Greening growth in the South: practice, policies and new frontiers

Abstract

Today's development model promotes the exploitation of natural resources regardless of the consequences for the environment or the impact that the quality of the environment has on people's lives and livelihoods. Without a shift in current consumption and production patterns, a sustainable model of development is out of reach. The 1992 Earth Summit acknowledged the need to marry growth and environmental sustainability, but more than 20 years later the world still lacks concrete goals, commitments, benchmarks of progress and frameworks to secure benefits across social, economic and environmental dimensions. The global South is emerging as a green growth laboratory, with innovation and creativity to tackle these concerns. This article analyses these efforts in the context of public policy, and shows that both positive and negative patterns in practice and policy are emerging, which should be considered as broader global green growth efforts are further consolidated and the post-2015 development agenda is being defined.

Keywords:

• inclusive green growth
• inclusion
• sustainable development
• green policy
• developing countries
• policy innovation

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Stephane Hallegate (World Bank) and Nidhi Tandon (Independent Consultant) for their comprehensive peer review comments and guidance on strengthening the final version of this article. This article is one of a series of outputs from an Innovation Project funded by the Climate Development Knowledge Network. The underlying research was facilitated first by UNDP/IPC-IG and then the RIO+ Centre. The findings and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone.

Notes

1. Paragraph 56, UN (2012). ‘The future we want’. A/RES/66/288, http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf

2. UNEP, Green Economy Initiative defines green growth as ‘one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.’ See http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

3. See the website of the UN Division for Sustainable Development: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

4. OECD, What have we Learned from Attempts to Introduce Green-growth Policies? OECD Green Growth Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013.

5. Veja, ‘A nova ordem mundial e verde’. Veja 2251.2, 2012, http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/ricardo-setti/tema-livre/thomas-c-heller-a-nova-ordem-mundial-e-verde/

6. Dual Citizen, The 2012 Global Green Economy Index. Washington DC: Dual Citizen Inc., 2012, http://www.dualcitizeninc.com/ggei2012.pdf

7. UNEP SEFI, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012. UNEP Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Paris, 2012.

8. These include: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey.

9. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (UNDESA), A Guidebook to the Green Economy, Issue 4: A Guide to International Green Economy Initiatives. New York, 2013, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/916geguidebook4.pdf

10. The SEE4ALL initiative, for example, seeks to promote greater availability of renewable/sustainable energy and increase access to energy at the same time.

11. von Moltke, McKee and Morgan, 2004, cited in International Monetary Fund (IMF), Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013.

12. See REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy for the 21st Century), Renewables Global Status Report (GSR). Paris: REN21 Secretariat, 2013, http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalStatusReport.aspx

13. Green Growth Leaders, ‘Green growth: From religion to reality’. The Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, 2011, http://greengrowthleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/From-religion-to-reality_samlede-rapport.pdf

14. For instance, reforming the taxation system to include environmental taxes like carbon taxes might involve a gradual transition in the tax base from income to carbon.

15. Cai WJ, C Wang, JN Chen & SQ Wang, ‘Green economy and green jobs: Myth or reality? The case of China's power generation sector’, Energy, 36.10, 2011, pp. 5994–6003.

16. Pre-tax subsidies refer to when prices paid by consumers are below supply and distribution costs, while post-tax subsidies refer to when taxes are below efficient levels. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013.

17. Pre-tax subsidies refer to when prices paid by consumers are below supply and distribution costs, while post-tax subsidies refer to when taxes are below efficient levels. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013.

18. See, International Energy Agency (IEA), Fossil-fuel Consumption Subsidy Rates as a Proportion of the Full Cost of Supply 2011, 2012, http://www.iea.org/subsidy/index.html; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2011, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2011/#d.en.25173; and IEA, OPEC, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, Joint Report by IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank on Fossil-fuel and Other Energy Subsidies: An Update of the G20 Pittsburgh and Toronto Commitments, 2011, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/18/49006998.pdf

19. Removing all energy subsidies could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 13%. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013, p. 18.

