Sustainability 2018, 10, x doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.comjournalsustainability [629889]

Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Article
Green Growth: The Essence of Sustainable Green
Economy
Batrancea Ioan 1, Rathnaswamy Malar Maran 1, Gaban Lucian 2, Masca Ema 3, Morar Dan Ioan 4,
Fatacean Gheorghe 1, Horia Tulai 1, Ioan Dan Topor 2 and Sorinel Capusneanu 5
1 Babeș-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Teodor Mihali Str.58-60, Cluj-
Napoca, Romania; [anonimizat] (B.I.), [anonimizat] (R.M.M.),
[anonimizat] (F.G.), [anonimizat] (H.T.)
2 1 Decembrie 1918 University, Faculty of Economics, Gabriel Bethlen Str. 5, Alba Iulia, Romania,
[anonimizat] (G.L.), [anonimizat] (I.D.T.)
3 Faculty of Economics, Petru Maior University, 1 Nicolae Iorga Str., Targu-Mures, Romania;
[anonimizat]
4 Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, 1-5 Armatei Romane Str., Oradea, Romania; [anonimizat]
(M.D.I.),
5 Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy, Name and address of employer Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian
University, 176 Splaiul Unirii, sector 4, Bucharest, Romania, [anonimizat]

Abstract: The paper deals with the research questions of ‘whether the restructuring to a green
economy is universal or otherwise it is variable”? Green growth is the essence of the green
economy. Restructuring to a green economy is in a continuity of the efforts pursued in the
market economy and there is no restructuring in isolation. The restructuring model to green
economy addresses the pillars of sustainable development and these pillars are interdependent.
There are three important and these are environmental, renewable energy and low carbon. The
green economy model of advanced economies is not completely relevant to low-income
economies. The transition economies and emerging economies have other priorities and therefore
there has to be restructuring model to the green economy. Thus restructuring model to the
greener economy has to be relevant to all economies but variable.
Keywords: Green economy, Sustainable Development, low carbon, renewable energy, CO2
Emissions, poverty, restructuring model
JEL: E12, I32, N5, O13, O15, Q01, Q2, Q56

1. Introduction

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 74
2
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Human development is the primary objective of good governance. Political system yields
to human welfare. Man is social animal but ultimately he makes meaningful contribution to
society and nature. The survival of the fittest remains vehicle for growth and struggle for
existence makes him competent to live. Man and nature are either side of life. Loss of nature
makes him difficult to survive. It is the problem of today. Market economy thrives in
competition and elimination of incompetence is the essence of market system. Exploitation is the
instrument of competence and it is applicable to nature and man as well. Excessive exploitation
of nature is the slogan of development. Socialism has promoted humanity but without freedom.
The democracy has offered freedom with development. Slowly it has shifted to market economy.
Excessive exploitation has resulted in environmental degradation and uneven development
leading to poverty. Centralized economic system has not offered incentives for growth and
development. The result is the transition economies. The transition economies are proving their
decision to accept market economy. Therefore the development models are always evolving.
The restructuring model to a green economy is also part of this process. The green shift is the
most difficult process. Primarily it imposes sacrifice on the use of natural resources. It restricts
the exploitation of minerals and forests. It regulates production and consumption of energy.
There is the need to preserve natural wealth for future generation. There is the freedom of
science and technology to promote development of humanity and elimination of inequality. The
green investment is essential. Africa including Ethiopia and other nations will be considered in
the low income group on the restructuring model to green economy. European Union, China,
India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Republic of Korea, Japan, and transition economies are also
considered in this regard.
The reminder of the paper has the following structure. Literature review highlights
relevant studies tackling the green economy in Europe and Africa. In the research framework the
authors present the restructuring model to a green economy is wide and it is limited to the Low
Carbon Environment Goods and Services. In Research Method and Tools empirical and
deductive and inductive methods are adopted. The statistical tools of Standard Deviation,
Pearson Correlation Coefficient and econometric tool of Compound Average Growth Rate are
used for drawing results of the study. In A Critical Review we took into account the principles of
green economy which can be derived from various sources of the Stockholm Declaration, the
Rio Declaration, the Johannesburg Declaration, the Earth Charter, the One Planet Living
Principles, the Green Economy Coalition, the New Economic Foundation, and other number of
International Agreements and Principles. Based on the previous results in the final part we

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 74
3
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
present The Restructuring Model to greener economy has to be relevant to all economies but
variable.
2. Literature Review
The present patterns of growth and development are unsustainable [ 1].The green
economy depends upon the access to funding and institutions for carrying out the process of
transition. The institutions are private and public sector and these are actively different from
developing economies to advanced economies [ 2]. The green economy in South Africa is
understood as a path towards sustainable development. In fact the green economy is associated
with increased investments in green industrial sectors through policy reforms. There are several
definitions on green economy. One of the definitions is a system of inclusive economic growth,
social protection and natural ecosystems without exposing future generations to significant
environmental risks or ecological scarcities [ 3]. The link between environment and development
is possible through empowerment of sustainable development [ 4]. The agenda of green economy
looks reasonable in Africa but it finds difficult in climate change mitigation agenda [ 2]. The
restructuring to a green economy includes green shift of climate and environmentally
restructuring growth and development within nature’s tolerance limits [ 5]. The green economy
has to be global but it has several challenges such as poverty, excessive population growth,
malnutrition, illiteracy, and agricultural production to feed large population, power generation,
capacity building of infrastructure development and institutions, and health management [ 6].
Norway has to find its own solutions on green shift (Norway (2014). There are several
stakeholders on the restructuring of green economy. The participation of each stakeholder is
important to implement the right framework prepared by the government in respect of future
oriented infrastructure, sustainable natural resource, and investment. UK Government has
established its approach to restructuring a greener economy and it has devised programmers in
Enabling the Transition to Green Economy [ 1]. Restructuring to a green economy includes
sustainable development in reference to social considerations, well being and environmental
limits.
3. Research Framework
Green growth seeks to achieve sustainable development’s economic and environmental
assets to a single intellectual and policy planning process for sustainable growth [ 7]. Green

