Takashi Otsuka Programme Management Office IGES

1. Brief Report of the 3rd International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2011): The Asia-Pacific Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Rio+20 Sixteenth Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) of NEASPEC 1-2 September 2011, Seoul, Republic of Korea Takashi Otsuka Programme ManagementOffice IGES

2. About IGES • International Research Institute which conducts practical and innovative research for realizing sustainable development in the Asia and the Pacific. • IGES was established in 1998. • About 100 researchers, full-time and part-tie, from diversity of countries other than Japan (about 1/3 of staff : non-Japanese).

3. International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2011)~ New Asia-Pacific Perspectives towards Rio+20: Implications of the East Japan Disasters~ • The 3rd ISAP: 26-27 July 2011, Yokohama, Japan. • Co-organized by IGES and UNU-IAS. • Collaborators: UNESCAP, UNEP-ROAP, and ADB. • Participants: about 850 people. • ISAP2011 is designated as the Asia-Pacific Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Rio+20 • Themes: • Implications of the recent triple disasters in Eastern Japan. • Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication (GECPE) • Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) • The summary of the discussion will be presented to the Asia Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for UNCSD, to be held in Seoul, ROK, from 19 to 20 October 2011.

4. Outline • Introduction • Resilient and Sustainable Society • Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication (GECPE) • Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD)

5. General views on Rio+20 • Sustainable development could be only achieved by addressing the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely economy, society, and environment, which are interdependent and should be addressed in an integrated manner.   • Gaps in interests and priorities of each country has been one of the obstacles for enhancing international cooperation. • The international community can learn from the recent Great East Japan Earthquake and associated nuclear accident . Economic development Japan has been strongly pursued while underestimating social and environmental risks thereby undermining the resilience of society to manmade and natural hazards - with tremendous economic, social, and environmental costs. • One of the key concepts underpinning integration is ‘resilience’, which should be revisited by all countries to contribute to sustainable development. • The emergence of an interlinked and resilient global governance and economic system based on the principles of sustainable development. The green economy is an important interim milestone in this system. At the same time, a better Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) is one of the necessary conditions.

6. Topic 1:Resilient and Sustainable Society Outcome of ISAP2011 • The 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and subsequent accidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plant gave us a brutal reminder of challenges linked to energy supply and to where energy should come from. • There is a need to reduce energy demand and substitute nuclear energy with renewable energy.Although an intensive renewable energy pathway is not yet decided, early adoption of renewable energy substitutes (including geothermal) would offset initial price increase in the long run. • Fukushima is a lesson on strengthening safety protocols in countries with nuclear reactors, regardless of their plans for continued use of nuclear energy, through a sound system of governance emphasizing safety standards and measures, accountability, transparency and redress mechanisms which should be in place prior to nuclear energy promotion; • Lessons from around the region should be shared on disaster risk reduction and mobilizing communities in meaningful participation and decision making at each stage of disaster planning; • Policy frameworks need to be revised in view of the increasing number and severity of climate-related disasters and to enable better horizontal coordination between the ministries responsible for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. • Disaster education should be further enhanced, as evidenced by successful examples in northern Japan of students evacuating by following the drills they had practiced.

7. Building Resilient Societies(1) – Multi-level and multi-stakeholder governance • The importance of horizontal and vertical cooperation – In order to build a resilient society, a multi-level and multi-stakeholder scheme needs to be developed in; and it is necessary for each of them to conduct actions which can be delivered most efficiently. • National governmentshaving a facilitating and enabling role • Local government have the responsibility for decision making and implementation, and for promoting horizontal cooperation and participation of different stakeholders. • The integrated system of top-down and bottom-up approaches has the potential for providing the opportunities to learn from each other and can be built strengthen resilient societies. National Government Local government NPO Local government Private Sector Horizontal cooperation

8. Building Resilient Societies (2) – Community based pro-poor approach • Through experiences of climate change adaptation, the best way to manage disaster is community based pro-poor approach (i.e. poor communities are more vulnerable, facing on more risks, have less access to resources, funds, political connections, and information) • A local community has in-depth knowledge of local environment and society, and it is quite useful for the disaster prevention. • At the recovery stage from the disaster, participation from local community with autonomy is important.

9. Safe, secure, and low-carbon energy (1) • After the triple disaster, Japan faced serious shortages in energy supply • Think, review and revise energy and climate change policy, it is possible in Japan to abandon-nuclear energyfrom: • (1) Right energy mix in the near future with moderate cost burden on the economy; and • (2) Balance of supply and demand side of energy for households and small- and medium-enterprises (SMEs). • (1) Right energy mix • Based on the preliminary result of various research scenarios, renewable energy scenario is less expensive than other options, which avoiding high cost energy import and strengthening energy supply security. This is the potential to be the most valuable policy option in Japan. • Japan’s indigenous resources like geothermal and tidal potential needs to be explored further and renewable energy needs to be aggressively promoted in the country to achieve energy security Preliminary Result [Ref.: A. Bhachattarya]

10. Safe, secure, and low-carbon energy (2) • (2) Balance of supply and demand side of energy for households and small- and medium-enterprises (SMEs) – “Green Innovation” initiated by local government • Comprehensive energy system management: demand and supply side framework for sustainable and stable households and SMEs –reform of energy supply system considering demand side energy saving. • A combination of reducing energy consumption and strengthening energy efficiency regulations of products, housings, and buildings, promoting both life and work styles reforms Energy Demand Energy System Management Initiated by Local Government Energy Supply <SMEs> Green electricity battery hydro solar wind <Households> Home electrical appliance biomass

11. Topic 2: Green Economy Outcome of ISAP2011 • The implication and definition of a green economy may vary depending on each country’s development stage, but all countries share the common goal of sustainable development. Establishing a green economy is a key interim implementing strategy for sustainable development. • The existing economic system does not fully account for environmental and social costs; the nuclear disaster in northern Japan is a clear case of the necessity of developing a green economy by incorporating resilience and the precautionary principle. • A green economy should have the twin goals of poverty alleviation and quality of life. • While poverty exists in every country, developed countries should take the leadership for promoting a green economy by shifting their consumption from goods to services and shifting their economic behavior towards increased quality of life. • Education and technology transfer are critical components of a green economy.

