MIU, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 349: UNDP´s rapport "Triple Wins for Sustainable Development"

Table of ContentsFOREWORD..................................................................................................................................................................................3INTRODUCTION: THE THREE STRANDS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT..............................................4SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1990: WHERE ARE WE NOW?...............................................................6WHAT HAS WORKED?.............................................................................................................................................................8WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?................................................................................................................................................9THINGS CAN BE DIFFERENT............................................................................................................................................. 11RESETTING THE AGENDA: WHAT IS NEEDED?......................................................................................................... 13From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals................................................ 13Green is not enough: ‘triple-win’ development is the future ............................................................................ 14Better governance and capacity development matter ....................................................................................... 16Revisiting finance for sustainable development ................................................................................................... 20Beyond GDP and the bottom line: new metrics for sustainable development .......................................... 21Leveraging knowledge and innovation to deliver results.................................................................................. 23WHAT DO UNDP AND THE UN BRING TO THE TABLE?......................................................................................... 24WHY RIO+20 CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.................................................................................................................... 26CASE STUDIES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE................................................................... 27Brazil: making sustainable development happen................................................................................................. 28Croatia: energy efficiency............................................................................................................................................... 36Nepal: decentralized renewables ................................................................................................................................ 39Mongolia: inclusive finance for sustainable development ................................................................................ 43Namibia: community-based resource management ........................................................................................... 46Niger: reforesting the Sahel through ‘farmer-managed natural regeneration’........................................... 48South Africa: ‘Working for water’ ................................................................................................................................. 51Bhutan: sustainable development .............................................................................................................................. 53REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................................. 55

ForewordSustainable development is synonymous in the minds of many with the colourgreen—and for good reason. Twenty years ago at the firstEarth Summitin Rio deJaneiro, leaders set out what today is conventional wisdom: human progress—bothsocial and economic—cannot be divorced from environmental protection. Unlessboth are advanced together, both will flounder or fail.Green is not enough. Sustainable development is about health, education, and jobs,as much as ecosystems. It is about ever widening inclusion and movement awayfrom decisions that erode democratic space and do not address social inequality,intolerance, and violence. Sustainable development is about change that transformsimpoverished peoples, communities, and countries into informed, educated, healthy and productive societies.It is about wealth creation that generates equality and opportunity; it is about consumption and productionpatterns that respect planetary boundaries; it is about increasing tolerance and respect for human rights.Building on the human development legacy that originated with Amartya Sen and Mahbub Ul Haq and wascaptured by the firstHuman Development Reportin 1990, UNDP has long promoted alternative approaches tomeasuring human progress, including with the Human Development Index. Today, we are building on this legacyby exploring how to adjust the index to reflect environmental sustainability, so that governments and citizensmight better track real progress towards truly sustainable development. This must be our collective objective.As countries prepare for the ‘Rio+20’United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,UNDPis pleased to share this report. After suggesting what it takes to move towards sustainable development, thereport sets out national examples of progress toward sustainable development, from developing countries likeNepal and Niger, as well as emerging economies like South Africa and Croatia. These examples show how social,environmental, and economic progress can be integrated to make a more sustainable future. They illustrate whatthe future of development programming should look like.Instead of focusing on the tradeoffs between the three strands of development, this report highlights the rangeand significance of the complementarities between them. It describes ‘triple-win’ development policies andprogramming that regenerates the global commons by integrating social development with economic growthand environmental sustainability.UNDP invites policy-makers and practitioners preparing for ‘Rio+20’ to consider this report as a contribution tothe debate on how to make sustainable development happen.As is our underlying mission, UNDP will continue to support countries in translating the principles of sustainabledevelopment into practice in the 177 countries and territories in which we work—empowering lives andadvancing resilient nations—and to share their experiences for the benefit of others.

Introduction:the three strands ofsustainable development“We all aspire to reach better living conditions. Yet, this will not be possibleby following the current growth model . . . We need a practical twenty-firstcentury development model that connects the dots between the key issuesof our time: poverty reduction; job generation; inequality; climate change;environmental stress; water, energy and food security.”UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moonDevelopment is not just about growth. Likewise, sustainability is not just about protecting the environment. Bothdevelopment and sustainability are primarily about people living in peace with each other and in equilibrium withthe planet. Their rights, opportunities, choices, dignity and values are (or should be) at the centre of everything.Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of people today without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their needs. Inter-generational equity—avoiding the unjustified transferof development risks from present to future generations, without sacrificing reductions in poverty andinequality today at the altar of future environmental concerns—is implicit in this approach to development.Current patterns of consumption and production risk breaching planetary boundaries. If the natural environmentundergoes significant degradation, so too does the potential to improve people’s lives—both in this andsubsequent generations. This is especially true for the world’s poorest—most of whom rely directly upon naturefor their livelihoods, and whose prospects are therefore most directly affected by the threats to ecosystems.Unless issues of equity and sustainability are properly addressed, current development trajectories could grindto a halt, or even go into reverse. Avoiding such outcomes will be the great challenge of the 21st century.The report suggests six key principles that are needed to reset the global development agenda. It thenuses country case studies that describe policy measures, programmes, and efforts that can support amore robust and sustainable human development model. This method is used to illustrate examplesof enlarging people’s freedoms and opportunities that can be achieved while safeguarding the naturalenvironment for future generations. It also suggests that sustainable development requires that itseconomic, social, and environmental ‘pillars’ be thought of as synergistic and integrated ‘strands’ that lendthemselves to inter-weaving and linkages.This publication is devoted to development policy and practice as the art and craft of weaving these strandstogether in order to make sustainable development real. It looks at the ‘how’ of sustainable development. Itconsiders what can happen whengreen growth—thenexus of the ‘economic’ and ‘environmental’ strandsof sustainable development—is combined withinclusive growth—thenexus of the ‘economic’ and ‘social’strands. In this way, the report provides concrete examples of policies, programmes, and projects from

In 1992, world leaders gathered for the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and agreed on the ‘Rioprinciples‘which recognized the importance of integration across the environmental, social, and economic strandsof sustainable development. However, the modern day story of sustainable development started inearnest two years earlier.“People are the wealth of nations”—so began UNDP’s first Human Development Report in 1990. This wasa groundbreaking step. The concept of human development was born, defined as a process of enlargingpeople’s choices to lead lives they value. The 1990 Human Development Report also launched theHumanDevelopment Index.Designed to move beyond the traditional GDP measure to assess the state of humanwell-being, the Human Development Index incorporated indicators for a long and healthy life, knowledge,and a decent standard of living.Ten years later in 2000, building on a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, worldleaders adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their countries to a new globalpartnership to reduce extreme poverty. The Millennium Declaration made possible the design andimplementation of the eightMillennium Development Goals(MDGs)—a series of time-bound goals (withquantified targets and indicators) for reducing extreme poverty, with a deadline of 2015.

Box 1: Progress towards achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs)••The world as a whole is on track to reach MDG1 (the target for cutting extreme poverty in half ).By 2015, the global poverty rate should fall below 15 percent—well under the 23 percent target.Some of the poorest countries have made the greatest strides in education (MDG2). Forexample, Burundi, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Togo, and Tanzania have achievedor are nearing the goal of universal primary education.The number of deaths of children under the age of five declined from 12.4 million in 1990 to 8.1million in 2009 (MDG4). This means nearly 12,000 fewer children die each day.Increased funding and more intensive control efforts have cut deaths from malaria by 20percent worldwide (MDG6), from nearly 985,000 in 2000 to 781,000 in 2009.New HIV infections have declined steadily (MDG6). In 2009, some 2.6 million people were newlyinfected—a 21 percent drop since 1997, when new infections peaked.The numbers of people receiving antiretroviral therapy for HIV or AIDS increased 13-fold from2004 to 2009 (MDG6), thanks to increased funding and expanded programmes.Some 1.1 billion people in urban areas and 723 million people in rural areas gained access toimproved drinking water sources during 1990-2008 (MDG7).

What has worked?Trends over the past 40 years document significant improvements in human development, especiallyamongst the poorest countries (Box 1, page 6). Countries in the lowest 25 percent of the humandevelopment index rankings improved their overall HDI by 82 percent over the period—twice the globalaverage. Since 1990 (the baseline against which progress toward attaining the Millennium DevelopmentGoals is measured), hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. The world is withinreach of seeing every child enrolled in primary school. Fewer lives are being lost to hunger and disease.The world overall is healthier, wealthier, and better educated than ever before.Progress has likewise been made in repairing the ozone layer (Box 2 below), in reducing pollution inmajorriver basins,in reducing technical losses in the use of energy, water, and other natural resources,in expanding the land and coastal regions covered by protected areas, and in extending basic services.

What needs to be done?As important as this progress has been, trends of the past 20 years show that, in many respects,development has not been sustainable—either environmentally or socially.Growth in global output (from US$11 to US$63 trillion, according toIMF data)and population (from 4.6to seven billion people) have placed new demands on the planet—particularly the global commons, themanagement of which can not be left to the invisible hand of the market. The atmosphere’s ability to absorbgreenhouse gases (without significant temperature increases), the oceans’ abilities to generate bionutrients,the world’s forest cover, the earth’s soil nutrients—these are among the common property resources thatare increasingly overtaxed by the march of progress. Local communities—particularly in coastal areas andarid regions—are facing growing threats from floods, droughts and increasing competition for dwindlingresources. Relative prices of food, energy, and many primary products have risen sharply.The world’s ecosystems are under great stress. One fifth of the world’scoral reefshave been damagedbeyond repair. Desertification in regions such as the Sahel threatens livelihoods in thedrylands,whichare home to a third of the world’s people. By 2003, nearly a third of theworld’s fisherieshad collapsed.The social dimension of sustainable development is a mixed picture. Despite the progress made inachieving theMDGs,results have been uneven within and between countries, and there are still too many people being leftbehind. Progress tends to bypass those who are lowest on the economic ladder or are otherwise disadvantagedbecause of their sex, age, disability or ethnicity. Disparities between urban and rural areas remain daunting.In 2009, nearly a quarter of thechildren in the developing worldwere underweight, with the poorestchildren most affected. Children from the poorest households in the developing world are more thantwice as likely to die before their fifth birthday as children in the richest households. RecentUNICEFresearchfinds that some four million young children die each year—more than 10,000 per day—due tohunger, malnutrition, and unsafe drinking water.Some 1.5 billion people do not haveaccess to reliable electricity services;some 2.4 billion do nothave reliableaccess to modern heating and cooking technologies.Approximately 900 million peoplelackaccess to safe water,and nearly three billion lack access to modern sanitation systems. The socio-economic consequences of inadequate access to improved water and sanitation services are substantial.Annual GDP losses associated with inadequate access to water have been assessed at 6.4 percent, 5.2percent, and 7.2 percent inIndia, Ghana, and Cambodia,respectively.Harsh gender-based inequalities persist in many societies, despite evidence showing a positive correlationbetween closing gender gaps and more favourable development outcomes. Women lack access to land,property and inheritance rights in large parts of the world, violence is a brutal reality for millions of womenand girls in many countries, women’s access to basic reproductive health services is too often denied, andin many developing countries girls continue to lag behind boys in school enrollment and completion.Despite much progress since theWorld Conference on Womenin Beijing in 1995, women continue to bepoorly represented within the public service, in particular in leadership and decision-making positions.