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 74
4
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
growth aims to achieve economic growth and development on using natural assets sustainably [ 8,
9, 10].It uses natural resources clean with minimum pollution and environmental impacts [ 11,
12, 94]. The purpose of green economy is to improve human well-being and social equity with
low environmental risks and ecological scarcities [ 13, 14]. Restructuring Model to a green
economy is a complex process and it involves the following:
1. Pricing externalities and valuing natural assets for the long run services;
2. Innovation as a means of removing unsustainable growth paths;
3. Establishment of new environmentally sustainable growth paths;
4. Creation of win-win situation of sectorial shifts and changes in a comparative
advantage [ 15]
Transition to a greener economy must be central to managing change. Green economy
proposes to bring renewed national policy development. The UN System has to consolidate
information from national resources towards green economy policies [ 16]. The Future we want.
Environment may be considered as natural capital and it provides inputs into production and
consumption [ 17]. The natural assets supplies services and natural resources. The services
include sink services and pollution. The depletion of natural resources is due to overuse of
natural resources and it affects future generation. It is important to identify such risks which
cause pollution and depletion of natural resources. There should be indicators to identify such
risks. OECD has initiated certain indicators on green growth. There are countries like Latin
American and Caribbean region, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, and
Peru which are developing indicators on green growth. Certain countries of Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and South Asian nations are following the OECD indicators on green growth. The
indicators of OECD are broadly based on natural asset base, environmental and resource
productivity/ intensity, environmental quality of life, and policies and opportunities of
environment [ 18].
The classification of indicators are pertaining to aquatic resources, forest resources, water
resources, land and soil resources, water resources and biodiversity. Depletion of them deprives
future generation. Even though these indicators are finally guiding restructuring model to green
economy these indicators may be considered for national planning.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 74
5
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
The challenges before world economies are three folds such as:
1. To tackle climate change;
2. To eradicate poverty; and
3. To advance Sustainable Development Goals
In order to address these issues multidimensional approaches are required. Advanced
economies have to support lower income and developing countries with liberal financial and
technological support. It demands more financial support to them. On climate change alone
advanced economies have to provide financial support of $ 1.3 billion every year to 140
developing nations to pursue low-emission and resilient development. On the other hand the
developing economies have to carry out the following in the planning, strategies and
implementation:
1. To spur economic growth;
2. To address inequality;
3. To enhance resilience; and
4. To encourage more sustainable development pathways.
In November 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its final
installment of Fifth Assessment Report has concluded the following:
1. Human influence is on the climate system and it is clear and definite;
2. There is more risk on the disruption of climate and the risk is pervasive.
3. Such as risks are irreversible.
4. It is important to develop more means to limit climate change.
5. There shall be more efforts to achieve a prosperous sustainable future.
Source: Climate 2020 [ 19]
Thus the Restructuring Model to a green economy involves long term investment. This is
the most important direction of restructuring model to a green economy. Secondly there is the
need of renewal of infrastructure. Thirdly there must be the development strategies [ 19]. The
green economy is not the substitute to sustainable development. It is not restricted to any single
political ideology. The green economy begins with the implementation of Agenda 21 and it

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 74
6
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
continues to Rio Summit 1992. The restructuring model to green economy is reflected through
the policy decisions of the global economic practice. Most important policy decisions are given
below:
1. Formulation of regulatory framework to promote green economy is stipulated.
2. The policy framework has to take into account of the success and failures in Agenda
21, MDGs and SDGs.
3. The government has to encourage green investments.
4. Reduction of expenditures is preferable where there is depletion of natural capital.
5. In order to promote green investment and innovation provide incentives through
taxations and other discounts to shift consumer preference.
6. Institute more investments on capacity building and training.
7. Support international governance. [ 20].
Therefore there is the need of further research on this topic as no single approach above
mentioned is able to offer restructuring model to a green economy. The restructuring model to a
green economy is wide and it is limited to the Low Carbon Environment Goods and Services.
The world nations are keen to lower CO2 in the entire atmosphere. The ppm (parts per million0
of CO2 has increased from 6ppm to 7 ppm. In order to reduce ppm of Carbon, 7 billion tones or
25.7 billion tones of CO2 have to be removed in the entire hemisphere (Climate Change 2020)
[19]. In addition to it will be examined other related aspects.
4. Research Method and Tools
On the basis of available data and studies as mentioned in the Literature Review,
Research Framework empirical and deductive and inductive methods are adopted. The statistical
tools of Standard Deviation, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and econometric tool of Compound
Average Growth Rate are used for drawing results of the study. The reasons for using many tools
are self explanatory since the topic is complex.
The formula for CAGR is:
CAGR = (EV / BV) 1 / n – 1

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 74
7
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Where:
EV = Investment's ending value
BV = Investment's beginning value
n = Number of periods (months, years, etc.)
The formula for SD is:
x̄ = mean value of the sample data set
σ = √ [∑(x 1- x̄) 2/ N]
σ = √ [∑(x1 – x) 2 / (N – 1)]