12. Key challenges for greening economy • Economic context Incorporation of social and environmental costs in the global economic system • Social context Eradication of poverty and fulfill the basic human needs of all individuals • Environmental context Keeping the ecological capital sound and sustainable • Political context Shift from short-term thinking to longer-term and integrative view • International context Developmental gap between developed and developing countries

13. Measures for global green economy (1) Sustainable Consumption and Production Consumption Shift towards green lifestyle from mass consumption and promotion of governmental green procurement Intergrated policy intervention Visualisation of environmental impacts e.g. green tax and subsidies green labelling Full examination of the appropriate stage of product life cycle for intervention in terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency. Inter-linkage Production Decoupling between economic growth and resource use through promotion of green technologies and industrial transformation from brown to green Contribution to employment and poverty reduction

14. Measures for global green economy (2) Development of Alternative Indicators • Alternative or supplementary indicators to the current GDP for integration of social and environmental aspects • e.g. gross national happiness, green accounting Contribution to change in value of the people from income maximization to enlargement of quality of life Contribution to enable political decision making based on a longer-term perspective To visualise externality, thereby to elaborate and adopt such indicators.... Scaling up the existing incentive mechanisms and developing innovative implementation tools will be a first step

15. Measures for global green economy (3) International Cooperation Green economy cannot be achieved within a single country, as economy is interlinked between countries in a globalised world Developed countries – show initiative But bear in mind…. Not to promote green protectionism Not to encourage export of brown industries from one country to another Mechanism to promote international cooperation and technology transfer Developing countries – follow direction

16. Topic 3: IFSD Outcome of ISAP2011 • Need more emphasis on integrating sustainable development concerns in other policy areas; especially cooperation between different ministries • Regional institutions can help persuade national governments from the top down, but sub-national governments and civil society organizations can also work from the bottom-up. • Need increased understanding by policy makers and the public that Sustainable Development can make significant contributions to poverty reduction and economic development. • Need a global or regional agreement on access to information to support genuine, informed multi-stakeholder participation in decision-making. • East Asia has many underfunded regional cooperation mechanisms resulting in fragmentation and overlap, similar to the global situation. A regional organisation for information and capacity development could improve coordination and effectiveness. Such an organization could be new or based on existing ones.

17. Key Challenges • Much stronger institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD) is needed • Institutional changes with coherent SD goals at global, regional, national and local levels • Leadership, coordination, effectiveness, information, participation, compliance and enforcement • Proper incentives, regulations, policies and actions • ……

18. Solutions at all levels: Multilevel Governance • Problems can’t be solved at only one level • Different levels have different advantages & disadvantages • Solutions need cooperation between & within levels • ** Promote multistakeholder participation (at all levels)

19. Proposals on UN Structure—Institutional Structure for Sustainable development (IFSD) • Need an umbrella organization for sustainable development. • Option (1) ECOSOC with official sustainable development mandateOption (2) new Sustainable Development CouncilOption (3) reformed CSD • Should undertake assessments of the progress towards SD • Should have participation of environment and non-environment ministers • Need a high level individual person to promote sustainable development • e.g. High Commissioner of Sustainable Development • Greater Participation and Coordination with Bretton Woods Institutions and Multilateral Development Banks

20. Proposals on UN Structure—International Environmental Governance (IEG) • UNEP enhancement – 2 phases reform Short-term: Universal membership of UNEP Governing Council • Enhance legitimacy of UNEP’s actions and decisions • Enable better coordination of multilateral environment agreements (e.g. timing of meetings) Mid- and Long-term: World (or UN) Environment Organization • Increased mandate and autonomy • Enhanced capacity building function in national policy formulation and reporting, in MEA implementation, coordinating with others such as UNDP and World Bank, in line with the “One UN” concept. • Should have more regular and predictable funding

21. Proposals on UN Structure—International Environmental Governance (IEG) Source: Thrust of IEG Reform (Olsen, 2011)

22. IEG implications for Asia-Pacific region • Many countries are facing serious environmental challenges • Need more capacity development & information sharing • Many underfunded small existing international cooperation mechanisms resulting in fragmentation and overlap • Regional organization for capacity development and information sharing, e.g. Asia-Pacific Environmental Focal Point with Asia-Pacific Topic Centres • An organization could be new or based on existing ones

23. Funding for Environment • Environment funding is low • Need to Consider New Potential Sources • e.g. Reallocation from national defense budgets (e.g. 0.5% ) • Investment for avoiding security issues derived from environmental problems, resource scarcity, environmental refugees, etc. • e.g. International tax on currency transactions, international air travel, etc. • Collaborative international efforts (not dependent on contributions from governments)

24. Overall implications for NEA • Information sharing and further cooperation on resilience and sustainability could be promoted in the existing frameworks, such as NEASPEC and TEMM. • Green Economy/Green Growth concepts and activities, actively promoted by the Republic of Korea and UNESCAP could be further mainstreamed in other countries. Cooperation frameworks in NEA could be further strengthend. • Strengthening IFSD/IEG is necessary at a sub-regional level. Streamlining the current institutional frameworks could contribute to this objective.

25. Thank you very much for your attention. http://www.iges.or.jp/