Children who are poor, female, or living in a conflict zone are less likely to be in school. Worldwide, amongchildren of primary school age not enrolled in school, 42 percent—28 million—live in poorcountriesaffected by conflict.As we have witnessed again and again the last 20 years, conflict is an absoluteshowstopper for sustainable development. Successful conflict prevention and peacebuilding areprerequisites for development progress. A balanced and holistic sustainable development agenda is themost effective approach to preventing conflict and securing peace.Poverty, demographic pressures, and access to basic services have traditionally been seen as predominantlyrural problems. This may now be changing. A recent World Bank study finds that, as of 2010, the majorityof the world’s population was living in cities. According to the Making Cities Work initiative, the world’spopulation by 2050 will grow by an additional 2.2 billion people—2.1 billion of whom will be born incities, and 2.0 billion of whom will be born in theworld’s poorest cities.The development challenges of the future will therefore increasingly wear an urban face. Rapid, unplannedurbanization is already producing new and exacerbating some old social problems. Violent crime in urbanareas is one of these, particularly among youth living in informal peri-urban settlements facing uncertainemployment prospects in the formal economy.Recent UNDP researchdescribes and analyzes disturbingincreases in violent crime in the Caribbean: during 1990-2010, for example, the homicide rate (per 100,000population) in Jamaica rose from 21 to 51; in Trinidad and Tobago it rose from 5 to 35. Rural developmentprospects continue to be challenging: many communities suffer from underinvestment in agriculture,energy and transport infrastructure, increased competition for land, water and other resources, climatechange impacts, and devastation from AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.At least thirty million jobs were lost globally during 2007-2009, and labour markets have yet to fullyrecover from the impact of the global financial crisis. Global unemployment is now estimated at 200million. Another 400 million jobs will be needed to keep up with new labour-market entrants. In addition,900 million workers—around 30 percent of the global labour force—are ‘working poor’, living on lessthan two dollars a day. In many countries, job prospects for the young are at their least favourable in years.Income poverty, gender gaps, unequal access to resources, basic services, and decent work, heightenedexposure to disaster and environmental risks—these all go together. This confluence is not a coincidence:the human costs of environmental degradation and social underdevelopment are born predominantly bythe poor, whose livelihoods and welfare are most closely linked to natural resources and social protection,and who are therefore most likely to bear the social costs of unsustainable environmental practices.The ‘ArabSpring‘shows how these linkages are not academic. Real and perceived social inequities inthis region have interacted with high food prices and governance concerns to create deep-seated socio-political instability, conflict, and crisis—even in upper-middle income countries.

Box 3: Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on sustainabledevelopment, and ‘Rio+20’“We want the word ‘development’ always associated with the term ‘sustainable’. Together with theMillennium Development Goals, we need to set the goals for sustainable development. These goals,including commitments and targets for all countries in the world, should have at its core the fightagainst poverty and inequality, as well as environmental sustainability.In my government, when we talk about sustainable development we mean accelerated growth ofour economy in order to distribute wealth, in order to create formal jobs and to increase the incomeof workers. We mean income distribution to eradicate extreme poverty and to reduce poverty,including public policies to improve education, health, public safety and all public services providedby the Brazilian government. We mean balanced regional growth so as to correct the inequalitybetween the regions in Brazil. We mean creating a vast market of mass consumption goods, whichwill provide the internal support to our development. We mean that Brazil is becoming, and wewill become, a country of middle classes. We mean development with environmental sustainabilityas a prerequisite. Sustainable development also means strengthening social participation anddemocracy, encouraging and defending our values, our culture, and our cultural diversity.We believe that it is possible to grow and to include, to protect and to conserve.Rio+20 will discuss a development model capable of linking growth and job creation, povertyeradication and inequality reduction, social participation and expansion of rights, education andtechnological innovation, sustainable use and preservation of environmental resources.”Taken from an unofficial translation of herspeech delivered to the World Social Forumin Porto Alegre, 26 January2012.

Resetting the agenda:what is needed?The 1992 Rio sustainable development principles offer a vision for combining economic growth withenvironmental and social sustainability. Twenty years later, questions about the implementation of theseprinciples have risen to the fore. As the international community prepares for ‘Rio+20’, and works to definean agreeable outcome, progress towards this vision in six areas is particularly important:1.From MDGs to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): progress towards attaining the MDGs mustbe accelerated and sustained, and the post-2015 global development goals must evolve into SDGs.2.Green is not enough. ‘Triple-win’ policies and programming are the way forward.3.Better governance and capacity development matter.4.Finance for development must be revisited.5.Beyond GDP and the bottom line—new metrics for sustainable development are needed.6.Leveraging knowledge and innovation to deliver results.

Attaining theMillennium Development Goalsis the first step towards a sustainable future—even as theconversation on what the post-2015 development framework should look like begins in earnest.Accelerating progress.During 2010-2011, UNDP together with other UN agencies developed and pilotedtheMDG acceleration frameworkto do just that. This framework has now been deployed in some 30countries, and demand for its use is growing. The framework brings governments, development partners,and other stakeholders together to analyze why—often despite a range of strategies and plans—progresstowards achieving specific MDGs is proceeding too slowly. Bottlenecks and constraints are identified, actionplans to address them are designed and implemented, and the necessary resources are mobilized.Across four countries in the Sahel—Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali—this framework is focusing onMDG1, in terms of food security and nutrition. Priority actions have been identified to widen access toseeds and fertilizer, and decentralize the services that provide them; improve nutrition; expand socialprotection; and enhance the technical know-how of small-scale farmers.Sustaining progress.Progress already achieved toward meeting the Millennium Development Goalscan be set back, if not reversed, by the shocks of disasters, macroeconomic instability, food shortages,or socio-political unrest. Once progress is reversed, the impacts are multiple and can span generations.If instability—and the social and economic unrest it can generate—has become an enduring, systematiccharacteristic of the global economy, then countries must be better prepared for the waves to come. Theyneed to safeguard and sustain progress already made.

For many poor households, the impact of crises depends on what governments do with their budgets: howmuch do they spend to fight the crisis, protect the poorest, and finance progress towards meeting the MDGs?This underscores the need for participation and local solutions as well as direct interventions—such asdeveloping and extending social protection systems, clarifying and strengthening property rights, andthelegal empowerment of the poormore broadly. Such interventions help build societies’ resilience toshocks and sustain MDG progress.Moving towards Sustainable Development Goals.Reaching the Millennium Development Goals willnot automatically shift the world onto a sustainable development trajectory, partially because the MDGsare weaker on environmental concerns. In a number of respects, progress in meeting MDG 7 (‘ensureenvironmental sustainability’) has been relatively modest, in part because of governance shortcomings, inpart because of difficulties with measuring and monitoring progress towards environmental sustainability.More holistic Sustainable Development Goals should therefore evolve from the MDGs, and serve as thebasis for a new, post-2015 development framework.The Sustainable Development Goals should be one set of global development goals that:•••Reflect the entirety of the sustainable development agenda, including the continuing importance ofpoverty reduction;Are universal in character, pertaining to developed and middle-income countries, as well as to low-income and less developed countries; andAddress all three strands of sustainable development in each of the goals.

‘Triple-win’ policies and programming, integrating and finding synergies between social development,economic growth, and environmental sustainability, are the future of development. Many countries arealready implementing programming that integrates the social, environmental, and economic strands ofsustainable development. For example:•The government of India has adopted several rights-based laws to address inequity, protectthe vulnerable, and ensure sustainable development. These include laws to protect the right toeducation and information, national food security legislation, and theMahatma Gandhi NationalRural Employment Guarantee Act.In addition to containing the world’s largest wage guaranteeprogramme—providing employment to approximately 54 million households—this integratedframework reduces food insecurity by conserving water, soil fertility, and biodiversity; it alsosequesters carbon. Almost 50 percent of the programme’s workers are women; 43 percent are fromhistorically disadvantaged groups.

Under Brazil’sBolsa Famíliaprogramme, 11 million households—some 25 percent of the population—receive conditional cash transfers to raise incomes above the poverty line, at a cost of less than onepercent of annual GDP. Recipient households are required to have their children in school and toensure they receive regular medical attention. The imperatives of rural development and protectingthe country’s natural capital are aligned via theBolsa Verdeprogramme, which offers conditional cashtransfers to 73,000 smallholder and indigenous households living in environmentally sensitive areas,who pursue ecologically sustainable livelihoods.South Africa’s ‘Workingfor Water’programme employs 20,000 people per annum, to remove water-intensive alien tree and plant species from local habitats. Since its inception in 1995, the programmehas cleared more than one million hectares of alien plant species, releasing fifty million cubic metersof additional water per annum. Much of this water is used for irrigated agriculture, reducing local foodinsecurity. The programme targets marginalized groups as potential employees: it seeks to ensure that60 percent of its staff are women, 20 percent are youth, and five percent are living with disabilities.Ethiopia’sProductive Safety Net programmehas reached over eight million beneficiaries in 300food-insecure districts, providing cash and predictable food supplies in return for participation inpublic works in such areas as environmental conservation, water management, and terracing. It hasincreased caloric intake by 19 percent among recipient households, and nearly half of beneficiariesreported a greater use of health facilities.In Niger’s southern regions, reforestation based on ‘farmer-managednatural regeneration’,and supportedby local communities, has reforested five million hectares (about four percent of the country’s land area),with the affected areas benefitting from rapidly growing parkland in forest and vegetation cover density.These efforts increased cereal yields by 100 kilograms per hectare in 2009, improving livelihoods and foodsecurity for some 2.5 million people. The primary beneficiaries have been residents of rural communities,with particular attention to vulnerable communities and indigenous people.

Sustainable energy for all.Energy offers clear opportunities for better integrating the three strands ofsustainable development. By expanding access to sustainable energy supplies, progress can be advancedalong all three dimensions:•Economic: billions of under-served consumers can be brought into the global market place, andbusiness- and employment creation could accelerate—particularly in rural areas, where such energysupplies are most likely to be lacking.Social: women and children can be liberated from the drudgery of gathering biomass for fuel; healthand education could be improved by reducing indoor pollution from poorly designed stoves, and byproviding health clinics and schools with the heat and power needed for uninterrupted service delivery.Environmental: deforestation, and the emissions created by burning soft coal and biomass thatcontribute to climate change, could be reduced.

The sustainable development potential of this initiative is illustrated by Nepal’sRural Energy DevelopmentProgramme.Since its introduction in 1996, this programme has brought decentralized renewable energyservices to some one million people living in the most remote parts of the country. It has provided reliable,low-cost electricity to rural communities via the construction of micro hydropower stations, and hasraised living standards. Average incomes in beneficiary households have increased due to improvementsin electricity access, while average annual household spending on energy fell to US$19 compared toUS$41 spent by non-electrified households.As of 2010, the programme had connected 59,000 households to micro hydropower installations, constructed317 new micro hydropower plants (with 5.7 megawatts of installed capacity), and installed nearly 15,000improved cooking stoves, 7,000 toilet-attached biogas plants, and 3,200 solar home heating systems.

Effective lawmaking, oversight, and representation—the three chief functions of parliaments—along with accessto justice, are fundamental to ensuring that all branches of government are accountable and transparent beforethe public. Parliaments can be powerful agents of change for sustainable development. But they often needstrengthened capacity, whether to legislate for sustainable development or to promote institutional reform.Decentralization, local and inclusive governance, and social mobilization are needed for empowered citizensto ‘think globally while acting locally’. The transformations now taking place in the Arab world illustrate thispoint. There, people have come out onto the street to express their desire for dignity, opportunity, andjustice alongside a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their lives, and an end to corruption, abuseand repression. They remind us that, to be sustainable, development must provide for human rights, justice,the rule of law, accountability, equity and—crucially—gender equality and women’s empowerment.Democratic governance cannot be fully achieved without the participation of women at all levels. This isnot only a good in itself; there is also growing evidence that greater participation of women in institutionsincreases responsiveness to women’s priorities and needs and in determining the manner in whichservices are provided.Governance: the glue that holds sustainable development together.In the words of the SecretaryGeneral’s High Level Global Sustainability Panel: “democratic governance and full respect for humanrights are key pre-requisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices”. Seen in this light,governance serves as the glue that binds together efforts to more closely integrate the three strands ofsocial, economic, and environmental development in policy and in practice.