Data Analysis
The Data are limited to Low Carbon Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS),
Report for 2011/12, Human Development Report 2016, and World Development Indicators,
World Bank.
Table 1: Global value LCEGS in million Pound of top 10 countries for 2011/12, Co2 emissions,
renewable energy consumption and depletion of natural sources
Country Carbon
Sales
Pound
Million % of
Total GDP % CO2
Emissions
Per capita
tones
2013 Annual
change %
1990
-2013 Renewable
Energy
consumption
(% of total
final energy
consumption Natural
resource
depletion
(% of
GNI
2010-
2014
USA 660,760 19.2 1 16.4 –0.7 7.9 0.7
China 444,324 12.9 9.5 7.6 5.6 18.4 2.3
Japan 213,295 6.2 –0.1 9.8 0.4 4.5 0.0
India 210,815 6.1 5.2 39 1.6 3.6 2.9
Germany 145,267 4.2 3.7 12.4 9.2 – 0.0
UK 128,141 3.7 1.5 7.1 –1.3 4.4 0.6
France 104,201 3.0 2.1 5.1 –1.0 12.6 0.0
Brazil 103,583 3.0 4 2.5 2.5 43.6 2.5
Spain 92,136 2.7 5 5.1 –0.4 15.7 0.0
Italy 89,485 2.6 0.6 5.7 –1.1 10.9 0.1
Mean 219200.7 6.36 3.27 11.07 2.38 13.5111 0.91
SD 468.188 2.316 1.5067 3.1733 1.1748 3.538 -0.9487
Variance 219199.7 5.36 2.27 10.07 1.38 12.511 -0.09

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 74
8
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
CAGR -0.18121 -0.18122 -0.497 -0.10028 0.04623 0.0364 -0.1768
Sources: Calculus based on LCEGS (2013); HDR (2016); World Bank (2016)
We find certain detailed facts in the above table. The top ten nations were selected to
define the restructuring model to a greener economy. There were various facts which had
revealed in terms of depletion of natural resources, carbon sales, renewable energy consumption,
GDP growth rate and CO2 emissions which helped in data analysis for results and conclusions. It
had the composition of largest economies of the world, leading European nations and emerging
markets. It has helped us to define the scope of restructuring model to green economy. As on
2011/12 USA had sold Carbon and it accounted 19.2% which was almost 20% of total sales. It
appeared to be larger contribution from USA to reduce the impact of CO2 emissions but it had
the second highest CO2 emissions per capita in 2013.It accounted for 1% GDP of USA. The
depletion of natural resources was 0.7% for the period from 2010 to 2014. USA had 7.9 % of
renewable sources of energy against total energy consumption and it could reduce CO%
emissions into negative by -0.7% from 1990 to 2013 annually. China sold carbons 12.9 % of
total sales, amounting to 9.5% of GDP which is the second largest carbon sales after USA with
2.3% depletion of natural resources for the period of 2010-2014. China has achieved the second
highest renewable energy of 18.4% after Brazil which has 43.6% of total energy consumption.
The CO2 emissions per capita tones of China were 7-6 and the annual change of it was 5.6% for
the period from 1990 to 2013. Japan sold carbons 6.2% of total but it was merely -0.1% of GDP
with nil depletion of natural resources. The CO2 emissions per capita tones of Japan were 9.8 in
2013 but the annual change of 0.4% during the period of 1990 -2013.The renewable sources of
energy were 4.5% of total energy consumption in Japan. India sold carbons 6.1% of total sales
amounting to 5.2% of GDP. The India had the largest 39 CO2 emission per capita tones in 2013
and it had the lowest 3.6% renewable energy of total energy consumption with the highest 2.9%
depletion of natural resources for the period of 2010-2014. Annual change of CO2 emissions per
capita of India was 1.6% from 1990 to 2013. Germany sold Carbons 4.2% of total sales which
accounted to 3.7% of GDP without depletion of natural resources. Germany had the third
highest CO2 emissions of 12.4 per capita in 2013 and it had increased the CO2 emissions by
9.2% for the period from 1990 to 2013 which was the highest of all the nations. UK had sold
carbons 3.7% of total sales and it accounted for 1.5% of GDP. The CO2 emissions per capita
tones in 2013 of UK were 7.1% with 0.6% depletion of natural resources for the period from

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 74
9
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
2010 to 2014. The annual change of CO2 emissions for the period from 1990 to 2013 was -1.3%
%. It made very good efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Renewable energy consumption was
4.4% of total energy consumption. UK could make difference slowly. France had no depletion of
natural resources during the period of 2010 to 2014 and it had highest 12.6% renewable sources
of energy .of total energy consumption among the advanced income group. It sold Carbon 3% of
total sales and it amounted to 2.1% of GDP. The CO2 emissions per capita tones in 2013 of
France were 5.1. Brazil sold 3% of total carbon sales amounting to 4% of GDP with 2.5%
depletion of natural resources. It achieved 43.6% renewable energy of total energy consumption.
The CO2 emissions per capita tones of Brazil were 2.5 and the annual change was 2.5% for the
period of 1990 -2013. Spain sold carbons 2.7% of total sales which were 5% of GDP. There was
no depletion of natural resources in Spain for the period from 2010 to 2014. The CO2 emissions
per capita tones in Spain were 5.1 and the annual change of it was -0.4 % for the period from
1990 to 2013. The renewable energy consumption was 15.7% of total energy consumption. Italy
achieved 10.9% renewable energy of total energy consumption with 0.1% depletion of natural
resources.
The Mean average of depletion of natural resources was 0.91% which was higher to 0.7%
of USA, 0% of Japan, Germany, France, and Spain, 0.6% of UK, and 0.1% of Italy. Thus 70% of
nations remained below Mean average of depletion of natural resources. There were three
nations of China with 2.3%, India with 2.9% and Brazil with 2.5%, which had exceeded the
Mean average of 0.91% of depletion of natural resources. Therefore 30% of nations had higher
Mean average of depletion of natural resources. China, India and Brazil are emerging economies
of Lower Middle Income group nations. Seven advance income group nations had lesser
depletion of natural resources.
We considered advanced economies for analyzing further details.
Table 2: Global value LCEGS in million Pound of advanced economies countries for 2011/12,
Co2 emissions, renewable energy consumption and depletion of natural sources
Country Sales
Pound
Million % of
Total GDP % CO2
Emissions
Per capita
tones Annual
change %
1990
-2013 Renewable
Energy
consumption
(% of total Natural
resource
depletion
(% of