20. According to an OECD study, energy subsidies phase-out would reduce prices of oil, natural gas and coal by 8, 13 and 1%, respectively, in 2050, in IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013, p. 19.

21. See, IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2011, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2011/#d.en.25173

22. IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013, p. 19.

23. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013, p. 16.

24. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013, p. 16.

25. However, no measures have been taken yet to also remove subsidies in the electricity sector.

26. OECD, Economic Survey of Mexico 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2011.

27. See OECD, What have we Learned from Attempts to Introduce Green-growth Policies? OECD Green Growth Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013.

28. Mexican Federal Secretary of Finance and Public Credit, Implementation of Subsidy Reform in Mexico, presentation from the Ministry of Finance of Mexico at the UNEP-Global Subsidies Initiative Conference — Increasing the Momentum of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform: Developments and Opportunities, 14–15 October 2010, Geneva, http://www.iisd.org/gsi/news/gsi-unep-conference-increasing-momentum-fossil-fuel-subsidy-reform-developments-and-opportu

29. Reyes Tépach M, ‘Análisis de los precios y de los subsidios a las gasolinas y el Diesel en México, 2007-2011’, Dirección General de Servicios de Documentación, Información y Análisis del Congreso de la Union, 2012, http://www.diputados.gob.mx/cedia/sia/se/SAE-ISS-06-11.pdf (accessed 12 February, 2013).

30. Such as watershed protection, carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation, conservation of biodiversity and ecotourism. See Fisher M, M Chaudhury & B McCusker, ‘Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from southern Malawi’, World Development, 38, 2010, pp. 1241–50.

31. Fisher B, SL Lewis, ND Burgess, RE Malimbwi, PK Munishi, RD Swetnam, RK Turner, S Willcock & A Balmford, ‘Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania’, Nature and Climate Change, 1, 2011, pp. 161–4. Also, UNEP, Developing Countries Success Stories, 2010, http://www.unep.org/pdf/GreenEconomy_SuccessStories.pdf

32. Somorin O & D Sonwa, ‘People, decentralized power and community forestry in Cameroon’, in Perch L and Labbate G (eds), Dimensions of Inclusive Development, 2011, pp. 22–4, http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus23.pdf

33. Eyebe A, D Endamana, J Sayer, M Ruiz Perez, AK Boedhihartono, G Walters, K Angu & L Ngono, ‘Community forestry and the challenge of aligning with Cameroon's green economy’, in Bojang F (ed.) The Forest Sector in the Green Economy in Africa, Nature & Faune, 26.1, 2011, pp. 49–53.

34. UNEP, Developing Countries Success Stories, 2010, http://www.unep.org/pdf/GreenEconomy_SuccessStories.pdf

35. Republic of South Africa, National Climate Change Response White Paper. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa, 2011.

36. The unemployment rate, which remained at 24.1% in 2013, 64.8% in the ages 15–24, emerges as South Africa's most significant social challenge. See Kumo WL, J Rieländer & B Omilola, ‘South Africa country report’. Country Report for African Economic Outlook by African Development Bank, OECD and UNDP, 2014, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/fileadmin/uploads/aeo/2014/PDF/CN_Long_EN/Afrique_du_Sud_EN.pdf

37. International Development Law Organization, A Legal Working Brief on the new General Law of Climate Change in Mexico: Leading National Action to Transition to a Green Economy. Rome, 2012, http://www.idlo.int/Publications/MexicoClimateChangeLWB.pdf

38. See Godoy E, ‘Mexico's climate change law — More than just empty words?’, IPS, April 2014, http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/mexicos-climate-change-law-just-empty-words/

39. See Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, ‘Common donor fund will assist Bangladesh to adapt’, 2011, http://www.sida.se/English/Countries-and-regions/Asia/Bangladesh/Programmes-and-projects1/Common-donor-fund-will-assist-Bangladesh-to-adapt/

40. FAO, ‘FAO-EC project to promote climate-smart farming’, FAO News Article, 2013, http://www.fao.org/news/story/it/item/119835/icode/

41. World Bank, World Development Indicators 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators/

42. Technical Support Team, ‘TST issues brief: Social protection’. Prepared by the Technical Support Team to the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. New York: United Nations, 2013, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/18320406tstissuesocprot.pdf/

43. The International Labor Organization Decent Work Agenda has four components: pay (equal remuneration), accessibility (upward mobility), accountability (social protection) and advocacy (social dialogue).