This is particularly true when it comes to:•Clear land and natural resource rights for local communities,to generate incomes and jobs, strengthenlocal incentives to sustainably manage the resources on which local livelihoods depend, and helpensure equity of such rights between women and men. UNDP’sLegal Empowerment of the Poorinitiative offers many good examples of what can be done in this respect.Institutional capacityto design and implement integrated development policies and programmesthat address all three sustainable development strands; and which benefit from partnershipsbetween central and local governments, private companies, civil society organizations, andinternational organizations. Creating this institutional capacity often requires a combination of publicadministration reforms—structural reviews, civil service reform, use of e-governance tools, finding theright balance of decentralization, deconcentration, and centralization—and ‘collaborative’ capacitydevelopment initiatives, emphasizing the expansion of capacities for brokerage, partnerships, andnetwork development and management.Social programmingthat integrates social protection with social service provision, environmentalprotection, and crisis prevention and recovery; that improves access to energy, water, sanitation andother basic services; and which protects the poor and vulnerable by taking rights-based approachesthat reflect the global conventions and the UN’s universal values.

For example, growing numbers of large metropolitan areas are moving towardssmart growthin cities,which also offers an abundance of opportunities for grass-roots innovation and creating pro-poor greeneconomies—as envisioned byAgenda 21at Rio in 1992. Important public investment—and income-and employment-generation—opportunities are presentinter aliain the construction, refurbishing, andmanagement of public infrastructure and programming, whether for energy-efficient buildings and masstransit systems, or for urban agriculture to help address urban poverty and hunger.For many smaller cities, taking advantage of these opportunities requires significant investments incapacity development. This is particularly true for improving governance and financial managementsystems (interaliathrough public-private partnerships), and engaging with, and responding to the needsof, poor and vulnerable households and communities, including women, migrants, and the residents ofinformal settlements.Principles for ‘triple-win’ policies and programming.The country case studies below show thatsustainable development happens at country—often at the community—level. Better support is thereforeneeded for efforts to develop ‘triple-win’ policies and programming that integrate the three strands ofsustainable development, while at the same time strengthening coordination across and between allactors for increased effectiveness.Certain principles should underline all ‘triple-win’ policy and programming if sustainable development isto be realized. The focus should be on:•Strengthening inter-ministerial coordination,including via the lead of high level government officeswith appropriate institutional capacity and authority in development policy. As the UN SecretaryGeneral’s High Level Global Sustainability recommends, governments should adopt whole-of-government approaches under the leadership of the head of state or government, and involvingall relevant ministries, in order to address issues across sectors and improve policy coherence.Governments and parliaments should incorporate the sustainable development perspective intotheir strategies, their legislation and, in particular, their budget processes.

Box 4: Mechanisms for policy coherenceOptions for improving policy coherence—allowing governments to break silos and better integratethe three strands of sustainable development—include the following:•Institutions:High-level coordination bodies, either within the state—such as India’s PlanningCommission, China’s National Development and Reform Commission, and South Africa’sNational Planning Commission—or of a multisectoral nature, such as Barbados’s SocialPartnership initiative (which brings together ministers, employers, and trade unions to addressmajor economic, social and environmental challenges under the leadership of the PrimeMinister).Instruments:National sustainable development plans and strategies, which:–––––––seek to integrate the three strands of sustainable development;are championed by the head of state or government;receive broad political support in parliament;bring together all relevant stakeholders (sub-national governments, private sector, civilsociety);have time frames that are long enough to address development challenges, but shortenough to influence behavior today;are aligned with national budgets, sectoral development programmes, and donor activities;andcontain monitorable indicators for assessing progress toward meeting strategic objectives.

Ensure meaningful participationof the private sector, representatives of parliaments and sub-nationalgovernments, and civil society actors—particularly those representing vulnerable groups, includingwomen, children, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, people living with disabilities or HIV andAIDS, or low-skilled workers.Be informed by the latest global and local scientific data and knowledge,with carefully designedaccountability and regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms.Raise public awarenessabout the links between governance, poverty reduction, gender equality,and environmental sustainability—possibly through the global application of the environmentalgovernance principles of theAarhus Convention.Promote resilience to crisis and shocks,regardless of whether they are associated with disasters,macroeconomic instability, high food or energy prices, or armed conflict. More accurate targeting of

social assistance, the expansion of crop insurance, and better use of early warning systems can boostresilience among vulnerable households, helping them to invest in their future and take moderaterisks, and ultimately drive productivity gains and inclusive growth.Global governance.Addressing governance at theglobal levelis also important. This could meanimproving the functioning of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, possibly by turning theCommission on Sustainable Development into a Sustainable Development Council. It could also mean thepossible introduction of a voluntary sustainable development peer review mechanism or a periodicglobalsustainable development outlookreport, to monitor progress and encourage development coherence.So far, however, the discussion of how governments can more strongly bring together the three strandsof sustainable development and drive implementation at the national and sub-national level, is lessconcrete. This is an area in which the United Nations has a wealth of accumulated experience, and canplay a critical role in supporting countries in accelerating progress towards sustainable development.‘Rio+20’ provides an opportunity to strengthen UN Country Teams and the Resident Coordinator systemto bring support and services from across the UN system to programme countries in a way that canfacilitate integrated action across the three strands of sustainable development.

Financing for sustainable development needs to increase. At the same time, fiscal tensions inOECD-DACcountriesare squeezing the fiscal space for traditional development cooperation. While overall globalaid spending hit its highest level ever in 2010, a near-term decline in OECD-DAC aid flows seems likely.Longer term, estimates of the volume and shape of other forms of development assistance (e.g., climatefinance) face considerable uncertainty.The costs of shifting towards a sustainable future are real, however. A relatively low estimate of the totalannual climate change mitigation and adaptation costs through 2030 is US$249 billion, for example; andthis addresses only one threat (global warming) to the global environmental commons. By contrast, officialdevelopment assistance (ODA) constitutes a relatively small pool of finance, at approximately US$130 billionannually. Most of the investments in regenerating the global commons will therefore be owned, managed,and financed, by the private sector. Helping create the appropriate enabling environment, to direct theseflows—ODA, domestically available public finance, other sources—to the projects where they can deliverthe largest transformational impact, is a critically important task for the public sector. No less important,however, is the need to ensure that the public funds that are available to support national transitions tosustainable development are able to leverage and catalyze larger pools of private finance.A number of possible new public financing mechanisms merit serious consideration.Tobin taxes—leviesonfinancial transactions with which financial market instability or other negative externalities may be associated—are one such category. Thanks in part to recent changes in the payments systems for foreign exchangetransactions, UNDP’s 2011 ‘’Sustainabilityand Equity: A Better Future for All’Human Development Reportfoundthat a 0.005 percent tax on foreign exchange transactions would yield some US$40 billion annually.There are other options:•Governments spend nearly US$1 trillion annually onenvironmentally unsustainable subsidies,including for fossil fuel production. Abolishing or curtailing such subsidies would promote botheconomic and environmental sustainability. The savings could finance investments in sustainabledevelopment—including in social protection to shield those most vulnerable to higher energyprices, as well as in expanding clean and renewable energy solutions.

In theprivate sector,important progress has been made in corporate social responsibility duringthe past two decades. The private sector is the driver of economic growth and highly responsive toincentives provided by all levels of government. ‘Triple wins’ will invigorate the private sector and multiplydevelopment gains. However, further steps are needed—particularly in terms of:•moving toward standardized ‘triple bottom line’ corporate reporting frameworks that can monitorthe links between commercial behavior and sustainable development, reflecting social andenvironmental, as well as financial criteria;requirements that all publicly traded companies regularly report on their social and environmental(as well as financial) sustainability; and that key financial data be reported on a country-by-countrybasis, in all jurisdictions in which companies operate, in order to improve the quality of informationabout global development finance and reduce illicit financial flows.

The case studies below point to many successful examples of sustainable development. Importantlessons have been learned from both the successes and the mistakes made in the process. But the hard-won benefits produced are typically isolated, even though their broader application could produceexponential benefits and contribute vital ideas to the evolution of sustainable development.As the section on governance and capacity above points out, one of the principles that should underpinall ‘triple-win’ decisions is that they should beinformed by the latest global and local scientific data andknowledge.National transitions to sustainable development should be based on relevant innovation,knowledge, capacity, and experience from around the world, leveraging south-south and other forms ofcooperation for increasingly effective development results.As ‘Rio+20’ approaches, a globally recognized home for this function—a Global Centre for SustainableDevelopment—should be found. Such a Centre could catalyze innovation, act as a repository ofinitiatives, a global knowledge-sharing platform, and an analytical hub, as well as broker links betweenthe demand for, and supply of, sustainable development initiatives. It could promote collaborative andinterdisciplinary research and create linkages across researchers, policy-makers, and the private sector;and identify, disseminate, and scale-up successful models.There is a clear need for organizations with the mandate and capability to gather information on theseinitiatives, analyze their effectiveness and political feasibility, and broker their adoption throughout theworld. While global centers exist for green growth, inclusive growth, and social innovation, they do notsystematically pull the green, the social, and the economic together into coherent frameworks, analysis,and actionable policies.

On the ground in more than 177 countries and territories, UNDP since 1966 has been partnering withpeople in all walks of society to help empower lives and build resilient nations. As the UN agency witha mandate to promote democratic governance, UNDP encourages transformational change to helpcountries move towards a sustainable future. It does so with particular experience and expertise in howto build and strengthen institutional capacity.UNDP’s track record in supporting sustainable development is reflected in its mandated expertise in eachstrand of development—and in its ability to see across and integrate all three strands. The UNDP-UNEPPoverty-Environment Initiativeis an example of how this can take place (see Box 5). At the national level,this work takes place within the framework of the UN Resident Coordinator system and its conveningpower—ideally under a ‘One UN’ framework.In particular, UNDP promotes sustainable development through supporting:•inclusive and sustainable growth,advancing economic opportunities via equitable access to socialservices, protecting the environment and embracing low-emission, climate resilient development;anddemocratic governance for inclusion, resilience and peace,advancing equality, the rule of law,human rights, and accountable, effective institutions in times of stability and of crisis, with theparticipation of all peoples—including women, girls, youth and marginalized groups—in politicaltransitions and processes.

Box 5: TheUNDP-UNEP Poverty and Environment InitiativeThe Poverty-Environment Initiative is a UN-led global programme that supports country effortsto reduce poverty by strengthening environmental sustainability—and vice versa. It focuses inparticular on ensuring that poverty-environment linkages are appropriately reflected in national andlocal development planning, from policy-making to budgeting, implementation and monitoring.The Poverty-Environment Initiative:•••••was launched in 2005 and significantly scaled-up in 2007;is funded by the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States of America, and by the European Union;works inAfrica, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia,andLatin America and theCaribbean;has full programmes in seventeen countries, and is providing advisory services in a number ofothers; andprovides supra-national support for ‘Deliveringas One’and other measures to increase theUN’s development effectiveness at the national level, in the areas of poverty reduction andenvironmental sustainability.