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 74
10
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
2013 final energy
consumption GNI
2010-
2014
USA 660,760 19.2 1 16.4 –0.7 7.9 0.7
Japan 213,295 6.2 –0.1 9.8 0.4 4.5 0.0
Germany 145,267 4.2 3.7 12.4 9.2 – 0.0
UK 128,141 3.7 1.5 7.1 –1.3 4.4 0.6
France 104,201 3.0 2.1 5.1 –1.0 12.6 0.0
Spain 92,136 2.7 5 5.1 –0.4 15.7 0.0
Italy 89,485 2.6 0.6 5.7 –1.1 10.9 0.1

Mean
average of
top ten
nations of
Table 1 219200.7 6.36 3.27 11.07 2.38 13.5111 0.91
SD
Table 1 468.188 2.316 1.5067 3.1733 1.1748 3.538 -0.9487
Variance
Table 1 219199.7 5.36 2.27 10.07 1.38 12.511 -0.09
CAGR
Table 1 -0.18121 -0.18122 -0.497 -0.10028 0.04623 0.0364 -0.1768
Sources: Calculus based on LCEGS (2013); HDR (2016); World Bank (2016)
We observed that the Advanced Economies, OECD had lesser depletion of natural
resources than the Mean average. It established that these nations did not contribute directly to
the greenhouse gas emissions as the natural resources depletion in four countries was nil. Japan,
Germany, France and Spain did not have any depletion of natural resources. The remaining three
nations USA, UK and Italy had depletion of natural resources 0.7%, 0.6% and 0.1% respectively
for the period from 2010 to 2014. The SD of Natural Resources Depletion was negative, –
0.9487%. The SD Variance was also negative with -0.09%. The CAGR was also negative with –
0.1768%. The Mean average of Renewable energy of total energy consumption was 13.51%
which was found higher to all the nations except Spain which had 15.7%. Each nation can
increase renewable energy in the total energy consumption as it can afford for long term
investment. The Mean average of CO2 emissions per capita tones was 11.07 which were lower
to 16.4 of USA and 12.4 of Germany. Japan, UK, France, Spain and Italy had lower CO2
emissions per capita tones of 9.8, 7.1, 5.1, 5.1, and 5.7 respectively. The Mean average of CO2
Emissions per capita tones was 2.38% it was negative annual change in USA, UK, France, Spain
and Italy of -0.7%, -1.3%, -1%, -0.4% and -1-1 % respectively for the period from 1990 to 2013.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 74
11
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
These nations could manage CO2 emissions per capita tones very effectively. Japan had the
annual change of 0.4% but Germany had 9.2% which was the highest. USA sold carbons
maximum of 19.2% of total sales. The Mean average carbon sales were 219200.7 million Pounds
and the carbon sales of USA were 660,760 million Pounds and all other six nations had fewer
sales than mean average. The Carbon sales of USA was only 1% of GDP which was 19.2% of
total sales but the carbon sales of Spain was only 2.7% of total sales and it amounted to 5% of
GDP. Therefore among these seven nations there was huge variation in the national incomes.
The carbon sales of Spain were 92,136 million Pounds and the carbon sales of USA were
660,760 million Pounds. It was only 13.9% of total sales of USA but it was 5% of GDP. In
another words 5% of GDP of Spain accounted for 2.7% of total carbon sales. In case of USA
19.2% of total sales of carbon was equal to 1% of GDP. At the same time the carbon sales of
Italy were 2.6% of total carbon sales which accounted for 0.6% of GDP. In view of huge
variation of national income it was very difficult to reach a common approach to all nations.
China, India and Brazil were examined to distinguish the details for comparison.
Table 3: Global value LCEGS in million Pound of three Emerging economies for 2011/12, Co2
emissions, renewable energy consumption and depletion of natural sources
Country Sales
Pound
Million % of
Total GDP % CO2
Emissions
Per capita
tones
2013 Annual
change %
1990
-2013 Renewable
Energy
consumption
(% of total
final energy
consumption Natural
resource
depletion
(% of
GNI
2010-
2014
China 444,324 12.9 9.5 7.6 5.6 18.4 2.3
India 210,815 6.1 5.2 39 1.6 3.6 2.9
Brazil 103,583 3.0 4 2.5 2.5 43.6 2.5

Mean
Table 1 219200.7 6.36 3.27 11.07 2.38 13.5111 0.91
SD
Table 1 468.188 2.316 1.5067 3.1733 1.1748 3.538 -0.9487
Variance
Table 1 219199.7 5.36 2.27 10.07 1.38 12.511 -0.09
CAGR
Table 1 -0.18121 -0.18122 -0.497 -0.10028 0.04623 0.0364 -0.1768
Sources: Our calculus based on LCEGS (2013); HDR (2016); World Bank (2016) [ 21, 22, 23]

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 74
12
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
From the above we found that the mean average of natural resource depletion was 0.91%
which was very low comparing to these three emerging economies of China, India and Brazil.
.China had sold 444,324 million Pounds carbons which were 12.9% of total sales as against the
Mean average of 219200.7 million Pounds. The carbon sales of China accounted for 9.5% of
GDP. The CO2 emissions per capita tones of China were 7.6 in 2013 and the annual change was
5.6% for the period from 1990 to 2013.China had developed 18.4% renewable energy of total
energy consumption with lowest depletion of natural resources of 2.3% for the period of 2010-
2014, among these nations. India sold carbons of 210,815 million Pounds which were marginally
less than Mean average of carbon sales. The carbon sales accounted for 5.2 % of GDP from 6.1%
of total sales. Brazil sold 103,583 million Pounds of 3# of total sales amounting to 4% of GDP.
India had the largest 39 CO2 emissions per capita tones in 2013 than China of 7.6 and Brazil of
2.5. India also had the highest natural resources depletion of 2.9% while China and Brazil had
2.3% and 2.5% respectively for the period of 2010-2014. India had the lowest renewable energy
of 3.6% of total energy consumption and Brazil and China had renewable energy of 43.6% and
18.4% respectively of total energy consumption. Among the emerging economies India had to
restructure model of green economy most appropriately comparing to China and Brazil.
Transition economies of Eastern Europe nations of Romania, Poland, Czech and Hungary
were considered below.
Table 4: Global value LCEGS in million Pound of last four Emerging Economies/Upper Income
Group of East Europe countries for 2011/12, CO2 emissions, renewable energy consumption and
depletion of natural sources
Country Sales
Pound
Million % of
Total GDP % CO2
Emissions
Per capita
tones
2013 Annual
change
% 1990
-2013 Renewable
Energy
consumption
(% of total
final energy
consumption Natural
resource
depletion
(% of
GNI
2010-
2014
Romania 11955 0.3 1.1 3.5 –2.7 21.7 1.0
Poland 29526 0.9 5 7.9 -0.8 11.1 0.7
Czech 11444 0.3 1.8 9.4 – 10.9 0.1
Hungary 10081 0.3 1.7 4.2 –2.0 10.2 0.3

