternative energy
disadvantage, January 16.
PHAN, M. (2007) Complex regulations a barrier to Carbon Trading, Business Times Singapore,
September 24.
BUSINESS TIMES SINGAPORE (2007) Singapore keen to move into alternative energy business,
May 9.
BUSINESS TIMES SINGAPORE (2007) Crude oil at defining moment in history, November 29.
CHANG, C. and GAO, J (2011) ‘China: A country Case Analysis’, 75-84 in Green Growth: From
religion to reality, Berkeley Roundtable on International Economy, June 15.
44
CHENG, H. and HU, Y.A. (2010) ‘Planning for Sustainability in China’s urban development: Status
and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project’, Journal of Environment Monitoring, 2010,12,
119-126, DOI: 10.1039/B911473D
CHOI, I. (2011) ‘Korea: A country case Analysis’, 67-74 in Green Growth: From religion to reality,
Berkeley Roundtable on International Economy, June 15.
CHUNG, R.K. and QUAH, E. (2010) Pursuing in Asia and the Pacific, Singapore, Cengage
Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
COLLINS, S.M and BOSWORTH, B.P and RODRIK D. (1996) ‘Economic Growth in East Asia:
Accumulations versus Assimilation’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1996, No. 2, pp.
135-203, Brookings Institution Press.
DIETZ, S. and MICHIE, J. and OUGHTON, C. (2011) The Political Economy of the Environment:
An interdisciplinary approach, Abington, Routledge.
DONER, R.F. (1991) ‘Approaches to the Politics of Economic Growth in Southeast Asia’, The
Journal of Asian Studies!, Vol 50 : pp 818-849
DREYER, J.T (2004) ‘Democratization in Greater China: The limits to China’s Growth’, Foreign
Policy Research Institute, Elsevier Limited.
DRYZEK, J.S. (2005) The politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
EKINS, P. (2000) Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: The Prospects for Green
Growth, London, Routledge.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2010) ‘Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs – What is it for?’.
Available from: <http://ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/objectives/index_en.htm>
FIREHAMMER, R. (2004) Environmental Hegemony, Independent Individualist (Online).
Available from: <http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/pee/hegemony.php>
GERMAN FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE CONSERVATION
AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (2008), ‘Ecological Industrial Policy’, p.8.
45
GHANI, A. (2011) Success Matters: Keeping Singapore Green, Institute of Policy Studies,
Singapore.
GIPLIN, R. (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order,
New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
GOLUB, S.S., KAUFFMAN, C. and YERES, P. (2011), ‘Defining and Measuring Green FDI: An
exploratory Review of existing work and evidence’, OECD Working Papers on International
Investment, No. 2011/2, OECD Investment Division.
GRANDE, E. and PAULY, L.W (eds) (2007) Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political
Authority in the Twenty-first Century, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
HE, O.H (2008) "In-Use Vehicle Emissions in China — Tianjin Study." Discussion Paper 2008-08
HEINBERG, R. (2011) The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality, Canada, New
Society Publishers.
JONES, R.S and YOO, B.S (2011), ‘Korea’s Green Growth Strategy: Mitigating Climate Change
and Developing New Growth Engines’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 798,
OECD Publishing.
KRUGMAN, P (1994) ‘The Myth of Asia’s Miracle’, Foreign Affairs, 73:6 (1994:Nov./Dec.), p.62.
LEE, K.Y (2000) From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, New York, Harper
Collins.
MEADOWS, D.H. and MEADOWS, D.L. and RANDERS, J. and BEHRENS III, W.W (1972) The
limits to growth, New York, Universe Books.
MCGREGOR, M. (2003) ‘Generation Gap Strikes in Shanghai: the City Needs More Power To
Meet the Surging Demands of Industry,’’ Financial Times, Aug. 19, 2003; ‘‘China Mulls Market
Strategies for Power Shortages,’’ Xinhua (Beijing), Aug. 23, 2003.
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES and MINISTRY OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT (2009) A lively and liveable Singapore: Strategies for sustainable growth,
Singapore, Ministry of Environment and Water Resources and Ministry of National Development.
MITCHELL C. (2008) The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy, Hampshire, Palgrave
Macmillan.46
MURPHY, D (2003) ‘Asia’s Pipeline Politics’, Far Eastern Economic Review, July 24.
