pavan sukhdev
DESCRIPTION
Conferência Ethos 2012TRANSCRIPT
Pavan Sukhdev
McKluskey Fellow 2011, Yale University
Founder-CEO, GIST Advisory
Green Economy & Poverty Eradication
“A Green Economy is defined as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, whilst significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.”
UNEP, Feb 2011
Green Economy and Sustainable Development: Green Economy is the best economic vehicle to achieve sustainable development goals.
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative
Green Economy : Definition
UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE
FOCUS • Design and drive
transformation in key sectors critical / highly material for “greening” the global economy
STRATEGY • Establish “Enabling Conditions”
(regulations, subsidies, taxes and related reforms) • Promote public and private
investment
KEY SECTORS • Agriculture, Freshwater, Forests, Fisheries, Energy,
Transportation, Manufacturing, Waste, Buildings, Cities, Tourism
SCENARIO ANALYSIS • “T-21” model, includes Natural Capital , to forecast outcomes
on Capital stock, GDP growth, Employment
“Towards a Green Economy”
(UNEP)
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative
UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE
• Green farming practices have increased yields, especially on small farms, between 79 % (Pretty et al, 2006) and 180 %.
• 10 percent increase in farm yields -> 7 % reduction in poverty in Africa, more than 5 % in Asia
• Approximately 2.6 billion people rely on agricultural production systems for their livelihood. (FAO, 2009)
• 525 million small farms world wide, 404 million less than two hectares of land (Nagayets, 2005), Small farms cultivate 60 % of arable land (Herren et al. 2010)
An increase in overall GDP coming from agricultural labor productivity is on average 2.5 times more effective in raising the incomes of the poorest quintile in developing countries than an equivalent increase in GDP coming from non-agricultural labor productivity.
Agriculture : Importance of Small Farms
UNEP – GREEN ECONOMY INITIATIVE
185,000 ha, 45,000 farmers (2004)
60%/ 359% increase
296,203 ha/ 206,803 farmers (2008)
OA Growth in Uganda
US$ 22.8 mil (2007/8) US$ 6.2 mil (2004/5) US$ 3.7 mil (2003/4)
OA Exports in Uganda
Environmental Impact
48-68% lower carbon emissions Carbon Sequestration
Low fertilizer use
Business Opportunity
Organic food & drink market 97% revenue in OECD countries 80% producers in developing countries
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)
Agriculture in Uganda
Solar PV in Bangladesh
Grameen Shakti (GS)
Innovative Business Model
Economic Benefits
Economic Benefits
Industry/ Highly profitable
Household/ save fuel costs (342 – 3321 yuan)
Environmental Benefits
Environmental Benefits
Reduce fossil fuel consumption
Save 348,000 t SCE of fossil energy/ year
Social Benefits
Social Benefits
Reduce risk of CO poisoning, Rheumatoid
arthritis
600,000 employed
China is world’s largest market for Solar Water Heaters • 2/3rd of global capacity
• 10% of population • 4o mil SWH systems
Implementation Plan on Promoting Solar Thermal
Utilization in 2007 (under 11th Five-Year Plan for New and
Renewable Energy)
Solar Heaters in China
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)
Rural Ecological Infrastructure in India
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA)
Objectives Guarantee wage and employment; Strengthen rural natural resource management Strategy Labor-intensive implementation in 615 rural districts
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA)
Objectives Guarantee wage and employment; Strengthen rural natural resource management Strategy Labor-intensive implementation in 615 rural districts
Ecosystem Initiatives under NREGA Financing for rural works addressing causes of drought, deforestation and soil erosion
Ecosystem Initiatives under NREGA Financing for rural works addressing causes of drought, deforestation and soil erosion
Key Benefits and Impacts Improved rural livelihoods &inclusive growth--
Improved rural ecological infrastructure-completed from 2006-conserved (in Uttar Pradesh,)-replenishment (in Andhra Pradesh)
Key Benefits and Impacts Improved rural livelihoods &inclusive growth -Work for 30 mln. families per year - Wage increases of 25 % in 3 years
Improved rural ecological infrastructure - 850,000 water conservation works completed from 2006-08 - Estimated 5 mln. liters of water conserved (in Uttar Pradesh,) - Increased crop yields and ground water replenishment (in Andhra Pradesh)
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)
1.9% rate of forest decrease 1.35% annual increase
1990s: Before community forestry
2000-05: With community forestry
Source: UNEP Green Economy Initiative (Developing Countries Success Stories)
Forest Management in Nepal
Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) manage 25% of forest area
Develop their
own
operational
plans
Set
harvesting
rules
Set rates for
products
Decide
surplus
income
distribution
Economic Benefits
Economic Benefits
Environmental Benefits
Environmental Benefits
Social Benefits
Social Benefits
Employment & income for local users
Increased forest area &
density
Community acceptance &
goodwill
Enhanced soil & water
management
Sustainable wood fuel
sources
Four key and broad goals of Sustainable Development are :-
1. Improved human well-being : Better health, education, & wealth for all ; high employment to ensure dignity of life and labour
2. Increased social equity : Ending persistent poverty ; improving the income of the poor farmer and city dweller; ensuring inclusion at every level – social, economic, financial
3. Reduced environmental risks : Concerted efforts to reduce damages from Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Hazardous chemicals, Pollutants, & excessive or mis-managed Waste
4. Reduced ecological scarcities : Freshwater availability (exported foodgrainmeans imported water shortage), Soil fertility (ecosystem degradation & excessive fertilizer use are root causes of lost soil fertility), Land availibility (for crops & livestock), Coastal & Coral seas (for fish)
Goals of Sustainable Development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A.
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
1975
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 1980
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 1985
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 1990
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 1995
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 2000
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
Cuba World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 2005
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
Cuba World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Human Development Index
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India China
Brazil
Japan
Australia
U.S.A. 2008
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
Indonesia
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Historical Trends of Human Development and Ecological Footprint for Select
Countries (1975-2008)
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India
China
Brazil
Cuba
Japan
Australia
U.S.A.
Kuwait
UAE
Indonesia
South Africa
Mexico
Canada
Russia
Afghanistan
Korea Rep
Nigeria
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Human Development and Ecological Footprint for ALL Countries (2008)
Eco
logi
cal F
oo
tpri
nt
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Meeting the Goals of Sustainable Development
with “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”
means:
Green Development in developing countries
Reducing Footprint in developed countries
Meets minimum criteria for sustainability
World average biocapacity available per person, ignoring needs of wild species
Within biosphere’s average capacity per person, low development
Exceeds biosphere’s average capacity per person, high development
India
China
Brazil
Cuba
Japan
Australia
U.S.A.
Kuwait
UAE
Indonesia
South Africa
Mexico
Canada
Russia
Afghanistan
Korea Rep
Nigeria
Thre
sho
ld fo
r h
igh
hu
ma
n d
evel
op
men
t
Human Development and Ecological Footprint for ALL Countries (2008)
Thank You! www.unep.org/greeneconomy
www.gistadvisory.com