Mean 15751.5 0.45 2.4 6.25 1.3 13.475 0.525

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 74
13
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
SD 125.5009 -0.7416 1.1832 2.2913 0.5477 3.532 -0.6892
Variance 15750.5 -0.55 1.4 5.25 0.3 12.475 -0.475
CAGR -4.173 0 0.11497 0.04663 -0.0952 -0.17199 -0.2599
Sources: Our calculus, based on CEGS (2013); HDR (2016); World Bank (2016)
We observed that the emerging markets of transitions economies were considered to
interpret the need of restructuring model to greener economy in a diversified economic
characteristic features. It revealed essential elements of green economy. These nations were in
need of earliest restructuring model to a greener economy since these nations had travelled from
centralized economy to market economy. The Mean average of carbon sales was 15751 million
Pounds and Poland had sold 29526 million Pounds. It was almost twice the amount. Other three
nations of Romania, Czech, and Hungary had sold almost one third less of the Mean average of
carbon sales. All the four nations sold less than 1% of total sales. Romania, Czech and Hungary
sold carbons one third of Poland carbon sales. Poland sold 0.9 % of total sales amounting to 5%
of GDP while Romania, Czech and Hungary sold each 0.3% of total sales amounting to 1.1%,
1.8% and 1.7% of GDP respectively. The Mean average of total carbon sales was 0.45% which
was higher than Romania, Czech and Hungary of 0.3% each of total sales while Poland had sold
double the mean average of 0.9% of total sales. The Mean average of depletion of natural
resources was 0.525% which was higher than 0.1% of Czech and 0.3% of Hungary but it was
lower than 1% of Romania and 0.7% of Poland for the period of 2010 to 2014. The Mean
average of renewable energy was 13.475% of total energy consumption and Romania had
achieved higher 21.7 % renewable energy of total energy consumption while Poland, Czech and
Hungary had 11.1%, 10.9% and 10.2% renewable energy of total energy consumption. Mean
average of annual changes of CO2 emissions per capita tones were 1.3 and all these nations had
achieved exceedingly well with negative annual change of -2.7%, -0.8%, NA, and -2% in respect
of Romania, Poland, Czech and Hungary respectively. Mean average of CO2 emissions per
capita tones were 6.5 in 2013 and the CO2 emissions per capita tones of Romania, Poland, Czech
and Hungary were 3.5, 7.9, 9.4and 4.2 respectively.
The ten African economies were considered to find the comparative facts of them.
Table 5: Low Income 10 countries for 2011/12, CO2 emissions, renewable energy consumption
and depletion of natural sources
Country CO2 Annual Renewable Natural HDI

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 74
14
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Emissions
Per capita
tons 2013 change %
1990 -2013 Energy consumption
(% of total final
energy consumption resource
depletion
(% of GNI
2010-2014
Burundi 0.0 –2.7 96.6 13.8 184
Congo 0.0 –4.7 96 31.8 176
Somalia 0.1 14.1 94.2 8.6 NA
Ethiopia 0.1 2.6 93.5 11.2 174
Chad 0.0 2.8 90.6 13 186
Uganda 0.1 5.0 90.3 11.5 163
Bhutan 1.2 7.1 90.0 16.9 132
Liberia 0.2 –0.1 89.4 27.4 177
Guinea-
Bissau 0.1 –0.5 88.6 12.3 183
Mozambi
que 0.2 3.0 88.4 1.8 181
Mean 0.2 4.26 91.76 14.83 172.88
SD -0.89427 1.80555 9.5268 3.71887 13.1106
Variance -0.8 3.26 90.79 13.83 171.889
CAGR – 0.010591 -0.008831 -1.184283 –
0.001824
Sources: Our calculus, LCEGS (2013); HDR (2016); World Bank (2016)
Ten African nations were considered to define the scope of restructuring model to green
economy. The CO2 emissions per capita tons 2013 of Burundi, Congo, Chad had Nil. Somalia,
Ethiopia, Uganda, and Guinea-Bissau had 0.1 CO2 emissions per capita tons 2013 .These seven
nations were below the mean average of 0.2 CO2 emissions per capita tons 2013. There were
other two nations such as Liberia and Mozambique which had the mean average of 0.2 CO2
emissions per capita tons 2013. Bhutan had 1.2 CO2 emissions per capita tons 2013 which was
above mean average. Therefore it is wrong to suggest restructuring model of green economy of
advanced economies to them in respect of CO2 emissions. The mean average of renewable
energy consumption of total energy consumption was 91.76 %. Thus the problems of climate
change and global warming were not influenced by these nations on energy consumption. The
renewable energy consumption of total energy consumption of Burundi, Congo, Somalia, and
Ethiopia were 96.6 %, 96%, 94.2 % and 93.5% respectively which were above the mean average
of renewable energy consumption of total energy consumption of 91.76%. All other nations were
above 88.4% of renewable energy consumption of total energy consumption. This renewable
energy consumption of total energy consumption was higher than all the other economies of the