‘Rio+20’ can make a differenceWith a global population of seven billion and expected growth of a further two billion by 2050, there isno time to lose in securing a sustainable future. ‘Rio+20’ offers a timely moment for politicians, policy-makers, the private sector, experts, and civil society and advocacy groups to revisit the premise of currentdevelopment models and see what works, why, and where we can and must do better.It offers a moment to set a course of enlarging people’s freedom, opportunty, and choice to lead lives theyvalue, while safeguarding the natural environment for generations to come.For this to happen, silos must be broken down, institutions strengthened, capacities developed, policiesadjusted, markets developed, and democratic governance fortified.Most importantly, behavior must change.We know why. This report illustrates how. ‘Rio+20’ should help the world answer when.

Case studies of sustainabledevelopment in practiceProgress towards sustainable development does not happen in the abstract; it occurs with the contextof individual countries, sectors, and communities. Useful explanations of how sustainable developmentis done must therefore be based on descriptions of concrete policies and programmes that integrate theeconomic, social, and environmental strands and then scale up these activities for broader impact.Eight such case studies are briefly presented in the pages below. The countries profiled come from variousregions (Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa) and from contrasting developing countries and emergingeconomies—Bhutan, Brazil, Croatia, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, and South Africa. Many of theprogrammes and policies profiled have strong sectoral characteristics (e.g., ‘energy’, ‘water’, ‘inclusivefinance’, or ‘food security’). However, all these case studies satisfy two criteria:•Irrespective of their sectoral origins, the programmes described have integrated the economic, social,and environmental strands of sustainable development in a meaningful way—they have generated‘triple wins’; andThe programmes have been scaled up, creating national impact.

Country context.The world’s fifth largest country by territory and seventh largest by GDP, Brazil hasabundant natural, human, and economic resources. Like many developing countries, Brazil during the pasttwo decades has enjoyed rapid economic growth: per-capita GDP increased by nearly 50 percent during1992-2011. Nonetheless, Brazil has historically faced a number of grave social challenges, including highlevels of income inequality and social exclusion, large regional disparities, and lack of universal accessto basic social services. The Amazon rain forest and other components of Brazil’s biodiversity have comeunder growing threats.Fortunately, Brazil during the past two decades has made great progress in combining economic growthwith significant social gains, while moving to strengthen the protection of its natural capital. In additionto rapid GDP growth, Brazil during the past two decades has benefitted from:••••••Large declines in income poverty;Reductions in income inequality;Achieving near universal access to basic energy services;Very high (by international standards) shares of renewables in electricity generation;Important social policy innovations; andThe rapid expansion of forests in the Amazon basin that are included in protected areas.

These developments did not happen by accident: they result from measures taken by the Braziliangovernment—and supported by civil society and the private sector—to achieve sustainable and inclusivegrowth, to address the economic, social and environmental strands of sustainable development in anintegrated manner. Brazil’s experience shows that rapid progress in national transitions to sustainabledevelopment is possible.Reductions in income poverty and inequality.Internationally comparableWorld Bank datashowrates of income poverty and extreme income poverty (measured against daily per-capita thresholds ofUS$2 and US$1.25, respectively) dropping sharply during the 1993-2009 period (Chart 1). Thanks to thisprogress, the numbers of people living in poverty dropped by more than half (from 45 to 21 million forincome poverty; from 26 to 12 million for extreme income poverty) during this time. While economicgrowth certainly contributed to this result, a very important role was played by reductions in inequality:the Gini coefficient for income inequality, which was close to .61 in 1993, had dropped to under .55 by2009 (Chart 2). In contrast to many developing and developed countries, Brazil has managed to make itseconomic growth increasingly inclusive.

Because income inequality in Brazil fell during 2008-2009, severe income poverty continued to declineeven during the global financial crisis (Brazil’s GDP shrank in 2009). Brazil was thus able to shield manyof the most vulnerable households from the effects of the crisis. On the other hand, Brazil’s levels ofincome inequality remain among the world’s highest, and reflect continuing challenges of poverty, socialexclusion, and regional disparities.2010 census dataindicate that the extremely poor are concentratedin rural areas and in the Northeast region, are disproportionately young, and mostly of African descent.Many are illiterate.These reductions in income poverty and inequality have been matched by important progress inalleviating non-income poverty:••••••Theunder-five mortality ratedeclined from 59 in 1990 to 19 in 2010 (per 1000 live births);Theinfant mortality ratedropped from 50 in 1990 to 17 in 2010 (per 1000 live births);Thematernal mortality ratefell from 120 in 1990 to 58 in 2008 (per 100,000 live births);The share of the population suffering frommalnutritiondropped from 11 percent in 1991 to 6 percentin 2007;The share of the population withaccess to safe drinkingwater increased from 89 percent in 1990 to98 percent in 2010; andThe share of the population withaccess to improved sanitation facilitiesrose from 68 percent in 1990to 79 percent in 2010.

These trends reflect the fact that Brazil has invested heavily in social as well as economic development.Believing that poverty is a multi-dimensional problem that goes well beyond the lack of income, thegovernment has designed and implemented a number of integrated programmes for social protection,extension of basic services, and food security that have helped break vicious circles of social exclusion,lack of opportunity, low incomes, and poor health.Launched in October 2003, theBolsa Família(FamilyBenefit)programmehas become the Government’sflagship social protection initiative. UnderBolsa Família,four different cash transfer programmes, whichhad previously been operated by separate ministries, were merged. Byconditioning cash transfersonbeneficiary compliance with requirements for school attendance, vaccinations, and pre-natal visits,BolsaFamíliaincreases poor household use of basic services while also strengthening their human capital—both of which are essential to escaping from poverty.Complementary initiativesthat are administeredfor beneficiary households include programmes for literacy, vocational training, microcredits (for smallfarmers), and theBolsa Verdegreen benefits programme (see below).A large body of evidence indicates that a significant share of the reductions in poverty and inequalitymentioned above can be attributed, in part, toBolsa Família.For example:•Bolsa Famíliahas been taken to scale: more than13 million households(covering nearly 30 percent of thepopulation) receive benefits under this programme. Depending on per-capita income and the number andage of children in the household,monthly benefitsreceived under this programme can range from US$55 toUS$530 per family. These benefits are rather large vis-à-vis the extreme poverty line at US$120 per householdmember (which is above the international poverty threshold of PPP US$1.25 per day). That is,Bolsa Famíliaprovides relatively large benefits for relatively large numbers of vulnerable households.

Bolsa Família’ssuccesses reflect in part Brazil’s long experience with conditional cash transfers. It was the firstsuch programme to be introduced in Latin America (in 1985), and has had an impact on the global expansionof conditional cash transfer programmes. It also reflects the importance of partnerships with civil societyorganizations, which help the government to reach out to vulnerable households and communities. This hasallowed the government to undertake a number of steps toimproveBolsa Família’stargeting accuracyover time.These include:•••Developing the appropriate division of responsibilities for managing the programme across thenational government, states, districts, and municipalities in Brazil’s decentralized context;Improving the quality of the information in thenational beneficiary registry(in which 19 millionfamilies are currently included); andImproving cross-ministerial monitoring of beneficiary compliance with programme conditionalities,and of integration with other complementary programmes.

Bolsa Família’s‘infrastructure’ also facilitates the implementation of other targeted programmes. Forinstance, the debit card through which payments are made to beneficiaries is also being used for makingpayments to beneficiaries under complementary programmes. As a result of this targeting accuracy andmanagerial economies,Bolsa Família’sfiscal implications have been kept at relatively moderate levels.UNDP researchfinds that, in 2009, the programme absorbed only about 0.9 percent of total publicspending, about 0.35 percent of GDP.As part of theBrasil Sem Miseria(BrazilWithout Poverty)social programme launched by President DilmaRousseff in 2011, the government is now extending (by 2013)Bolsa Famíliato over 800,000 families thathave the right to the benefits, but have not yet taken them up. To increase the efficiency in fighting extremepoverty and protecting children, the number of eligible beneficiary children per household will be increasedfrom three to five. This expansion will allow for the extension of coverage to 1.3 million additional childrenand adolescents whose families comply with programme conditionalities for keeping them in school andin good health. Currently, 40 percent of the population living in extreme poverty is under 14 years of age.Fome Zero.When former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (‘Lula’) started his first term inJanuary 2003, he designated the eradication of hunger as one of his top priorities—famously statingin his inauguration speech that, if at the end of his term, every Brazilian will have three meals a day, hewould have accomplished his life’s mission. TheFome Zero(Zero Hunger) food security initiative, whichwas launched in 2003, was intended to do just this. Together withBolsa Famíliaand support for familyagriculture through the state food procurement programme (Programade Aquisi§ão de Alimentos), FomeZerois widely credited with raising the income of the poorest families in Brazil, improving child health, andreducing the scale ofmalnourishment.This helped make possible the inclusion of theright to adequatefoodin the Brazilian constitution in February 2010.Recognizing that eradicating hunger requires a comprehensive, multi-sectoral response,Fome Zerofocuses both on the demand side of food security issues—via cash transfers (e.g., underBolsa Família),targeted food deliveries (for vulnerable households and groups such as indigenous peoples and schoolchildren), and access to information—and on the supply side,inter aliavia support of food productionfrom small-scale and family farmers.

Luz Para Todos.Launched in November 2003, theLuz Para Todos(Lightfor All)rural electrificationprogramme is allowing the Brazilian government to realize the promise of universal access to electricity.The programme envisionsachieving universal access to electricityin rural areas by December 2015.As ofDecember 2011,Luz Para Todoshad provided access to electricity to 2.9 million families (around14.5 million people) who had not had light in their homes prior to the programme’s initiation. About 49percent of those who acquired access to electricity for the first time were located in Brazil’s poorest region,the Northeast. Many of these households benefit from access to off-grid electricity supplies, in the formof small diesel generators.Coordinated by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and operated by the Eletrobrás power utility,Luz ParaTodosreflects the constitutional obligation for service providers to offer universal access to electricityservices in rural areas. Substantial federal and state subsidies are paid to service providers, to make up thedifference between the low tariffs paid by low-income and rural households and cost-recovery levels. Bymaking possible the supply of power where none was available before, these subsidies have given ruralhouseholds new income-generating opportunities,inter aliavia the expanded use of electric equipment.According to Eletrobrás, some300,000 jobshave been generated, directly and indirectly, byLuz Para Todos.By providing access to electricity, the programme improves rural living standards and helps to limit out-migration to urban areas. Also, reliable electricity supplies facilitate the provision of better quality health,education, water supply, sanitation, and other social services, particularly in rural areas. Agovernmentsurvey(published in December 2011) found that 88 percent of recently connected families indicate thattheir housing conditions have improved; 36 percent reported that their family incomes have increased;and 41 percent reported increasing the time spent on learning and studies (at nighttime).Água Para Todos.Brazil has made important progress during the past two decades in reducing thenumbers of households without access to improved water or sanitation facilities. Nonetheless, as of 2010,21 percent of the population did not have access to the latter; 2 percent did not have access to the former.Launched in July 2011 as part of theBrasil Sem Misériapoverty eradication initiative, theÁgua Para Todos(Waterfor All)programme seeks to close these gaps, in terms of water for household use and for irrigatedfood production. Families living in extreme poverty, and which are registered in the national beneficiaryregistry, are eligible for support under this programme. As of November 2011, the construction of140,000cisternshad been contracted. This is to expand to the deployment of 750,000 cisterns (and 6,000 simplifiedwater supply systems) for household water consumption by 2014. In order to expandopportunities forsmallholder farmers,3,000 dams for the accumulation of rainwater, 150,000 production cisterns, and20,000 small irrigation systems are to be constructed.TheBolsa VerdeEnvironmental Conservation Support programme was launched in October 2011, within theframework of theBrasil Sem Misériapoverty eradication initiative.Bolsa Verdeencourages families living in extremepoverty in or near Brazil’s protected areas to pursue environmentally sustainable livelihoods. In exchange forquarterly paymentsof some US$520 over a two-year period (which can be extended) andtraining in forestrymanagement,programme beneficiaries commit to abstain from illegal logging and poaching.Bolsa Verdebuilds on and expands theBolsa Floresta(ForestBenefit)programme, which is reported to havereached 35,000 familiesin the Amazonas state since 2007. By 2014, Bolsa Verde is to provide benefits tonearly73,000 smallholder familiesand other traditional communities living in national forests, protectedareas, and other settlements that contain important forest resources. Transfers of compensation paymentsunderBolsa Verde,which is managed by the Ministry of Environment, are made on the basis ofBolsa Famíliaregistration cards. Programme compliance is further monitored by satellite coverage, as well as via site visits.Protected areas and deforestation.The importance ofBolsa Verdeis linked to the ambitious growth inBrazil’s protected areas. Some 709,000 square kilometers of Amazon forest were included in theAmazon

