Contradictions between growth and sustainability: Institutional innovations in the BRICS

1. Contradictions between growth and sustainability: Institutional innovations in the BRICS Peter H. May Conference on De-Growth ESEE – Paris – 18-19 April 2008

2. BRICS panel – ISEE2006 Delhi • Peter H. May (Brazil) – coordinator • Ademar Romeiro (Brazil) • Stanislav Shmelev (Russia) • Jyoti Parikh (India) • Zhu Dajian (China) • James Blignaut (South Africa)

3. Economic scale of the BRICS Source: Goldman-Sachs

4. Questions raised by BRICS panel • How are the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) coping with the paradox between improvement in material wellbeing and exacerbation of local and global pressures on the environment? • What are the distributive consequences of rapid economic growth? Are some groups profiting disproportionately at the expense of overall poverty alleviation? • What can the BRICS countries learn from each other as they explore alternative energy and material consumption pathways?

5. BRICS/World Population 43% Land Area – 30% GDP – 13% 87%

6. Implications of growth as well as stagnation or depression

8. Tools for a “circular economy” Developing Countries Developed Countries Regulatory Control Resource Consumption Market Mechanism Public Participation Economic Growth

9. But, is there a “turning point”?

10. Deforestation, Brazilian Amazon

11. What are we up against?

12. Cattle Soybeans Deforestation Soybean exports to China and the EC, and role of exchange rate

13. Air quality in Russia Industrial decline of 1991-1999 decreased concentrations of: particulates, SO2, ammonia, phenol, hydrogen fluoride, soot, and carbon bisulphidedown 5-49% Car fleet growth and deterioration have influenced increase in CO and NO2up 13-15% Emissions of CO2 in 1999 amounted to 6.1% of the world total (3rd place after USA and China). The demand for more economic guarantees blocked the ratification of Kyoto Protocol

14. Mortality and life expectancy in Russia Russiafell 48 places in world life expectancy rankingfrom 1990 to 2003. (UN Human Development Report, 2003). Adult mortality (per 1000), 2002 - adult mortality risk, which is defined as the probability of dying between 15 and 59 years: Males: 464 Females: 168 It is the highest value of all countries in WHO European Region

15. Area Under 1947 1976 1977 1980-81 1984-85 1994 1997 1) Water erosion 2) Wind erosion Total 3) Ravines and Gullies 4) Ravine and torrents 5) Saline and Alkali soils 6) Waterlogging 7) Shifting cultivation 8) Decline in soil fertility Total -- -- 107.5 -- -- 3.6 1.2 0.5 -- 112.8 -- -- 150.0 -- -- 7.0 6.0 -- -- 163.0 90.0 50.0 140.0 -- -- 7.0 -- 3.0 -- 150.0 -- -- 150.0 4.0 2.7 8.0 6.0 4.4 -- 175.1 --- --- 141.2 4.0 2.7 9.4 8.5 4.9 -- 174.9 148.9 13.5 162.4 -- -- 10.1 11.6 -- 3.7 187.8 -- -- 167.0 -- -- 11.0 13.0 9 2 200 Source: TERI (1998) from various non NRSA sources Extent of Land Degradation in India over the Years (million hectares)

16. Annual Cost of Environmental Degradation in India 1994-1997 (Parikh & Parikh)

18. Target of SD of China in terms of three pillars Source: Zhu Dajian

19. A “circular economy” model for China? • traditional approach（high economic growth and low environmental performance） • The resource and environment in China are not available to provide a growing population with higher standards in a Western lifestyle of consumption. • alternative approach ( high economic growth and high environmental performance ） • The challenge for China is to create an alternative to Western development modes which would meet the needs for development while maintaining and even improving the health of ecosystem.

20. South Africa’s “big 5” • Disease (HIV/Aids, cholera, TB, malaria) • Poverty & food insecurity (vulnerability) • Energy, & water security • Loss of self-esteem (dependency) • Environmental degradation

21. 1.4%!

22. Climate change’s impact on SA economy Turpie et al. 2004

23. A program for Ecological Economics in emerging countries • To what extent will consumption patterns respond to resource scarcity? • If consumption is exosomatic, can institutions alter cultural pressures to consume? • Can institutional innovation or consumption patterns be induced by shifts in relative prices? • Are institutions for sustainability in place but unrecognized (cooperation, collective property and action…)? • What are the policy choices and technology transfer options inherent in the EKC “tunnel”?

24. Innovations toward sustainable development in the BRICS • “Transversal” planning (Brazil, S. Africa) • Public-private partnerships (everyone?) • Decentralized rural industrialization (China, India) • Socio-environmental certification of agricultural and bioenergy production (Brazil) • Co-managing critical natural capital (Indian forests, S. African brushland, Brazilian fisheries) • Negative deforestation rates (all except Brazil…but REDD may turn this around?) • Tracking progress toward sustainability

25. But most innovations require global cooperation • Global competition and market restrictions • Policy failures in trade negotiations • Natural resource control as scarcities grow • Transition from hydrocarbons to bioenergy • Water supply security • Endogenous knowledge and germplasm patrimony • Climate mitigation and adaptation • Technology transfer of free information goods • South-South cooperation opportunities

26. Thanks for your attention! Peter May – president@ecoeco.org ISEE – http://www.ecoeco.org Help us plan ISEE2008 in Nairobi! www.ecoeco.org/conference08