Transcript Contradictions between growth and sustainability: Institutional innovations in the BRICS Peter H. May

Contradictions between growth
and sustainability:
Institutional innovations in the BRICS
Peter H. May
Conference on De-Growth
ESEE – Paris – 18-19 April 2008
BRICS panel – ISEE2006 Delhi
•
•
•
•
•
•
Peter H. May (Brazil) – coordinator
Ademar Romeiro (Brazil)
Stanislav Shmelev (Russia)
Jyoti Parikh (India)
Zhu Dajian (China)
James Blignaut (South Africa)
Economic scale of the BRICS
BRICs Have a Larger US$GDP Than the G6
in Less Than 40 Years
GDP
(2003 US$bn)
50000
100,000
BRICs
90,000
G6
80,000
GDP
(2003 US$bn) The Largest Economies in 2050
2025: BRICs
economies
over half as
large as the G6
70,000
60,000
45000
By 2040:
BRICS
overtake
the G6
40000
35000
30000
50,000
25000
40,000
20000
30,000
15000
20,000
10000
10,000
5000
0
0
2000
2010
GS BRICs Model Projections.
2020
2030
2040
2050
Ch
US
In
Jpn
Br
Russ
UK
Ger
Fr
GS BRICs Model Projections.
Source: Goldman-Sachs
It
Questions raised by BRICS panel
•
•
•
How are the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa) coping with the paradox between
improvement in material wellbeing and exacerbation of
local and global pressures on the environment?
What are the distributive consequences of rapid
economic growth? Are some groups profiting
disproportionately at the expense of overall poverty
alleviation?
What can the BRICS countries learn from each other
as they explore alternative energy and material
consumption pathways?
Land area
Brazil
Russia
7%
13%India
2%
China
7%
Rest of
South
World
Africa
70%
1%
BRICS/World
Population 43%
Land Area – 30%
GDP – 13%
Population (2006)
GDP (2006)
Russia India
2%
2% China
Brazil
6%
2%
South Africa
1%
Rest of
World
87%
Russia
2%
Brazil
3%
Rest of
World
57%
India
17%
China
20%
South
Africa
1%
Implications of growth as well as
stagnation or depression
CO2 emissions per unit of GDP
CO2 emissions/ capita
1.6
12
1.4
10
1.2
8
1
0.8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2
0.2
0
0
Brazil Russia India
China South BRICS World
Africa
Tools for a “circular economy”
Developing
Countries
Developed
Countries
Regulatory Control
Resource
Consumption
Market Mechanism
Public Participation
Economic Growth
But, is there a “turning point”?
Deforestation, Brazilian Amazon
What are we up against?
Cattle
Soybeans
Deforestation
Soybean exports
to China and the
EC, and role of
exchange rate
Air quality in Russia
Industrial decline of 1991-1999
decreased concentrations of:
particulates, SO2, ammonia,
phenol, hydrogen fluoride, soot, and
carbon bisulphide down 5-49%
Car fleet growth and deterioration have
influenced increase in CO and NO2
up 13-15%
Emissions of CO2 in 1999 amounted to
6.1% of the world total (3rd place
after USA and China).
The demand for more economic
guarantees blocked the ratification
of Kyoto Protocol
Mortality and life expectancy in Russia
Life Expectancy at Birth
1958-59, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1965-2002
Life Expectancy at Birth
(years)
75
Russia fell 48 places in world life
expectancy ranking from 1990 to
2003. (UN Human Development
Report, 2003).