Protected Areas Programmeas newly established protected areas during 2002-2009, bringing the totalcoverage up to some 2.2 million square kilometers—44 percent of the Amazon region (or26 percent ofBrazil’s territory).One fifth of Brazil’s forest area is nowincluded in protected areas.The government’saction plan to manage deforestation in the Amazon, which was launched in 2003, seems to have helpedto slow thenet loss of forest cover(see Chart 3 above).Recent Brazilian researchindicates that 37 percentof the decline in deforestation recorded during 2004-2006 in the Amazon can be attributed to newlyestablished protected areas. Moreover, in December 2008, former President Lula called for a73 percentreduction in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforestby 2018.The considerable slowdown in the pace of deforestation over the past seven years (see Chart 3 above)is an impressive achievement, especially since it has been accompanied by strong economic growth.However, it is reported that economic pressures continue to reduce forest cover, both within and outsideof protected areas.Large illegal road networkshave penetrated many of these areas, facilitating illicitlogging. So while the pace of deforestation seems to have slowed in recent years, Brazil is not (yet) amongthe developing countries that have recently recorded net gains in forest cover.It remains to be seen whether, as a new programme for preserving the environment by supportinglivelihoods,Bolsa Verde’srelatively modest financial resources can stand up to these commercial pressures.However, while the benefits paid out under Bolsa Verde may be too small to challenge the financial pull ofthe timber sector, they could be large enough to attract migrants to the protected areas—many of whichseek to shield traditional and indigenous cultures fromdisruptive outside influences.Strengtheningincentives for Bolsa Verde recipients to engage in reforestation activities could help reverse the continuingreduction in Brazil’s forest cover.

Sustainable energy and climate change.Brazil benefits extensively fromrenewable energytechnologies—principallyhydro power for electricity generation and ethanol-based biofuels for transport.In 2009,hydropower—chieflyfrom large dams—accounted for 84 percent of all electricity generation. Inmany respects, this is a very impressive accomplishment.In order to improve electricity access in underserved rural areas, as well as prepare for growth in overallelectricity demand without increasing reliance on fossil fuels, Brazil is now considering theconstructionof additional dams.This could pose a number of risks:••Threats to biodiversity and indigenous livelihoods could result from further large changes in river basins.Virtually all of Brazil’s hydropower is transmitted by thenational electricity grid.However, the gridhas not yet been fully extended to remote areas in the Amazon basin. In many of these locations,decentralized supply alternatives—mainly smalldiesel generators—areused. These solutions are notwithout theirproblems—powergeneration costs are high (due to high costs of fuel and transportation)and service is often weak. On the other hand, the high costs of extending the electricity transmission anddistribution infrastructure to these areas would not be reduced by the construction of new large dams.The construction of large dams has been shown in some cases to result in significant increases ingreenhouse gas emissions—particularly in tropical areas, where large amounts of flora and fauna areflooded (both during and after the dams’ construction), and release significant quantities of methaneas they decay. Some of the dams that have already been constructed in Brazil have generatedsurprisingly large quantities ofmethane gas emissions—whoseglobal warming characteristics areconsiderably more aggressive than those of carbon dioxide.The reliance on hydropower makes the country’s energy balance vulnerable to shortages duringperiods of dry weather. Water rationing for households and businesses had to be introduced duringa prolongeddrought in 2001.Drought could become more frequent withclimate change,reducingBrazil’s hydropower generation capacity.Many of Brazil’s hydropower generating facilities—including the Itaipu dam (the country’s largest)on the Parana River on the border with Paraguay—are located far from the main centers of electricitydemand. Relatively large transmission and distributionlossescan result.

In light of these challenges, it remains to be seen how Brazil will reconcile expected increases in energydemand (estimated at 5 percent annually) and environmental conservation going forward.Brazil has been a pioneer in large-scale biofuel production. The United States and Brazil togetheraccount for more than 80 percent ofglobal ethanol output.However, in contrast to the US’s corn-basedtechnologies, Brazil produces ethanol from sugarcane—which is more commercially and environmentallysustainable (interaliarequiring fewer subsidies). Distilling ethanol from sugarcane is less land-intensiveanduses less fossil fuelthan distilling ethanol from corn; theenergy yieldof sugarcane-based ethanol is4-6 times greater than the yield of corn-based ethanol.Brazil’s production of ethanol from sugarcane began with the launch of the National Alcohol Programme(Proálcool) in 1975.Proálcoolpaved the way for new commercial uses of sugarcane-based ethanol, oneof which was for use as motor vehicle fuel. Most of Brazil’s cars today run on afuel mixturethat contains18-25 percent ethanol. So while ethanol accounts for only 8 percent of gasoline consumption in theUnited States, it comprises over half of gasoline consumption in Brazil. The use of sugarcane ethanol isreported to havereduced Brazil’s energy-related greenhouse emissionsby some 7 percent since 1975.Moreover, significant volumes of Brazilian ethanol are exported.

The programme’s successes have been made possible by feedstock (sugarcane) availability, a supportivepolicy environment, and improvements in the efficiency of sugarcane and ethanol production. Until1999, sugarcane cultivation was stimulated by government price supports and production and marketingquotas. Ethanol demand was boosted by legislation on fuel blending targets, and via subsidies to theBrazilian automobile industry to accelerate the more efficient use of ethanol.Going forward, Brazil faces challenges of:••Meeting growing domestic demand for ethanol while also maintaining its position as a major supplieron world ethanol markets (which are also growing rapidly); while alsoMitigating the impact of growing:––Sugarcane production on the cost of land and other agricultural inputs—which could work atcross purposes with Brazil’s food security policies; as well asAllocations of land for sugarcane and food production on Brazil’s forests, which are alreadysuffering from the effects of deforestation.

Efficiency gains through technological improvements, such as crop rotation and greater use of sugarcaneresidues to generate electricity and feed cattle, are expected to ameliorate some of these tradeoffs. In themeanwhile, production ofhydrocarbonsin Brazil continues to rise, reaching 768 million barrels of oil and24 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2011.Although under no formal international obligation to do so, Brazil in 2010 passedlegislation to reducegreenhouse gas emissionsby 36-39 percent 2020. The National Plan on Climate Change calls for thefurther expansion of Brazil’s hydroelectric capacity, the continuation of the national ethanol programme,and the introduction of alow-carbon agricultural developmentprogramme.Conclusion.Brazil continues to face important challenges in eradicating poverty, reducing inequalityand social exclusion, broadening access to social services, addressing the nutritional needs of a growingand more prosperous population, and in balancing the imperatives of energy and food production withenvironmental conservation and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and traditional communities.Nonetheless, impressive progress in meeting these challenges has clearly been made in recent years.Brazil’s experience shows that, with a political commitment to sustainable, equitable, people-centeredpolicies and programming, and through the coordination of many government agencies (in partnershipwith the private sector and civil society) to simultaneously address the multiple dimensions of poverty,rapid movement toward sustainable development is indeed possible. These are lessons that othercountries—in the North as well as in the South—could take to heart.

Croatia: energy efficiencyCountry context.To the millions of tourists who frequent its scenic Adriatic coastline and beachesevery year, Croatia seems to be well on its way to capturing the promises of sustainable developmentand the green economy. However, there is another side of Croatia that the tourists may not see: largeinefficiencies in energy use—particularly from public sector buildings, many of which were constructedunder Yugoslav socialism when heat and electricity tariffs were held below cost-recovery levels. Energyimports contribute to the trade deficit that keep the kuna under pressure and slowed Croatia’s recoveryfrom the global financial crisis during 2010-2011.In order to respond to global and European economic competition (Croatia is on course to join theEuropean Union in 2013), it faces the imperative of reducing inefficient energy use, particularly inthe public sector. As is the case in many countries emerging from state socialism, energy use remainswasteful: per unit of GDP, Croatia consumes 12 percent more energy than the European Union average.This brief case study describes how—with assistance from UNDP and the Global Environment Facility(GEF)—Croatia is doing this. It also describes how Croatia’s energy efficiency programme is not limitedto economic or environmental dimensions: it also has important social and governance components.Thanks to this programme, hundreds of new, ‘green jobs’ have been created; Croatian municipalities havebeen galvanized to find their own solutions to their local energy problems; and public awareness aboutenergy use, climate change, and sustainable development has been raised to new heights.Why an energy efficiency programme?Early in 2011, energy specialists in Croatia’s Ministry of Justicenoticed abnormally high rates of water use at Lepoglava Prison, the country’s largest penitentiary. Thisalert prompted a probe of the underground pipes, some of which date back to when the facility was amonastery under Austro-Hungarian rule. A huge leak was located and fixed at a cost of US$4,000; annualsavings of US$225,000 resulted. Without the metering of energy and water consumption introducedunder UNDP’s energy efficiency programme, this loss would have gone unnoticed.The Lepoglava story is just one example of the savings that are being generated by Croatia’s public-sector energy-efficiency programme. Started seven years ago with funding from the Global EnvironmentFacility and with UNDP support, this programme has produced some US$18 million in cost savings andcut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 63,000 tons of CO2equivalent, through measures costing little ornothing. Total cost savings are now set to rise exponentially as investments generated by the programmecome on line.As in many countries, buildings in Croatia are among the biggest contributors to climate change. At theproject start, no policies existed to monitor or manage, much less reduce, energy use at any level of theCroatian public sector. First, the city of Sisak—Croatia’s ninth-largest city, with a population of 50,000 anda legacy of polluting industries and lingering damage from Croatia’s war of independence in the 1990s—agreed to serve as a site for energy savings investments piloted by UNDP and financed by the GEF. Overtwo years, 24 demonstration projects in public buildings in Sisak cut energy consumption by 13 percent,saving the city budget US$220,000 per year.

This initial success piqued the interest of officials in other Croatian towns. UNDP transformed this interestinto public commitments by encouraging city mayors and county prefects to sign a colorful ‘EnergyCharter’ in which they pledged to implement systematic energy management in the facilities under theirjurisdiction. Within eight months, all 127 mayors and all 20 county prefects had signed on to the Charter,which is now on prominent display in virtually every city hall in Croatia. Following this lead at the locallevel, 15 of 16 government ministries made the same vow.The programme works according to the following progression of steps:•••Energy efficiency managers within each public institution, and then for each individual building, areidentified and trained. Some 10,000 Croatian civil servants have completed this training.A registry of public-sector buildings within a given area—under both central and local governmentownership—is created.The buildings are included in the programme’s energy management information system, whichmonitors energy and water usage.