44. For more information see Lal R, S Miller, M Lieuw-Kie-Song & D Kostzer, ‘Public works and employment programmes: Towards a long-term development approach’. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper 66, Brasilia: UNDP, 2010.

45. See Beddington J, M Asaduzzaman, A Fernandez, M Clark, M Guillou, M Jahn, L Erda, T Mamo, N Van Bo, CA Nobre, R Scholes, R Sharma & J Wakhungu, ‘Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Summary for policy makers from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change’. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, 2011, www.ccafs.cgiar.org/commission

46. Subbarao K, C del Ninno, C Andrews & C Rodriguez-Alas, Public Works as a Safety Net. Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2012.

47. Song LK, ‘Green jobs for the poor: A public employment approach’. United Nations Development Program, Poverty Reduction Discussion Paper. New York: UNDP, 2009.

48. See Subbarao K, C del Ninno, C Andrews & C Rodriguez-Alas, Public Works as a Safety Net. Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2012.

49. Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, http://www.mma.gov.br/desenvolvimento-rural/bolsa-verde/

50. See Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, Brazil Without Extreme Poverty Plan. Brasilia, 2012, http://www.brasilsemmiseria.gov.br/documentos/mds_revista_ingles.pdf/

51. Lavers T, ‘Food security and social protection in highland Ethiopia: linking the Productive Safety Net to the land question’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 51, 2013, pp. 459–85; doi: 10.1017/S0022278X13000402, http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&pdftype=1&fid=8966542&jid=MOA&volumeId=51&issueId=03&aid=8966540/

52. World Bank, Brazil Low-carbon Country Case Study. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, 2010, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/BRAZILEXTN/Resources/322340-1277832245764/LowCarbon_Executive_Summary.pdf/

53. Michael B & S Getahn, ‘Ethiopia case study: Making public works work’, Presentation for the South–South Learning Forum, Arusha, Tanzania, 14–18 June 2010, http://go.worldbank.org/9M08DYYR40/ (accessed 23 March 2013).

54. Subbarao K, C del Ninno, C Andrews & C Rodriguez-Alas, Public Works as a Safety Net. Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2012.

55. Republic of South Africa, Department of Public Works, Expanded Public Works Programme Five-Year Report 2004/05–2008/09; Reaching the One Million Target. Pretoria: Department of Public Works, 2009, http://www.epwp.gov.za/downloads/EPWP_Five_Year_Report.pdf/ (accessed 29 March, 2013).

56. Department of Water Affairs of South Africa, http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/

57. Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, http://www.mds.gov.br/segurancaalimentar/aquisicao-e-comercializacao-da-agricultura-familiar/

58. Chmielewska D & D Souza, The Food Security Policy Context in Brazil. IPC-IG Country Study 22. Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2011, http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCCountryStudy22.pdf/

59. Pretty J, ‘Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 2008, pp. 447–65; and Scherr SJ & JA McNeely, ‘Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” landscapes’, Philosophical Transitions of the Royal Society B, 363, 2008, pp. 477–94.

60. Scialabba N & C Hattam (eds.), Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002; Pimentel D, P Hepperly, J Hanson, D Douds & R Seidel, ‘Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems’, BioScience, 55.7, 2005, pp. 573–82.

61. UNEP–UNCTAD, Best Practices for Organic Policy: What developing country Governments Can Do to Promote the Organic Agriculture Sector. New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2008, http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/Best_Practices_UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_3.pdf/

62. See Letter et al., 2003, and Colla et al., 2000, quoted in Seufert V, N Ramankutt & JA Foley, ‘Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture’, Nature, 485, 2012, pp. 229–32.