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 74
15
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
world in the Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. The mean average of natural resources
depletion was 14.83 of these ten nations and these were the highest of all other economies of
Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. These low income countries depend on the exploitation of
natural resources for their livelihood as they depend upon agriculture. Even though the depletion
of natural resources was high but the CO2 emissions per capita ton 2013 was the lowest and nil
in many countries. The depletion of natural resources will lead to environmental degradation
faster. Therefore there is the need of different restructuring model to greener economy for these
nations and the model of Table1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 economies. Congo was the nation
which had the highest natural resources depletion of 31.8 % but it had Nil CO2 emissions per
capita ton 2013 and it was the second highest 96% of renewable energy consumption of total
energy consumption. Moreover the annual change % of CO2 emissions per capita ton 2013 for
the period from 1990 to 2013 was minus 4.7 %. It is one of the poorest nations with lowest HDI
of 176. Mozambique had the lowest 88.4% of renewable energy consumption of total energy
consumption.
African nations are suffering from extreme poverty, poor electricity, weak infrastructure,
poor health facilities, high illiteracy, high mortality rate, poor governance and other political
challenges. Hence the scope of restructuring model to green economy had to be with a
difference. These nations had indicated several facts which were varying in degree with other
nations but these had unique features. These indicators were adequately representing for the
formulation of restructuring model to green economy.
The top countries account for 64% and the remaining 40 countries have 34%. The green
economy considers that there are three areas of challenges and opportunities such as
environmental, renewable energy and low carbon. The environmental degradation will be
regulated and reduced through the following mentioned in figure 1. The environmental issues
should be addressed on top priority. The air pollution has to be reduced and regulated. There has
to be actions on reclamation of contaminated land and preventive measures should be pursued
vigorously. Periodical environmental consultancy has to be provided to the stakeholders of
environmental governance o environmental degradations. Environmental monitoring, marine
pollution control and noise and vibration control are providing inputs to environmental
management. Waste management, water supply and waste water treatment and recovery and
recycling are crucial to preservation of good environment and disposal of wastes .The sources of
renewable energy directly contribute to climate change.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 74
16
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 1
LCEGS sector definition is given below:

Source: LCEGS (2013)
Results and conclusion
It was found that the largest polluter US had sold maximum low carbon. US held largest
economy of the world.
USA sold highest low carbon of GBP 660,760 million and it was 19.2% of the total sales.
It had only 1% GDP growth in 2011/12. The depletion of natural resources was only 0.7%.
Renewable energy consumption out of total energy consumption was 7.9%. Therefore USA
depended upon the other energy consumption which would affect climate change. As a result the
CO2 emissions of USA were 16.4 per capita tones which were the highest of all 10 nations. It
contributed maximum pollution. Hence the energy consumption should be the main focus of
restructuring model of green economy. Since the depletion of natural resources was low, USA
had to restructure the green investment for better projects of renewable sources of energy.
Secondly it should give the highest priority of maximizing low carbon sales. USA should
concentrate on the environmental sectors which include air pollution control of indoor and
outdoor, contaminated land reclamation, decommissioning of nuclear sites, recovery and
recycling including waste collection and recycling processes, waste management, waste water
treatment, environmental monitoring and environment consulting and training. Renewable
energy consumption was only 7.9 % and other remaining sources of energy would be 92.1%
which would damage the environment. In addition to improving the renewable sources of energy
it had to restructure to a greener economy by adapting to Low carbon which include additional

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 74
17
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
energy sources, alternative fuel vehicles, alternative fuels, building technologies, energy
management, carbon capture and storage, carbon finance and nuclear power. Annual change of
CO2 emissions was –0.7% for the period from 1990 to 2013. It indicated that there was
deterioration. Therefore, there should be restructuring the existing efforts to a greener economy.
The second largest country to sell carbons was China with GBP 444,324 millions and it
amounted to 12.9% of total sales. The GDP growth rate of China was 9.5% and it resulted in
higher depletion of natural resources of 2.3% for the period 2010 to 2014. As a result of
exploitation of natural resources the CO2 emissions were 7.6 per capita tones. Moreover, it had
achieved better control of CO2 emissions as reflected in the annual change of 5.6%. China’s
renewable energy consumption was 18.4%. It reduced the CO2 emissions per capita tones. Most
worrying was the fast deplete of natural resources. The depletion of natural resources would
continue due to higher GDP growth. There were two main reasons. One of them was the growing
population which demanded food security. Second reason was the availability of natural
resources. There would be faster climate change, environmental degradation and poverty
eradication. China decided to increase green investment. It was one of the restructuring models
to greener economy. In order to achieve it has introduced green monetary policy. China
formulated green financial system in three dimensions. One of them was to internalize the
environmental costs and benefits. This policy approach would demand extraordinary policy and
legal framework. In order to implement them there should be an institutional and behavioral
change. Investment proceeded with return and revalidate for future investment. Thus, it would be
extremely difficult to incur environmental costs without compensation. Even if there was
temporary arrangement it would not be permanent. Transferring benefits to society would be
promoting social justice but economic principle had to be sacrificed. The cake eating of natural
resources would be difficult to replenish. The second approach was to facilitate financial actors
like financial institutions, commercial financial institutions and internet based financial
institutions towards green finance. The third dimension of green financing was through financial
products such as green card, green insurance, green bonds and green venture capital funds [ 24].
The green finance is normally associated with greenhouse gas emission reductions but green
finance is a system targeted towards green growth. It is an indispensible structural reform of
national and global economic philosophy. No nation is exceptional.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 74
18
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Italy sold GBP 89,485 low carbon amounting to 2.6& of total sales with 0.6% GDP
growth. The CO2 emissions per capita tones were 5.7 with annual change of –1.1 %. The
renewable energy consumption was 10.9% of total energy consumption. Depletion of natural
resources was 0.1% for the period from 2010 to 2014. Germany had sold GBP 145267
amounting to 4-2 % of total sales with 3.7 % GDP growth. The CO2 emissions per capita tones
were 12.4 with annual change of 9.2% for the period of 1990 to 2013. Germany was the next
highest polluter with high GDP growth rate comparing to USA (Table 2).
Figure 2 Greening Financial System-Framework