PURDEY, S.J. (2010) Economic Growth, The Environment and International Relations: The growth
paradigm, London, Routledge.
ROWEN, H.S. (eds.) (1998) Behind East Asian Growth: The political and social foundations of
prosperity, London, Routledge
SAVADA, A.M. and SHAW, W. (1990), Country Studies on Republic of Korea, U.S. Library of
Congress (online). Available from: <http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/45.htm>
SCOTT, M. (2010) ‘Finance: Credit crunch throws up opportunities’, Financial Times, June 3.
Available from: <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/75d57844-6ddb-11df-
b5c9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vjkm7jwc>
SHAH, A. (2011) Global Issues (online). Available from: <http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/
poverty-around-the-world>
SMITH, B.C (1992) Singapore: A model of Urban Environmentalism in Southeast Asia, 16
Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 123 1992-1993.
STRAITS TIMES SINGAPORE (2007) R&D centre for clean energy launched, March 27.
TANKERSLEY, J. (2009) ‘Green growth advocate hopes for bigger changes from the Copenhagen
conference’, Los Angeles Times, 9 December. Available from: <http://articles.latimes.com/2009/
dec/09/world/la-fg-global-climate9-2009dec09>
TENG, P.S (2012) The Rio+20 Summit and ASEAN: Towards a Green Economy, Singapore
International Energy Week, February 17. Available from: <http://www.siew.sg/energy-perspectives/
energy-environment/rio20-summit-and-asean-towards-green-economy>
THE KOREAN TIMES (2012) ‘Lee, Mexican president cite 'green growth' as solution to global
crisis’, May 22. Available from: <http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/
2012/05/116_111448.html>
UNITED NATIONS and ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2012) Green Growth, Resources and
Resilience: Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, UNITED NATIONS
and ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK publication.
47
UNFPA (2007), State of the World Population and World Population Prospects: The 2005 Revision,
UNDESA Population Division (Online). Available from: <http://www.unfpa.org/pds/
urbanization.htm>
WADE, C. (1992) ‘East Asia’s Economic Success: Conflicting Perspectives, Partial Insights, Shaky
Evidence’, World Politics, Vol. 44, Issue 2 (Jan.,1992), pp270-320
WALTZ, K. (1959) Man, the State, and War, New York, Columbia University Press.
WONG, M. (2009) Singapore can take a lead in building green economy, say experts, Channel
News Asia, December 10.
ZHOU, N. (2011) Wen Jiabao: baozhang nengyuan gongji anquan, zhichi jingji shehui fazhan [Wen
Jiabao: ensure energy supply, support social and economic development]. Xinhua, April 22,
Available from:<http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-04/22c_1250122.htm.>
48
APPENDIX I:
Survey Questionaire
The questions below intents to bring out the basic understanding of the concept of the various
stakeholders, and also to have a good grasp on stakeholder participation. The survey as well hopes
to be able to understand the current success on the idea in the respective state.
The survey has been translated to simplified chinese and hangul so that a wider participating
audience can take part.
1. Have you heard of the term “Green Economy”?
a) Yes
b) No
2. Do you think you know what it means?
(d)Yes
(e)No
3.“Green Economy” is:
(a) The next step in solving environmental, sustainable development and global warming
problems
(b) Capitalism repackaging itself to be more accepted by the public
(c) Nothing but a talk shop
(d) Something which I don’t know about at all
(e) I’d like to reserve my comments (or none of the above)
4.Who’s responsibility do you think it is to promote the concept (1 - most important, 3 - least
important)
(a)Government (Public Sector)
(b)Corporates (Private Sector)
(c)Individuals and NGOs (People Sector)
49
5.Arrange the following in terms of priority (1 - most important, 3 - least important)
(a)Economy
(b)Environment
(c)Social
6.Are you aware if your country doing anything on promoting the Green Economy?
(a)Yes (name the example)
(b)Maybe (share why?)
(c)No (Why do you think so?)
7.Define “Green Economy” in your own words (50 words)
8.What do you think is the greatest challenge in order to fulfill the idea of “Green Economy”?
9.Do you think there is a “Green Race” going on? Why?