63. UNEP, Developing Countries Success Stories, 2010, http://www.unep.org/pdf/GreenEconomy_SuccessStories.pdf/

64. UNEP, Developing Countries Success Stories, 2010, http://www.unep.org/pdf/GreenEconomy_SuccessStories.pdf/

65. Seufert et al.'s meta-analysis found organic yields to be 25% lower than conventional; however with a range of yield differences across crop type and other conditions: 5% lower organic yields on rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak acidic to weak-alkaline soils; 13% lower yields when best organic practices are used; and 34% lower yields when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable. Seufert V, N Ramankutt & JA Foley, ‘Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture’, Nature, 485, 2012, pp. 229–32.

66. Foley J et al., ‘Solutions for a cultivated planet’, Nature, 478, 2011, pp. 337–42; and Seufert V, N Ramankutt & JA Foley, ‘Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture’, Nature, 485, 2012, pp. 229–32.

67. We differentiate between greening for climate-compatible growth and greening for development in order to distinguish between greening initiatives focused largely on mitigating or reducing GHGs and those that have a broader focus including jobs, resource quality and even resource inequality. This distinction is best captured by Bina Agrawal in her outgoing message as President of the International Society for Ecological Economics: ‘Personally, I find it useful to differentiate between green growth and green development. The former is typically defined as economic growth based on a sustainable use of natural resources. The latter has at its centre the issue of equity, both within countries and across countries. As I argued in my Presidential address in Rio, we want a world that is pro-poor, pro-development and pro-environment. Such development would take into account not only the environmental costs of growth but also the costs of deepening inequalities, and the many facets beyond income that can impinge on the quality of our lives today and in the future. Green Development, in my view, would thus be development that improves the quality of life not just of the average person but of the poorest person, while also conserving – even enlarging – our natural wealth. It would be multidimensional in scope. However, multidimensional development which ensures freedom from hunger and ill health, social and economic security, political voice to the disadvantaged, and – most of all – biologically diverse and resilient ecosystems, will need more than green growth.’ http://www.isecoeco.org/musings-from-an-outgoing-isee-president-2012-2013/

68. Blue Flag is a voluntary eco-label applied mainly to beaches and marinas, linked into efforts to promote more environmentally sound or compatible models of tourism, http://www.blueflag.org/

69. See International Institute for Sustainable Development, Towards Sustainable Outsourcing: A Responsible Competitiveness Agenda for IT-enabled Services. Winnipeg, 2009.

70. UNEP Green Economy Initiative, http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

71. Although not a developing country, South Korea has been included in this analysis given its continuing contribution to South–South cooperation and its usefulness as a green growth reference from a public policy standpoint.

72. OECD, ‘The OECD green growth strategy: Key lessons so far’, OECD Observer, 279, 2010, www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3290/

73. Brazil (ethanol), China (solar, wind) and India (wind, biodiesel) together account for about 90% of investments in renewable energy. See UNEP, Green Economy and Trade — Trends, Challenges and Opportunities, 2013, http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyandTrade

74. Global Green Growth Institute, ‘Green growth: A Korean model’. Presentation from Jung Tae Yong, GGGI Deputy Executive Director, June 2011, http://www.gggi.org/research/green-growth-korean-model/

75. See Subbarao K, C del Ninno, C Andrews & C Rodriguez-Alas, Public Works as a Safety Net. Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2012.

76. Lal R, S Miller, M Lieuw-Kie-Song & D Kostzer, ‘Public works and employment programmes: Towards a long-term development approach’. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper 66, Brasilia: UNDP, 2010.

77. Hoddinnott, 1996, cited in Subbarao K, C del Ninno, C Andrews & C Rodriguez-Alas, Public Works as a Safety Net. Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2012.