The number of buildings included in this system has risen to nearly 6,000—more than half of Croatia’spublic-sector buildings. This monitoring is what makes possible the sort of successes seen at LepoglavaPrison. In addition, the programme has been instrumental in institutionalizing the use of energy auditsin Croatia. When it began, energy auditing was an infant industry, with just three entities on the market.Spurred by the programme, under whose auspices 1,069 energy audits (covering 2.5 million square metersin 1,346 buildings) were conducted during 2006-2010, this industry expanded to 30 companies employing150 specialists. Energy audits have stimulated energy-efficiency investment projects worth US$30 million,underlining the potential not only for budget savings but also for future ‘green job’ creation in a countrystruggling to recover from the global financial crisis, with an unemployment rate of almost 20 percent.

The programme also embarked on an ambitious public information campaign about the need to reduceenergy consumption and to share helpful tips and tools. This campaign centered on an animated character,Gašpar Energetić (whose name plays on the Croatian word for ‘saver’), who helps his big-spendingneighbour Trošimir save money by turning off the lights and using efficient electrical appliances. Gašparalso dispenses advice from his own Facebook page, which has 4,300 friends and counting. Gašpar starsin a short film aimed at children, ‘Think of Tomorrow’, which has been distributed in 500,000 copies inmajor newspapers, and is also shown during educational ‘school hours’ led by the programme. One ofthe most recent of these saw the country’s popular President, Ivo Josipović, join seventh-graders at theMarin Getaldić School in Dubrovnik in a vigorous question-and-answer session on climate change. ThePresident was even called to the blackboard to explain what his office is doing to save energy.To complement these efforts, a network of information centers was set up to give citizens hands-oninformation and advice on energy efficient technologies for residential houses. These build on partnershipswith private companies that produce energy efficient construction materials and appliances; companiesfund the centers in exchange for the possibility to display their products. To date, 96 of these info-pointshave been established in 43 towns and 12 counties.Programme impact:••Energy use in some 7,000 building—more than half of Croatia’s public-sector buildings in toto—ismonitored under systems introduced by this programme.The programme through 2008 had produced some US$18 million in cost savings and cut annualgreenhouse gas emissions by 63,000 tons of CO2equivalent, through measures costing little ornothing.The public-sector energy audits introduced by this programme have stimulated energy-efficiencyinvestment projects worth US$30 million, creating hundreds of jobs.Since June 2011, the programme runs entirely on government funding—which has survived budgetcuts during Croatia’s prolonged recession following the 2008 global financial crisis. The total governmentcontribution is expected to exceed US$16 million, four times the US$4 million in GEF funding.An independent evaluation conducted in May 2011 described the project’s achievements as ‘unique’,not only compared to other Southeast European countries but also against the best performersin energy efficiency among European Union member states. The project, it said, ‘introduced andestablished energy efficiency as a policy priority and practical tool for effective housekeeping inthe whole public sector in the country’. Efforts are being undertaken to replicate the programme inBelarus, Serbia, and Tajikistan.

Country context.Nepal is a small, landlocked, mountainous country, with roughly a quarter of its 30million people living below the national poverty line. Despite significant hydropower potential, electricitymeets only 2 percent of the total energy consumption. Instead, more than 80 percent of Nepal’s energyconsumption comes from traditional biomass, as nearly 85 percent of the population lives in rural areas.As a result, Nepal has one of the world’s lowest per-capita electricity consumption levels: only 56 percentof the population (49 percent in rural areas) has access to on- and off-grid electricity; firewood is themain fuel source for cooking for two thirds of households. The heavy reliance on biomass has a negativeimpact on the environment (due to deforestation) and health (due to indoor air pollution), as well asadditionally burdening women who are the primary fuel gatherers. Significantly expanding householdaccess to reliable electricity services is therefore key to sustainable development in general, and povertyreduction in particular, in Nepal.The Rural Energy Development Programmehas introduced decentralized renewable energy servicesto some of the most remote parts of Nepal. By building micro hydropower systems and providingimproved cooking stoves, the programme has provided reliable, low-cost electricity to large numbers ofisolated, rural communities. In so doing, the programme has created new rural income- and employment-generation opportunities, improved health and environmental conditions, and strengthened localgovernance. In this and other ways, the programme demonstrates the benefits that can come from ruraldevelopment programming that takes an integrated approach to economic, environmental, and socialdevelopment challenges.The programme was launched in 1996 as a small pilot initiative in five remote hill districts, with UNDPsupport. The programme was subsequently scaled up via the national Hydropower Development Policyof 2001, which focused on rural development via low-cost hydropower systems. The lessons learned fromthis programme were taken on board in the formulation of Nepal’s National Rural Energy Policy in 2006,and subsequently in its national five-year plans. As of 2010, the programme had:•••connected 59,000 households to micro hydropower installations;constructed 317 new micro hydropower plants, with 5.7 megawatts of installed capacity; andinstalled nearly 15,000 improved cooking stoves, 7,000 toilet-attached biogas plants, and 3,200 solarhome heating systems.

The primary beneficiaries of the programme, which is now being extended to all 75 districts, are in ruralcommunities, with particular attention to vulnerable communities like women, Dalits (often viewed as thelowest social caste, or the untouchables) and indigenous people. Over the next 20 years, the governmentwants to expand the share of electricity generated from micro and mini-hydro plants to 15 percent.In addition to improving access to energy services, this programme has made possible significant progressin rural development.Research conducted by UNDP and Nepal’s Alternative Energy Promotion Centrefound that improved access to electricity in rural areas led to:•••an eight percent increase in household incomes in 2009.Reduced average annual household spending on energy to US$19, compared to US$41 spent bynon-electrified households; andthe creation of 40 new businesses for every new micro hydropower station brought on line.

In addition to supporting business formation and raising rural incomes, this research found increases inschool enrolment rates (particularly for girls), and improvements in child and maternity health, in waterquality and access to modern sanitation, as well as in environmental quality. Reductions in time spentgathering water and firewood also allowed women to more actively participate in socio-economic life.UNDP’s 2011Review of Energy Practices and Lessons Learnedin the Asia-Pacific region found that some 2000biogas masons are employed by the Biogas Sector Partnership in Nepal, who in turn employ apprenticemasons—illustrating the employment generation dimensions of the programme.While similar decentralized renewable energy projects can be found in many countries, Nepal’s successin scaling up activities initiated under the Rural Energy Development Programme stand out. Scaling upefforts benefited from:•National ownership and commitment.The programme has since its inception benefited from a strong,long term commitment from the national government. The establishment of the Alternative EnergyPromotion Centre to lead Nepal’s rural energy programming played a crucial role in scaling upthe micro hydro and improved cooking stove pilots. This commitment has also been reflected inthe creation of favourable policy, legal, and financing frameworks, many of which were drafted bythe Centre. The monitoring and evaluation systems employed by the Centre (with UNDP support)have documented the social and economic costs and benefits of rural electrification programming,promoting the learning that made possible the scaling up.Local engagement.This approach would not have been possible without central government supportfor decentralized service delivery. Central budget subsidies, tax exemptions, and other financialinstruments have helped catalyze co-financing from donors, local governments, and communities. Inaddition to providing substantial matching funds to support renewable energy programming, localgovernments have worked to ensure the integration of this programming into local developmentplanning, rather than being stand-alone, donor-funded projects. Local government financing wasalso instrumental in supporting the capacity development needed for this programming to work.Catalytic finance.The Nepal Electricity Authority committed to provide up to 80 percent of thefinancing needed to cover capital investments required in rural electrification constructioncosts, where communities were responsible to share 20 percent of the cost of grid extension.This commitment helped attract long-term matching funding from such partners as the DanishInternational Development Agency, the World Bank, UNDP, NGOs, local governments, and ultimatelybanks, as well as from local governments, who contributed financing under subsidy provisionsand for capacity building. This facilitated the subsequent significant contributions by communitiesand households to implement rural energy systems and to pay for energy services delivered.Communities provided cash, took out bank loans, and gave in-kind contributions, such as by diggingchannels and collecting sand, stone, and wooden poles for micro hydropower plants. As a result,while public funding accounted for well over 90 percent of total programme finance at the start, by2006 communities were contributing almost 40 percent of the total funding. Without this communityfunding, the rural electrification programme could not have been scaled up.Community mobilization and local partnerships.The Rural Energy Development Programme builton existing local governance structures to institutionalize rural energy service delivery. Programmeactivities were designed according to principles of participation, transparency, inclusion, andconsensus decision making. Community empowerment has been key to ensuring both effective localservice delivery and longer-term financial sustainability. Participants were organized into village-level functional groups based on common interests (e.g., micro hydropower, income generation,forestry, biogas, poultry farming) that included representative of vulnerable groups. Following sixmonths of capacity development and successful programme activities, community groups could

register as legal entities (e.g., as micro hydropower cooperatives). Training and collaboration withlocal entrepreneurs and civil society organizations provided households with better access to micro-finance services.•Capacity development at all levels.Attempts at scaling up successful pilot projects often face humanresource constraints, as well as difficulties in ensuring that lessons learned are consistently appliedduring the scaling up. The Rural Energy Development Programme has therefore focused on capacitydevelopment both at the national level (to create the appropriate policy environment) and at the locallevel, to help community members to better design, construct, and manage new energy systems,and ensure effective service delivery—including via community mobilization. Capacity developmentactivities have focused on organizational and skills development, training in environmental andtechnological management, project design and implementation, monitoring and evaluation,resource mobilization, and vulnerable community empowerment. In fact, of the US$14.3 milliondelivered under the programme during 1996-2006, 56 percent was spent on capacity developmentactivities. The improvements in management skills delivered by these activities helped reduce per-unit costs (associated with the deployment of new hydro power stations) by 73 percent during thistime.UNDP’s capacity development expertisewas used to identify successful capacity developmentactivities undertaken by the Rural Energy Development Programme, both for scaling up in Nepaland for potential replication in other countries. Countries that have sought to learn from Nepal’sexperience include Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kenya, Mongolia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Tanzania,and Uganda.