70
65
60
Female
Male
19
5
19 8-59
6
19 1-62
6
19 3-64
6
19 5-66
6
19 6-67
6
19 7-68
6
19 8-69
6
19 9-70
7
19 0-71
7
19 1-72
7
19 2-73
7
19 3-74
7
19 4-75
7
19 5-76
7
19 6-77
7
19 7-78
7
19 8-79
7
19 9-80
8
19 0-81
8
19 1-82
8
19 2-83
8
19 3-84
8
19 4-85
8
19 5-86
86
-8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
55
Adult mortality (per 1000), 2002 adult mortality risk, which is defined
as the probability of dying between 15
and 59 years:
Males: 464
Year
Females: 168
Births, Deaths, and Natural Increase in Population: 1960, 1965-2002
It is the highest value of all countries
in WHO European Region
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Births
500,000
Deaths
0
Natural
Increase
-500,000
-1,000,000
19
6
19 0
6
19 5
6
19 6
6
19 7
6
19 8
6
19 9
7
19 0
7
19 1
7
19 2
7
19 3
7
19 4
7
19 5
7
19 6
7
19 7
7
19 8
7
19 9
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
Population
1,500,000
Year
Extent of Land Degradation in India over the
Years (million hectares)
Area Under
1947
1976
1977
1980-81
1984-85
1994
1997
1) Water erosion
2) Wind erosion
Total
3) Ravines and Gullies
4) Ravine and torrents
5) Saline and Alkali soils
6) Waterlogging
7) Shifting cultivation
8) Decline in soil fertility
Total
--107.5
--3.6
1.2
0.5
-112.8
--150.0
--7.0
6.0
--163.0
90.0
50.0
140.0
--7.0
-3.0
-150.0
--150.0
4.0
2.7
8.0
6.0
4.4
-175.1
----141.2
4.0
2.7
9.4
8.5
4.9
-174.9
148.9
13.5
162.4
--10.1
11.6
-3.7
187.8
--167.0
--11.0
13.0
9
2
200
Source: TERI (1998) from various non NRSA sources
Annual Cost of Environmental Degradation
in India 1994-1997 (Parikh & Parikh)
Resource
Range (% of GDP)
Air
Forests
Soil
Water
Total
0.4
1.1 – 1.6
0.30 – 0.80
1.70 – 2.1
3.5 – 4.9
Target of SD of China in terms of three pillars
China’s
developing
phase
Economic
growth
Social
Environment
development impact
General
well-off
1978-2000
$800 per
capita
Human
Low resource
development consumption and
index 0.7
Environmental
Impact
Entire
Well-off
2001-2020
$3000
per capita
Human
high increase of
development Environmental
index 0.8
Impact
General
2021-2050
moderniza
-tion
$10000
Per capita
Human
Negative
development increase of
index 0.9
Environmental
Impact
Source: Zhu Dajian
A “circular economy” model for China?
• traditional approach （high economic growth
and low environmental performance）
– The resource and environment in China are not
available to provide a growing population with higher
standards in a Western lifestyle of consumption.
• alternative approach ( high economic growth
and high environmental performance ）
– The challenge for China is to create an alternative to
Western development modes which would meet the
needs for development while maintaining and even
improving the health of ecosystem.
South Africa’s “big 5”
• Disease (HIV/Aids, cholera, TB, malaria)
• Poverty & food insecurity (vulnerability)
• Energy, & water security
• Loss of self-esteem (dependency)
• Environmental degradation
1.4%!
Climate change’s impact on SA economy
Turpie et al. 2004
A program for Ecological Economics
in emerging countries
• To what extent will consumption patterns
•
•
•
•
respond to resource scarcity?
If consumption is exosomatic, can institutions
alter cultural pressures to consume?
Can institutional innovation or consumption
patterns be induced by shifts in relative prices?
Are institutions for sustainability in place but
unrecognized (cooperation, collective property
and action…)?
What are the policy choices and technology
transfer options inherent in the EKC “tunnel”?
Innovations toward sustainable
development in the BRICS
•
•
•
•
“Transversal” planning (Brazil, S. Africa)
Public-private partnerships (everyone?)
Decentralized rural industrialization (China, India)
Socio-environmental certification of agricultural
and bioenergy production (Brazil)
• Co-managing critical natural capital (Indian
forests, S. African brushland, Brazilian fisheries)
• Negative deforestation rates (all except
Brazil…but REDD may turn this around?)
• Tracking progress toward sustainability
But most innovations require global
cooperation
• Global competition and market restrictions
– Policy failures in trade negotiations
• Natural resource control as scarcities grow
– Transition from hydrocarbons to bioenergy
– Water supply security
– Endogenous knowledge and germplasm patrimony
• Climate mitigation and adaptation
– Technology transfer of free information goods
• South-South cooperation opportunities
Thanks for your attention!
Peter May – [email protected]
ISEE – http://www.ecoeco.org
Help us plan ISEE2008 in Nairobi!
www.ecoeco.org/conference08