Source: Zhuo Xian and Zhang Liping (2015) [ 24]
Emission trading is an important instrument of emission reduction. It offers emission
rights to trade in the market. The emission trading rights are offered under cap-and trade rules to
decide quota. Another mode of emission trading through reduction certificated granted by the
Clean Development Mechanism and joint implementation respectively [ 24]. There are several
green investment banks like the UK green Investment Bank, China development Bank, Inter-
American Development Bank, International Financial Corporation, BRICS Development Bank
or Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and other similar banks.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 74
19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
The Green Investment Bank is the world’s first investment bank and it has financed green
projects worth GBP 10 billion in three years period from its start. It was established in 2012. It
has provided GBP 770 million and its transaction value for the period from 2013-2016 was GBP
3.7 billion. It has invested in 30 green projects. It has achieved 10% projected portfolio return for
the same period. In 2015-2016, it has earned the profit GBP 9.9 million. Thus, green finance is
rewarding for future investment. The income of the Green Investment Bank for the period from
2013-2016 was GBP 58.8 million. Through its investments 20.3 TWh renewable energy was
produced which could provide power to 4.9 million homes; 4.8 m t CO2e of greenhouse gas
were saved which were equivalent to neutralize 2.2 million cars off the road; and 2.3 million
landfill were avoided which worked out to be the waste of 2.3 million households [ 25].
Green bonds are growing faster and these have fetched USD 16.6 billion as shown below
in 2014 and it is expected to reach USD 40 billion soon [ 26]. The growth of green bonds is
largely attributed to green finance since the long term investment is essential green economy.
The green bonds have definite period of maturity to ensure long term investment. Every nation is
interested to promote green bonds for other reasons also. The government can make the
investment through green bonds for other sectors as well. It improves employment and
production leading to increase in GDP. The sources of green bonds and growth of them are
shown in the following figure 3. The Supranational investment in Green bonds began to grow in
2007 but declined drastically in 2008 during the period of global financial crisis. It picked up in
2010 before declining in 2011 and 2012. There was consistency of investment in green bonds as
it increased in 2013 but declined in 2014. Corporate investment on green bonds came into
prominence in 2013 and increased larger in 2014 exceeding all the other sources of Green Bonds.
Project green bonds began to grow in 2007 but it declined in 2008 and 2009 and it could grow
except in 2014. The extrapolated projections were high in 2014.

Figure 3 Green Bonds in last 8 years

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 74
20
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Source: Zhuo Xian and Zhang Liping (2015)
China is a developing economy and it has tremendous responsibility to eradicate poverty and
preserve natural resources. Restructuring model to a greener economy demands structural
reforms of central banks. Without effective participation of financial sector restructuring to a
greener economy is impossible and it is difficult to achieve low carbon, green growth and
development [ 27]. The global financial crisis has forced into different mandate of financial
stability of respective economies [ 28, 29, 30, and 31 ]. It is apolitical decision for the respective
central banks to promote green finance because the banks have to compromise on credit policy.
However, the central banks have to manage their assets as per social impact investment. It is
important to provide guidelines on green finance. In 2012, the Sustainable Banking Network was
established to promote knowledge sharing among them and as on January 2017, there are 37
countries in the SBN to support and promote green finance.
Japan had sold GBP 213295 low carbons and it amounted to 6.2% with GDP growth rate
of –0.1%. The CO2 emissions per capita tones in 2013 were 9.8 with annual change of 0.4% for
the period from 2010 to 2014. It had the renewable energy consumption of 4.5% of total energy
consumption and it had no depletion of natural resources. Japan was an advanced economy and
therefore it did not exploit natural resources as it would happen with developing economy as in
the case of China and India was 2.3% and 2.9% respectively. India had the highest CO2
emissions per capita tones at 2013 and it was 39 with annual change of 1.6%. The lowest
renewable energy of top ten countries was India with 3.6% of total energy consumption. In all