Country context.Mongolia is a mineral-rich landlocked country bordering China and Russia; it has oneof the world’s lowest population densities, with 2.8 million inhabitants in a land of 1.6 million squarekilometres. According to the World Bank classification scheme, Mongolia is alower middle-incomecountry;it ranked 110th out of the 169 countries listed inUNDP’s 2011 human development index.Mongolia’s economic growth model is resource-based, with heavy reliance on extractive industries,mainly copper, gold, and coal. Despite steady GDP growth, Mongolia’s income poverty rate scarcelydeclined during 2002-2008 (from 36.1 to 35.2 percent), while the gap between rich and poor increasedmarkedly. Income inequality, as measured by Gini coefficient, increased from .32 to .366 during this time;more than half of Mongolia’s poor households are the working poor.In 2010, extraction work atOyu Tolgoi,one of the world’s largest gold and copper deposits (with anestimated mine life of 40 years) became operational. Likewise forTavan Tolgoi,which is expected toproduce some 30 million tons of coal annually for the next 30 years. Operations at these sites coulddouble Mongolia’s GDP in the coming years. However, due in part to the ecological side effects of thecountry’s mining industry, environmental degradation has become a critical development challenge.Unsafe air pollution levels in Ulaanbaatar city, especially in winter months, contribute to higher incidenceof respiratory illnesses, especially among children. Mongolia is also potentially quite vulnerable to theadverse effects of climate change; in recent years, droughts and severe winters have become morecommon. As more than80 percent of the country’s land area is highly vulnerable to degradation,theproportion of people living on degraded lands in Mongolia is the highest in Asia. By threatening cropsand animal husbandry, land degradation is posing challenges for food security and rural development.This places a premium on efforts to transform Mongolia’s resource-based economic growth—the benefitsof which are not always equally distributed, and which can leave the country vulnerable to climate changeand fluctuations in global commodity prices—into sustainable development that benefits all citizens,and which does not bring with it unacceptable environmental costs, particularly for future generations.Avoiding the ‘resource curse’ for Mongolia requires expanded financing for climate change adaptation,economic diversification (particularly for infrastructure development, the expansion of non-extractivevalue adding activities, and improvements in health and education), and the creation of decent ‘green’jobs—especially in rural areas and other cities besides over-populated Ulanbaataar.Enter XacBank.The experience of Mongolia’sXacBank,as an institution promoting inclusive finance forsustainable development in developing countries, is particularly noteworthy.•XacBank was originally established in 1999 (with support from UNDP and other external partners)as a non-bank microfinance institution, providing loans (averaging around US$141) to some 4000clients, many of which were small businesses and herders.

Following the 2001 passage of national employment legislation emphasizing job creation forvulnerable groups, XacBank began targeting the vulnerable non-poor who were just above thepoverty line, and increased the loan limit for small and medium enterprises.Its 2001 inclusion intoTenGer Financial Groupcoincided with XacBank’s transformation into acommercial bank, making possible the expansion of its operations.In 2006 XacBank became the first commercial bank in Mongolia to be rated by Moody’s (theinternational credit rating agency); its support for modern corporate governance practices helpedXacBank to join theUN Global Compactin 2007.By 2011, XacBank had become Mongolia’s fourth largest commercial bank, with 85 branchesserving some 250,000 clients. Other microcredit institutions and commercial banks have followed inXacBank’s footsteps, improving access to finance for small businesses and vulnerable groups.Other countries that have benefited from XacBank’s experience (in the form of training and staffexchanges) include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, China, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, and Uganda.

Thanks in part to its partnerships with such institutions as the Mongolian Women’s Association, andMongolia’s 75 savings and credit cooperatives:•••About 24 percent of XacBank’s clients receive loans under US$300; 70 percent receive loans underUS$2,500. Less than 2 percent of its clients provide loan collateral.In 2008, XacBank introduced a non-collateralized micro loan service targeting financially marginalizedperi-urban citizens.Some 53 percent of XacBank’s clients reside in rural areas; its AMAR (‘easy’ in Mongolian) mobilebanking system had allowed XacBank to expand its client base in isolated rural areas to some 60,000customers in 2010. XacBank management hopes to cover more than half of the country’s populationwith AMAR by the end of this year.Some 58 percent of XacBank’s clients are women; XacBank has signed theWomen’s World Bankingnetwork’spledge to “support the empowerment of low-income women as entrepreneurs, leaders,and partners for change”. In partnership with the Mongolian Women’s Association, XacBank has beenproviding group (as well as individual) loans to vulnerable rural women since 2007.In collaboration with Mongolia’s Ministry of Social Welfare and Labour, as well as with national mediaand private companies, XacBank since 2008 has been providing financial literacy trainings in morethan 130 schools.

financing the procurement of efficient cooking stoves, solar heating systems, housing insulation, and thelike. XacBank has also introduced a sustainability reporting system under theGlobal Reporting Initiative,which allows the bank to track the impact of its clients’ activities on the environment, and to encourage itsclients to adopt ‘green’ technologies (and social services). Microloan clients who have been with XacBankfor more than 180 days and who fulfill more than 50 percent of the bank’s sustainability indicators receivean interest rate discount.Conclusion.XacBank will not, by itself, set Mongolia on the path to sustainable development. However,its experience in blending different funding sources to offer inclusive finance to vulnerable households—with a growing portfolio of environmental loans—shows how the private sector can play a large role inmaking sustainable development happen.

Country context:Although its rich mineral resource base affords Namibia one of the highest per-capita income levels in Africa, this wealth is not shared equally throughout the country. Poverty andinequality remain crucial development challenges, as Namibia was ranked 120 out of 187 countriessurveyed in UNDP’s2011 Human Development Report.These challenges are particularly pressing formany local communities who do not directly benefit from the country’s mineral bounty, and whoselivelihoods depend on access to natural resources (land, forests, fisheries). For these communities,the management of Namibia’s rich biodiversity—elephants, rhinos, giraffes, buffalos, lions, leopards,and zebras (some of which are endangered species)—and its natural landscapes, can be an importantsource of development opportunities.Natural parksand protected areas have played important roles in Namibia’s natural resource managementfor more than a century. The first official Namibian protected park (an area protected from human activity)was established in 1907, under colonial rule. However, prior to independence, communities living nearand around parks were totally excluded from them. No access or benefit sharing was permitted; the parkswere managed in accordance with the ‘colonial army’ policing principle.The advent of independence in1990 made possible a transition to a more inclusive approach to managing these resources.Some 20 state-run protected parks and reserves, which today cover about 17 percent of Namibia’s territory,benefit from protection both in the national constitution (which stipulates that “TheState shall activelypromote and maintain the welfare of the people by adopting, inter alia, policies aimed at maintenance ofecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilization of living naturalresources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future”)and from theglobal Convention on Biological Diversity, which came into force in 1992.However, concerns that local communities and other stakeholders have not fully benefited from theseparks have lead to further progressivechanges in their management,to create more income-generationopportunities for the communities located within or close to the parks—many of whose memberssupport themselves from subsistence agriculture. Since the mid-1990s, ‘community-based naturalresource management’ frameworks—under which households or community-based organizations canapply for land concessions within these parks—have increasingly guided protected areas management.Concessions allow local community members to hunt, fish, grow crops, graze livestock, and undertaketourism activities within protected areas—in exchange for committing to doing so in an environmentallysustainable manner. Tourism can provide particularly important income- and employment-generationopportunities for local communities: themore than one million touriststhat visited Namibia annuallycontributed some 3-5 percent of GDP during the 2003-2008 period. A UNDP/GEF financed economicstudy noted that a significant share (13-16 percent) of the income generated by the park tourism accruesto skilled and unskilled labourers in local communities.

Efforts to increase the share of this income that is captured by local communities face a number ofchallenges, includinginadequate access to finance.Nonetheless,Namibia’s ‘Vision 2030’nationaldevelopment strategy calls for the scaling up of this approach, via the expansion of the protected areasnetwork and their more integrated management, including via stronger partnerships with private tourismoperators. Namibia’s government is likewise negotiating with neighboring countries (Angola, Zambia,Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa), to develop new and expand existingtrans-frontier (cross-border)conservation areas.Conclusion.Namibia’s experience with community-based resource management shows that—inexchange for access to protected areas for income-generating purposes—subsistence farmers andlocal communities can become co-responsible for ensuring these areas’ ecological sustainability. It alsodemonstrates the importance of local engagement for poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.

Country context.Niger is one of the world’s poorest countries: it was ranked 186 out of the 187 countriesincluded in UNDP’s 2011 human development classification. Many of Niger’s development challenges arelinked to its natural topography: deserts comprise three quarters of its land area, leaving this landlockedcountry exposed to recurring drought and climate variation. The natural risks of the Sahel are aggravated bydemographic pressures: Niger’s annual population growth rate is above 3 percent. The resulting problemsof deforestation and overgrazing, which exacerbate desertification and soil erosion, generate endemic foodsecurity issues. Droughts in 2010 and2012have once again brought these issues to forefront of internationaldevelopment and humanitarian concerns. Preserving the country’s fragile land resources and modernizingits farming practices are therefore crucial to Niger’s development prospects.Reforestation initiatives are often pursued by governments and development agencies in deserts anddrylands. In addition to acting as a windbreak, trees help to retain soil moisture and draw nutrients to thetopsoil. Falling leaves moisturize and fertilize the soil and protect crops’ seeds. Trees can also provide food(edible fruits and leaves), fodder for livestock, and medicinal plants, as well as wood for fuel, timber, andconstruction and wood products. In addition to supporting in-kind consumption, forestry resources cangenerate output that households can sell on local markets.‘Farmer-managed natural regeneration’ of Niger’s forests.The government and development communityin Niger have for decades been pursuing reforestation initiatives, often by transplanting trees that had thrived inother arid climates. However, by the early 1980s, expensive reforestation programmes based on the cultivationof imported seeds and saplings were increasingly recognized as ineffective. With support from the ‘ServinginMission’NGO, small numbers of farmers in southern Niger began cultivating stem growth from the native treestumps that were left after farmers cleared their fields.In 1983, theMaradi Integrated Development Programmewas launched in one of Niger’s poorest, mostheavily populated areas, scaling up ‘farmer-managed natural regeneration’ approaches to reforestation,soil conservation, climate risk management, land reclamation, and rural development. The programme,which subsequently became ‘SowingSeeds of Change in the Sahel’,was based on the premise that, ifappropriately pruned and protected, native trees can grow and promote soil conservation, even in theunforgiving conditions of the Sahel. These ‘farmer-managed natural regeneration’ approaches, whichrely on traditional knowledge and local resources, are based on experimentation and adaptation by thefarmers themselves. For these approaches to work, three steps must be followed:•Before clearing land for crop-planting, farmers select the tree stumps that they will protect and makegrow after clearing. This choice is made according to tree characteristics and community needs (e.g.,for fruit, livestock fodder, firewood, etc.).

Although they are labour intensive, these approaches do not require particular horticultural expertise orlarge financial investments; farmers use stumps and roots that are already present. Results appear withinone year of the application of this technique, allowing for rapid identification and cultivation of successfultree stumps. This can accelerate the reforestation process.The application of farmer-managed natural regeneration in southern Niger is now viewed as an importantsuccess.Recent researchestimates that farmer-managed natural regeneration has reforested 5 millionhectares (about 4 percent of the country’s land area), with the affected areas benefitting from rapidlygrowing parkland in both forest cover density. These programmes are estimated to have increased cerealyields by 100 kilograms per hectare in 2009. The resulting improvements in food security—as well asin animal productivity, biodiversity, and expanded income generation through sales of firewood andtimber—improved the livelihoods of some 2.5 million people. They also underscore the importanceof engaging local communities in, and applying local resources to, the search for solutions to localdevelopment problems.Initial efforts to encourage the cultivation of cut tree stumps faced resistance from farmers who believedthat clearing fields brought higher crop yields. After a few years, however, spontaneous scaling-up beganto occur, as growing numbers of households understood that these regenerating methods could maketheir farming and income-generating activities more sustainable. Donor assistance, especially in 1985and 1989 through the ‘food for work’ programmes introduced to tackle the famines in those years, helped

fund experience-sharing activities as well as village-scale projects. New community governance structureswere developed to support and manage collective reforestation initiatives, which also benefited somemarginalized groups who were not allowed to participate in community resource management decisions.The national authorities helped create the enabling environment needed for scaling up by suspendingthe enforcement of tree cutting regulations in the mid-1980s; a larger reform of the country’s forestryregulation was passed in 2004. Still, the decisive role in scaling up farmer-managed natural regenerationpractices was played by rural households themselves, who understood that community action in supportof reforestation could improve their living standards.In addition to helping to galvanize local communities, farmer-managed natural regeneration practicesare helping to empower women. As they are less likely than men to leave rural homesteads in search ofwork, women have played key roles in making these approaches work in practice. Thanks to the extrawood and food produced in their homesteads and communities, women spend less time and moneyprocuring firewood and food, leaving more time and money for other productive (or leisure) activities.They can generate additional income from the surplus wood obtained from the trees and from the leavesand fruits that can be sold.Conclusion.Reductions in poverty and food insecurity in arid climates like the Sahel can not be separatedfrom challenges of sustainable land and forestry resource management, or of community engagement.Examples like Niger’s show that, to be truly sustainable, economic development initiatives must beaccompanied by sustainable resource management and community mobilization for social development.