50
APPENDIX IIGeneral!Sta*s*cs!of!Survey!(Overall) Total!Candidates: 102
Parameter Op*ons %
Age!Group
Below!21 9
Age!Group
21!F!25 50
Age!Group 26!F!30 20Age!Group31!F!40 17
Age!Group
41!F!50 4
Age!Group
Above!51 1
Parameter Op*ons %
CountryChina 22
Country Singapore 27Country
South!Korea 51
Parameter Op*ons %
Sector
Government!(central!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 11
Sector
Government!(municipal!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 4
Sector People!(indivdual,!youth,!student,) 56
Sector
People!(NGO!/!NPO!/!CSO!/!informal!community!group)! 10
Sector
Private!(mul*na*onal!corpora*on) 7
Sector
Private!(small!&!medium!enterprise) 13
Parameter Op*ons %
Gender Female 52GenderMale 48
51
APPENDIX IIIQues*onaire!Details!(Overall) Total!Candidates: 102
Parameter Op*ons %Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth"No 15Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth" Yes 85
Parameter Op*ons %
Do!you!know!what!it!means?Maybe 40
Do!you!know!what!it!means? No 18Do!you!know!what!it!means?
Yes 42
Parameter Op*ons %
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
The!next!step!in!solving!environmental,!sustainable!development!and!global!warming!problems.
84
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Capitalism!repackaging!itself!to!be!more!accepted!by!the!public.
5"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?Nothing!but!a!talk!shop. 3
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Something!which!I!don’t!know!about!at!all. 0
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
I’d!like!to!reserve!my!comments!(or!none!of!the!above).
8
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 18Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 63Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 20
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 56Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 24Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 21
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 26Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 14Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 60
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)
Economy 36In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)Environment 48
52
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice) Social 16
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)
Economy 16In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)Environment 41
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice) Social 43
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)
Economy 48In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)Environment 11
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice) Social 41
Parameter Op*ons %
Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!
Maybe 19Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!! No 27Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!Yes 54
53
APPENDIX IVGeneral!Sta*s*cs!of!Survey!of!China Total!Candidates: 22
Parameter Op*ons %
Age!Group
Below!21 5
Age!Group
21!F!25 55
Age!Group 26!F!30 18Age!Group31!F!40 18
Age!Group
41!F!50 5
Age!Group
Above!51 0
Parameter Op*ons %
Sector
Government!(central!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 27
Sector
Government!(municipal!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 0
Sector People!(indivdual,!youth,!student,) 45
Sector
People!(NGO!/!NPO!/!CSO!/!informal!community!group)! 18
Sector
Private!(mul*na*onal!corpora*on) 9
Sector
Private!(small!&!medium!enterprise) 0
Parameter Op*ons %
Gender Female 55GenderMale 45
54
APPENDIX VQues*onaire!Details!(China) Total!Candidates: 22
Parameter Op*ons %Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!
or!"Green!Growth"No 18Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!
or!"Green!Growth" Yes 82
Parameter Op*ons %
Do!you!know!what!it!means?Maybe 36
Do!you!know!what!it!means? No 9Do!you!know!what!it!means?
Yes 55
Parameter Op*ons %
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
The!next!step!in!solving!environmental,!sustainable!development!and!global!warming!problems.
86
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Capitalism!repackaging!itself!to!be!more!accepted!by!the!public.
5"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?Nothing!but!a!talk!shop. 5
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Something!which!I!don’t!know!about!at!all. 0
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
I’d!like!to!reserve!my!comments!(or!none!of!the!above).
5
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 14Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!
promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 77Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!
promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 9
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 50Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 18
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)
Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 32
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 36Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 5
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)
Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 59
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!
pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)
Economy 36In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!
pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)
Environment 55In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!
pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice) Social 9
55
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!
Choice)
Economy 9In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!
Choice)
Environment 45In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!
Choice) Social 45
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!
Choice)
Economy 55In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!
Choice)
Environment 0In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!
Choice) Social 45
Parameter Op*ons %
Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!
