For more information: www.undp.org/ United Nations Development Programme

March 2014

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Growth, and by extension development, is still indisputably

resource and fossil-fuel dependent and largely characterized

by unsustainable and harmful modes of production that

undermine the very resource basis upon which humanity

depend. Fossil fuels still account for over 80% of energy

consumed (IEA, 2013). These patterns are at odds with global

aspirations and commitments to more sustainable

development that date back to the early 1970s and which were

reinforced at the 2012 Rio+ Conference. While significant

attention has been placed on changing production and

consumption patterns through pricing mechanisms, green

labour market opportunities and new technologies, relatively

little attention has been paid the role of the social sector as an

actor and as a critical partner for tackling resource inequalities

which persist in the face of significant global wealth.

New paradigm but same old model With its proactive and pragmatic environmental-economic

approach, green growth has spawned an enthusiastic new

generation of policy actors focusing on research, coalition

building and policy reform. The green growth wave

encompasses various concepts some focusing almost

exclusively on carbon emissions (e.g. low-carbon and low-

emission development) and others like green economy

attempt to expand the economic basis of the paradigm to

include social dimensions.

In this framing, the productive value of the environment, in its

provision of resources, absorption of wastes and supply of

environmental services, is considered a factor of production

and properly accounted for at least on an economic basis.

Placing economic values on so called ecosystem services (e.g.

water, biodiversity, timber etc.) has stirred criticism for its

implied commoditization of nature.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, there are who

question green growth motivations and adequacy in

addressing the intersection of social, environmental and

economic dimensions of sustainability and the well-recognized

urgency of reversing the trends of increasing inequality

created through current economic growth models. Moreover,

the Post-2015 global consultation process, coordinated by

UNDG, shows a focus on resources and social sector issues (see

below) seemingly at odds with an almost-exclusive focus on

growth and the economy of green transformations.

Whither the Social In an attempt to account for social sustainability within green

growth, the UNEP Green Economy Initiative (GEI) adopted the

one that results in

improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly

reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its

simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one

which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive It

implies equal attention to the economy, the society and the

environment. Recently expanded to include inclusive green

growth (IGG), the operational definition is one of growth that

not only helps green economies, but also helps move toward

sustainable development by ensuring environmental

sustainability contributes to, or at least does not come at the

expense of, social progress.

In practice, this means according to OECD 2013, that:

Sustainable certification schemes and eco-labelling programmes

Governments prioritize growth; people focus on social issues:

Figure 1. Topic bubble from the MyWorldSurvey. The size of the bubble representing the number of occurrences in the global consultation.

can become a new source of income in many developing

countries with abundant forests and agricultural production. But

the benefits to the poor will be greatest if land tenure is secured,

and the certification schemes give special premium to

community-managed forests or small landholders

Removing fossil fuel subsidies can improve the living conditions

of the poorest if some of the money is reallocated to providing

cheaper public transport or more accessible health care services

While the five (5) main social and equity assumptions outlined

by the OECD (two referred to above) identify a number of

important synergies, others as well as co-benefits are also

deserving of attention. One of these is that access to resources

must go hand-in-hand with access to services. High inequality

continues to have high social and health costs, particularly for

developing countries and weak access to quality health care

means that the poor end up suffering more than other groups.

Wilkinson and Picketts (2011) suggest that inequality is

spawning a number of inter-linked and chronic social and

health costs which may be responsible for current fiscal deficits

in the US.

Some lessons emerging from recent experiences in eliminating

fossil-fuel subsidies in developing countries shed light on how

green social assumptions can result in policy failure. Mexico,

where one of the main thrusts has been to reform motor fuel

consumption and to eliminate subsidies representing an

average of 1.5% of annual GDP from 2005 to 2009 (OECD,

2011), is an informative case (see Box 1).

A good starting point would be to detail a vision and strategy

for delivering on social sustainability. Examples and possible

good practice already exists in the form of social protection

and safety-net instruments such as employment-intensive

investment programmes which have already integrated an

environmental element. Notably, they have protected the poor

in India, Brazil, South Africa and Ethiopia from vulnerability to

external shocks, enhanced ecological and livelihood security,

alleviated poverty and smoothed the impact of shifts in the

quality and quantity of resources.

Tapping into New Capital Going further, greening the social requires proactively:

- Narrowing key social equity gaps in health and education

e.g. by potentially linking green jobs to these sectors and

those who have often been marginalized in the labour

market,

- Making sure that sanitation, water and electricity poverty

gaps are progressively narrowed and eventually

eliminated,

- Accounting for the hidden costs or inequities for example

when mineral wealth is co-located with poverty (in both

DR Congo and South Africa are examples of this

phenomenon) which cause GDP leakage. In the OECD

alone total public social expenditure in 2013 exceeded

20% of GDP and some estimates suggest a global average

of 25% of GDP; and

- Potentially imposing penalties on mineral extraction

activities that create high capital costs to public health

over decades (evidenced in gold or asbestos mining in

South Africa or aluminium mining in Zambia) which take

away resources from the social sector.

Acknowledgements: This issue brief is based on two

working papers finalized under the auspices of the RIO+

Centre:

1. Burkolter, Pablo and Perch, Leisa (forthcoming).

Growth in the South: Practices, Policies and

2. Saad, Layla and Perch, Leisa,

Engine of the Green Growth Locomotive: Green as Social in

Contact Information: Leisa Perch, Policy Specialist,

leisa.perch@undp.org

Box 1: Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Complex

than expected

Since 2009, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies in Mexico has

taken the form of small and cumulative price increases every

month to adjust retail prices to reflect international values and

better target energy subsidies to poor households. To mitigate

potential social costs of the transition on low-income

households, the Mexican government has linked reforms with

other instruments including the strengthening of social safety

nets by providing direct cash transfers for energy consumption to

beneficiaries of the conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme

Oportunidades; facilitating greater use of public transport; and

investing on better infrastructure and more efficient vehicles

(SHCP, 2011).

Burkolter and Perch (forthcoming) note the findings of a recent

study by Reyes Tépach (2012) outlining unintended social

consequences. One is that price increases resulting from the

removal of fuel subsidies have led consumers to increase their

contains more sulphur than the premium alternative, potentially

creating a number of health problems if this expands which in

turn could be burdensome on the public health budget.

In other cases, social reaction has been negative to reform efforts,

leading to policy reversals in Bolivia in 2010, Cameroon in 2008

and Nigeria in 2012 (IMF, 2013).