78. UNDESA indicates that the top 12 countries are Indonesia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nepal, Colombia, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Mexico and Ghana. See UNDESA, A Guidebook to the Green Economy, Issue 4: A Guide to International Green Economy Initiatives. New York, 2013, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/916geguidebook4.pdf/

79. McKinsey & Company, 2009, cited in Allen B, ‘Deforestation's challenge to green growth in Brazil’, text prepared for the Green Growth Economies Project. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2011, http://brie.berkeley.edu/publications/WP_202DeforestationGreenGrowthBrazil.pdf/

80. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013.

81. See IMF, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC, 2013.

82. Perch L, C Watson & B Barry, ‘Resource inequality: Moving inequalities from the periphery to the centre of the post-2015 agenda’, Thematic Consultation, Addressing Inequalities, 2012, http://www.worldwewant2015.org/node/287354/

83. Some innovative research is being done applying concepts from the transitions theory, focused mainly on the European energy transition, to study sustainable transitions of current industries in developing countries. See Marin A & JM Benavente, ‘Evaluating alternative productions in natural resource-based industries in Latin America: Can they help to transform problematic natural resources activities?’, Paper from International Development Research Centre funded project ‘Opening up natural resource-based industries for innovation: Exploring new pathways for development in Latin America’, 2011, http://nrpathways.wix.com/home/

84. See Mazur E, Green Transformation of Small Businesses: Achieving and Going Beyond Environmental Requirements. OECD Environment Working Papers, no. 47. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k92r8nmfgxp-en/

85. Given its low potential to develop wind and solar power, the target is to increase the share of electricity generated by nuclear energy from 24% in 2008 to 40% by 2030, and the share of renewable energy from 2.49% in 2008 to 11% by 2030. See Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Ministry of Education and Science and Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs, The First National Energy Basic Plan, 2008–30, 2008.

86. Green Growth Leaders, ‘Green growth: From religion to reality’. The Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, 2011, http://greengrowthleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/From-religion-to-reality_samlede-rapport.pdf/

87. IEA, Redrawing the Energy-climate Map. World Energy Outlook Special Report. Paris: OECD/IEA, 2013, http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO_RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf/

88. World Bank, World Development Indicators 2013, Washington, DC, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators/

89. According to the US Department of Energy, among the top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas resources, seven are developing countries: with 1115 trillion cubic feet (tcf) China ranks first in the world; Argentina ranks second with 802 tcf; Algeria third with 707 tcf; Mexico sixth with 545 tcf; South Africa eighth with 390 tcf; Russia ninth with 285 tcf; and Brazil tenth with 245 tcf. Countries that have shown interest include Algeria, Argentina, China, India, Mexico, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. See IEA, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 2013.

90. According to the US Department of Energy, among the top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas resources, seven are developing countries: with 1115 trillion cubic feet (tcf) China ranks first in the world; Argentina ranks second with 802 tcf; Algeria third with 707 tcf; Mexico sixth with 545 tcf; South Africa eighth with 390 tcf; Russia ninth with 285 tcf; and Brazil tenth with 245 tcf. Countries that have shown interest include Algeria, Argentina, China, India, Mexico, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. See IEA, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 2013.

91. The potential impacts on the environment and on human health include risk of contaminating surface and groundwater, GHG emissions, air pollution, increased seismic activity and the use of radioactive materials and chemical substances that are harmful to human health. See Lechtenböhmer S, M Altmann, S Capito, Z Matra, W Weindorf & W Zittel, ‘Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health’, published by the European Parliament, June 2011.

92. WTO Dispute DS412: Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds412_e.htm/

93. UNEP, Green Economy and Trade – Trends, Challenges and Opportunities, 2013, http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyandTrade

94. Harvey F, ‘World Bank calls on countries to take urgent steps to protect “natural capital”’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/world-bank-urgent-natural-capital?intcmp=122/ (accessed 2 July 2014); Kosonen K, Beyond GDP. Greenpeace, 2012, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/RioPlus20/Beyond-GDP.pdf/ (accessed 2 July 2014).