Maybe 5Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!
on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!! No 23Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!
on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!Yes 73
56
APPENDIX VIGeneral!Sta*s*cs!of!Survey!of!Singapore Total!Candidates: 28
Parameter Op*ons %
Age!Group
Below!21 14
Age!Group
21!F!25 32
Age!Group 26!F!30 29Age!Group31!F!40 21
Age!Group
41!F!50 4
Age!Group
Above!51 0
Parameter Op*ons %
Sector
Government!(central!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 11
Sector
Government!(municipal!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 0
Sector People!(indivdual,!youth,!student,) 36
Sector
People!(NGO!/!NPO!/!CSO!/!informal!community!group)! 14
Sector
Private!(mul*na*onal!corpora*on) 18
Sector
Private!(small!&!medium!enterprise) 21
Parameter Op*ons %
Gender Female 43GenderMale 57
57
Appendix VII
Ques*onaire!Details!(Singapore) Total!Candidates: 28
Parameter Op*ons %Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth"No 21Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth" Yes 79
Parameter Op*ons %
Do!you!know!what!it!means?Maybe 29
Do!you!know!what!it!means? No 25Do!you!know!what!it!means?
Yes 46
Parameter Op*ons %
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
The!next!step!in!solving!environmental,!sustainable!development!and!global!warming!problems.
79
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Capitalism!repackaging!itself!to!be!more!accepted!by!the!public.
0"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?Nothing!but!a!talk!shop. 4
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Something!which!I!don’t!know!about!at!all. 0
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
I’d!like!to!reserve!my!comments!(or!none!of!the!above).
18
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 18Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 71Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 11
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 64Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 18Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 18
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 18Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 11Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 71
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)
Economy 43In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)Environment 43
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice) Social 14
58
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)
Economy 14In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)Environment 39
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice) Social 46
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)
Economy 43In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)Environment 18
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice) Social 39
Parameter Op*ons %
Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!
Maybe 7Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!! No 32Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!Yes 61
59
APPENDIX VIIIGeneral!Sta*s*cs!of!Survey!of!South!Korea Total!Candidates: 52
Parameter Op*ons %
Age!Group
Below!21 8
Age!Group
21!F!25 58
Age!Group 26!F!30 15Age!Group31!F!40 13
Age!Group
41!F!50 4
Age!Group
Above!51 2
Parameter Op*ons %
Sector
Government!(central!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 6
Sector
Government!(municipal!government!&!its!ministries!/!agencies) 6
Sector People!(indivdual,!youth,!student,) 71
Sector
People!(NGO!/!NPO!/!CSO!/!informal!community!group)! 4
Sector
Private!(mul*na*onal!corpora*on) 4
Sector
Private!(small!&!medium!enterprise) 10
Parameter Op*ons %
Gender Female 56GenderMale 44
60
APPENDIX IXQues*onaire!Details!(South!Korea) Total!Candidates: 52
Parameter Op*ons %Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth"No 10Have!you!heard!of!the!term!"Green!Economy"!or!
"Green!Growth" Yes 90
Parameter Op*ons %
Do!you!know!what!it!means?Maybe 48
Do!you!know!what!it!means? No 17Do!you!know!what!it!means?
Yes 35
Parameter Op*ons %
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
The!next!step!in!solving!environmental,!sustainable!development!and!global!warming!problems.
87
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Capitalism!repackaging!itself!to!be!more!accepted!by!the!public.
8"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?Nothing!but!a!talk!shop. 2
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
Something!which!I!don’t!know!about!at!all. 0
"Green!Economy"!or!"Green!Growth"!means?
I’d!like!to!reserve!my!comments!(or!none!of!the!above).
4
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(1st!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 19Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 52Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(1st!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 29
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 54Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 29Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(2nd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 17
Parameter Op*ons %
Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)
Corporates!(Private!Sector) 27Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice) Government!(Public!Sector) 19Who’s!responsibility!do!you!think!it!is!to!promote!
the!concept?!(3rd!Choice)Individuals!and!NGOs!(People!Sector) 54
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)
Economy 33In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice)Environment 48
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(1st!Choice) Social 19
61
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)
Economy 20In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice)Environment 40
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(2nd!Choice) Social 40
Parameter Op*ons %
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)
Economy 48In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice)Environment 12
In!terms!of!a!more!sustained!future,!which!of!the!following!should!be!priora*sed!under!the!pillars!
of!sustainable!development?!!(3rd!Choice) Social 40
Parameter Op*ons %
Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!
Maybe 31Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!! No 27Are!you!aware!if!your!country!doing!anything!on!
promo*ng!the!Green!Economy?!!Yes 42
62
63