Oxford PGD Dissertation 2012 Final Version

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