While South Africa benefits from some of the world’s richest biodiversity, poverty and environmentalchallenges—particularly water shortages and land degradation—are concentrated in rural areas. UNDP’sHuman Development Report Officereports that, while more than 90 percent of the population hadaccess to improved water sources in 2008, only 77 percent had access to modern sanitation facilities,and this figure drops sharply in rural areas. Water access and quality issues have been aggravated by thespread of some 200 invasive plant species (acacia, pine, and eucalyptus trees, water hyacinth), which areestimatedto be present in about 10 percent of South Africa’s territory, and to be growing by 5 percent ayear. In addition to consuming large amounts of water (compared to native species) that could otherwisego for household use or food production, these invasive species threaten native flora and fauna byreleasing large amounts of nitrogen into water sources, changing the chemical balance and limiting thepenetration of sunlight. As well as being important in its own right, protecting native ecosystems andbiodiversity can improve access to water and sanitation services, as well as food security, in rural areas.Working for Waterwas launched in 1995, immediately after South Africa’s transition from apartheid toconstitutional democracy. It is a water-clearing public works programme that offers employment tomembers of vulnerable groups. Citizens from communities affected by invasive plants are recruited onshort-term public contracts to help clear water catchments. ‘Hacking teams’ use mechanical, chemical,and biological tools to remove invasive plants. Recruitment efforts focus on marginalized groups:employment targetsinclude 60 percent women, 20 percent youth, and 2 percent disabled. Employeesalso receive reproductive health and HIV-AIDS awarenesstraining,as well as access to childcare facilitiesand information on micro-entrepreneurship.Since the programme’s inception, more than one million hectares have been cleared byWorking ForWaterhacking teams. Both water availability and stream flows in the cleared areas have increased. Publicawareness has been raised, while better water availability and stronger local ecosystems have boostedland productivity,notably in areas where livestock are kept. Some20,000 jobsare created annually underthis programme, and whilesome studiessuggest that the targeting of employment opportunities (to thepoor) could be improved,other researchindicates that half of the workers recruited under this programmewere unemployed prior to their participation. Mostsurveyed workers reportthat the programme has hada positive impact on their lives, thanks to improvements in their self-esteem.Conclusion.‘Workingfor water’is an example of the innovative approaches to social programming thatare increasingly being employed in developing countries. By combining sustainable water managementand biodiversity protection with social protection and public works programming, this programme showshow budget spending can invest in natural capital by underwriting economic and social development.

National policy frameworks for sustainable development.This has led Bhutan to put environmentalsustainability at the heart of national development planning and welfare accounting. For example:•Bhutan’s socio-economic development has long been guided by the ‘grossnational happiness’metric, which integrates equitable socio-economic development, poverty alleviation, goodgovernance, environmental conservation, and the preservation of cultural values within a holisticapproach to the national welfare.Environmental conservation is likewise enshrined in Bhutan’sconstitution:Article 5 makes Bhutanesecitizens responsible for protecting the natural environment, conserving Bhutan’s rich biodiversity, andpreventing all forms of ecological degradation. In order to ensure the conservation of the country’s naturalresources and prevent degradation of the ecosystem, Article 5 also calls for the forestation of at least 60percent of Bhutan’s land area, in perpetuity. In 2010, some 70 percent of total land area was forested—a6 percent increase over 1995. Protected areas (including biological corridors and conservation areas)covered 51 percent of Bhutan’s land area in 2010—more than doubling the 22 percent share reported in1995. Because its dense forests act as carbon sinks, Bhutan actually reportsnegative net greenhouse gasemissions.Bhutan’s pledge to remain carbon neutral (made at the global Copenhagen climate meeting inDecember 2009) underscores the government’s commitment to environmental conservation.

Bhutan’s experience shows that an emphasis on environmental sustainability need not preclude povertyreduction: the share of people living below the national poverty line dropped from 36.3 percent in 2000to 23.2 percent in 2007; and the country is on track to meet Millennium Development Goal 1 of halvingthe proportion of people living below the national poverty line by 2015. Bhutan has also made rapidprogress in extendingimproved water and sanitation services;near universal coverage of these basicservices is expected by 2015. On the other hand, rural poverty, which is a key theme of Bhutan’sTenth FiveYear Plan(2008-2013), continues to be a serious challenge (especially in remote areas).Conclusion.Bhutan’s experience shows that it is possible for lower-middle income countries to combinerobust national environmental conservation efforts with rapid economic growth and poverty reduction.Doing so requires leadership, and a national governance framework capable of integrating economic,environmental, and social development priorities.

ReferencesBlay, D., et al.,Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons Learned from SelectedCase Studies,Forestry Research Network for Sub-Saharan Africa, International Union of Forest ResearchOrganizations Special Programme for Developing Countries, 2004‘Brazilian Brew: The US Opens Up to Brazilian Ethanol’,The Economist,January 7, 2012‘Brazil’sBolsa Família:How to Get Children Out of Jobs and Into School’,The Economist,July 29, 2010Carrington, D., ‘Can Brazil Become the World’s First Environmental Superpower?’,The Guardian,August 5, 2010Drimie, S., ‘HIV/AIDS and land: Case studies from Kenya, Lesotho and South Africa’,DevelopmentSouthern Africa,Vol. 20, No. 5, December 2003Fenwick, T.B., ‘Avoiding Governors: The Success ofBolsa Família’,Latin American Research Review,Vol. 44, No. 1, 2009German Advisory Council on Global Change,World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability,2011, BerlinHallegate, S., et al., ‘From Growth to Green Growth: A Framework’, Policy Research Working Paper 5872,World Bank, 2011, Washington D.C.Hurley, G., ‘Innovative Financing for Development: A New Model for Development Finance?’ discussionpaper, UNDP, 2012, New YorkInternational Energy Agency,Cities, Towns, and Renewable Energy: Yes in My Front Yard,2009, ParisLal, R., ‘Soil Degradation as a Reason for Inadequate Human Nutrition’,Food Security(2009) 1:45–57Lindert, K., et al., ‘The Nuts and Bolts of Brazil’sBolsa FamíliaProgram: Implementing Conditional CashTransfers in a Decentralized Context’, Social Protection Discussion Paper no. 0709, World Bank,May 2007, Washington D.C.‘Majorprogress towards Millennium Development Goals, but the most vulnerable are left behind,UNreport says’, UN Department of Public Information, July 2011, New YorkNaylor, R., ‘Expanding the Boundaries of Agricultural Development’,Food Security(2011) 3:233–251Ortiz, I., and M. Cummins, ‘Global Inequality: Beyond The Bottom Billion’, UNICEF, April 2011, New YorkOramasionwu, C.U., et al., ‘The Environmental and Social Influences of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa:A Focus on Rural Communities’,International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,2011,8, 2967-2979Perch, L., ‘Social Policy in the Post-Crisis Context of Small Island Developing States: A Synthesis’,International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper no. 67, July 2011, BrasiliaPretty, J., et al., ‘Sustainable Intensification in African Agriculture’,International Journal of AgriculturalSustainability(2011) 9:1, 5-24

Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,United Nations Secretary-General’s High-levelPanel on Global Sustainability, 2012, New YorkRohter, L., ‘Energy Crisis in Brazil Is Bringing Dimmer Lights and Altered Lives’,The New York Times,June 6, 2001Souza, D., and D. Chmielewska, ‘Market Alternatives for Smallholder Farmers in Food Security Initiatives:Lessons from the Brazilian Food Acquisition Programme’, UNDP International Policy Centre for InclusiveGrowth, working paper no. 64, June, 2010, Brasilia‘Supporting Food Production and Food Access through Local Public Procurement Schemes: Lessons fromBrazil’, UNDP International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, One-pager, no. 110, June 2010, BrasiliaUNDESA,Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles,2011, New YorkUNDP,Human Development and the Shift to Better Citizen Security,Caribbean Human DevelopmentReport, 2012, New York_____, ‘Assessment of the Implications of theBolsa FamíliaProgramme for the Decent Work Agenda’,International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper no. 85, October, 2011, Brasilia_____, ‘BolsaFamíliaand the Citizen’s Basic Income: A Misstep?’, International Policy Centre for InclusiveGrowth, Working Paper no. 77, January 2011, Brasilia_____,Catalyzing Climate Finance: A Guidebook on Policy and Financing Options to Support Green, Low-Emission and Climate-Resilient Development,2011, New York_____,Charting a New Low-Carbon Route to Development,2011, New York_____, Conceptand Measurement of human development,Human Development Report, 1990,New York_____,Supporting Transformational Change,2011, New York_____,Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All,Human Development Report, 2011, New York_____,Towards an ‘Energy Plus’ Approach for the Poor: A Review of Good Practices and Lessons Learned fromAsia and the Pacific,2011, New York_____,Towards Human Resilience: Sustaining MDG Progress in an Age of Economic Uncertainty,2011, NewYork_____,UNDP’s Submission to the Rio+20 Preparatory Process,November 1, 2011, New York_____,Gender, Climate Change and Community-Based Adaptation,2010, New York_____, ‘Maximizing Co-Benefits: Exploring Opportunities to Strengthen Equality and Poverty ReductionThrough Adaptation to Climate Change’, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paperno. 75, December 2010, Brasilia_____,Protected Areas for the 21st Century: Lessons from UNDP/GEF’s Portfolio,2010, New York_____,Unlocking progress: MDG acceleration on the road to 2015,2010, New York_____,What Will It Take to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? An International Assessment,2010,New York_____, ‘Conditional Cash Transfers in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico: Impacts upon Inequality’, InternationalPolicy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper no. 35, April 2007, Brasilia

_____, ‘Evaluating the Impact of Brazil’sBolsa Família:Cash Transfer Programmes in ComparativePerspective’, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Evaluation Note no.1, December 2007,Brasilia_____,Capacity 21: Evaluation Report 1993–2001,2002, New York_____, and the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (Nepal),Capacity Development for Scaling Up:Decentralized Energy Access Programmes,2010, New York_____, and the International Labour Organization,Successful Social Protection Floor Experiences,NewYork, 2011___, and the IOC/UNESCO, IMO, and FAO,A Blueprint for Ocean and Coastal Sustainability,2011, ParisUNEP,Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication,2011,NairobiUNICEF and the World Health Organization, ‘Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update’,2012, New York and GenevaUnited Nations Millennium Declaration,General Assembly resolution 55/2, 18 September 2000,New YorkUnited Nations,Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations’ SystemwidePerspective,2011, New YorkValdes, C.,Brazil’s Ethanol Industry: Looking Forward,US Department of Agriculture, June 2011,Washington D.C.World Bank, OECD, and IEA,The Scope of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies in 2009 and a Roadmap for Phasing OutFossil-Fuel Subsidies(prepared for G-20 Summit in Seoul, November 2010)World Bank,Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda,2010, Washington D.C.