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 74
21
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
respects India needed a complete restructuring model to greener economy. Of the top 10 nations
Brazil had 43% of renewable energy consumption of total energy consumption and it was the
highest. It had the lowest CO2 emissions per capita tones with annual change of 2.5%. Brazil
sold GBP 103583 low carbons and that worked out be 3% of total. The GDP growth rate was
also found reasonably better. However, it had to restructure to a greener economy. Spain sold
GBP 92136 low carbons which was worked out to 2.7 % of total sales with GDP growth of 5%.
There was no depletion of natural resources. The CO2 emissions per capita tones of Spain were
5.1 with annual change of –0.4%. It had the renewable energy consumption of 15.7% out of total
energy consumption.
The emerging markets of Eastern European countries of Romania, Poland, Czech
Republic and Hungary were considered on the restructuring model to a greener economy in view
of transition economies. There was centralized planning during the communist era and in the
post Communist era there was market economy. The period of consideration was post
communist era. The maximum depletion of natural resources of these nations was 1% and less
than 1%. While comparing to other emerging markets of China, India and Brazil the emerging
markets of East Europe the natural resources management of East Europe emerging markets was
much better than the other emerging markets. Among these emerging markets India had poor
renewable energy consumption. The best renewable energy consumption was from Brazil which
had 43% of total energy consumption. The carbon sales of these four emerging markets of East
Europe was less than one percent while other emerging markets had achieved better carbon sales.
The GDP growth rate other emerging markets were higher than East Europe except Poland.
Among these emerging markets India had the highest CO2 emissions per capita tones of 39
(Table 2; Table 3). Among the emerging markets India had to resort to restructuring model to a
greener economy remained on top priority. India had to improve green finance towards all areas
of Environmental, renewable energy and low carbon. India should improve carbon sales. India
should reduce CO2 emissions per capita tones. India should achieve conservation of natural
resources so that the depletion of them was reduced. India, China and Brazil were from low
middle income with low GDP PPP per capita unlike the emerging markets of East Europe. China
and India are largest countries of population and largest economies of the world of first and third
respectively unlike other emerging markets.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 74
22
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Among the 10 African countries of Table 4, Burundi had 96.6% of renewable energy of
total energy consumption. Congo had the renewable energy consumption 96% of total energy
consumption. Congo had the highest depletion of natural resources of 31.8%.Exploitation of
natural resources of Congo had to be regulated o top priority in the restructuring model to
greener economy. The CO2 emissions per capita tones of these countries was 0.0 to 1.2 but it
had volatile annual change from 1990 to 2013 ranging –0.1 % to 14.1%. It indicated inefficient
management of natural resources. One of the reasons was agriculture production. The food
security was the main concern of these nations where there was extreme poverty. The forest was
destroyed rapidly for livelihood. Thus, restructuring model to a green economy was not the same
of advanced income economies. High income OECD nation’s wealth from agriculture was only
2% while the low income countries had 36% of income from Natural resources. Obliviously
there would be higher depletion of natural resources in low income nations including Africa
Therefore the restructuring model to a greener economy had to be not the same for all global but
with a difference.
5. A Critical Review
Principles of Green Economy
The principles of green economy can be derived from various sources of the Stockholm
Declaration, the Rio Declaration, the Johannesburg Declaration, the Earth Charter, the One
Planet Living Principles, the Green Economy Coalition, the New Economic Foundation, and
other number of International Agreements and Principles. The Stakeholder Forum has
consolidated them into fifteen principles as follows:
1. Equitable distribution of wealth
2. Economic equity and fairness
3. Intergenerational equity
4. Precautionary approach
5. The Right to Development
6. Internalization of externalities
7. International cooperation
8. International Liability

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 74
23
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
9. Information, participation and accountability
10. Sustainable consumption and production
11. Strategic, coordinated and integrated planning to deliver sustainable development, the
green economy, and poverty eradication
12. Just transition
13. Radiation well being
14. Gender equality
15. Safeguard biodiversity and prevent pollution of any part of the environment [ 32]
These are all glorious principles drawn in several conferences and summits. These principles
are mere golden ideas and powerful instruments of understanding. These are too wide and too
generic. World nations have not translated them into practice for obvious reasons and
constraints. No nation desires any principle other than these principles. Every country wants to
achieve like the equitable distribution of wealth. It is as difficult as impossible. The sustainable
development is the human discovery of 20th century but it remains to be achieved. Every person
wants to promote and practice justice but it is not happening. There are reasons for not
happening. Every philosophy advocates peace and love but it is not happening. Thus, we need to
find answer. The answer shall be practiced. The solution is universal. Present growth and
development structure is not unsustainable and there is a need for restructuring. The restructuring model
is not universal but it varies from nature of economies. There are advanced economies which demand a
different restructuring model; there are middle income economies which must have a different model of
other than advanced economies ; low but emerging economies need different ; and other African nations
must have a different restructuring model of economy.
Table 6 Evolution of shares of wealth by income aggregate, 2005
Intangible Produced Natural
Low Income 50% 14% 36%
Lower Middle Income 50% 24% 25%
Upper Middle Income 67% 17% 17%
High Income OECD 81% 17% 2%
Source: Our calculus based on World Bank (2011)
It is observed from above that the high income group of OECD nations generate income
from nature is only 2% while the low income group accounts for 36% of income. Similarly,

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 74
24
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
lower middle income group earns income from 25% and upper middle income group has income
from nature 17%. Thus the restructuring model is not common to all these economies. The
primary objectives of green economy are as follows:
1. Save the planet
2. Generate more income and jobs
3. Multiply energy supplies
UK has initiated to restructuring model to greener economy through Enabling the
Transition to a Green Economy. There has to be a long term plan to achieve green economy by
transforming traditional sectors. The green economy includes three pillars of sustainable
development and these are society, well being and environmental limits. There shall be
institutional infrastructure to promote and monitor green infrastructure. Tax regime may be
suitably tuned for green tax to control emissions and to invest for future remedial measures. The
green economy strategy should be formulated for defining environmental limits. One of the
green economy strategies is to state the minimum standard and mandatory limits of emissions of
business. All the stakeholders and civil society should be consulted to decide the mandatory
limits of emissions. In order to enforce the mandatory limits there should be sound indicators of
green economy. The development of indicators demands concerted research and participations of
all the stakeholders of green economy. Almost one third of biomass such as food, fiber and bio-
fuels are imported in UK to reduce emissions which are possible in lower economies [ 34].This is
an effort to support its economic growth without affecting its ecosystem. Emissions have
increased by 3.2% in 2010 despite imports of ecosystem [ 35]. UK has decided to import 45-60%
of oil and 70% of gas that they use to facilitate Climate Change Act to reduce emissions [ 36].
Renewable Sources of Energy sector will offer more jobs in pursuance of green economy as
understood in UK and European Union. In 2010-11, 110000 jobs were created in UK and it is
expected to achieve 400000 jobs in 2020. In Germany 367000 jobs were created in Renewable
Sources of Energy sector. UK is expecting to have 65000 additional jobs in five year times on
account of Green Deal [ 37]. In all these efforts the cost is very high. In UK it is expected that
investment will be required from UK Pound 200 billion to UK Pound 1 trillion. It was criticized
that there was no budget provision for green investment in 2012. It was explained that no such
investment would be possible due to the debt under the global financial crisis. According to the

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 74
25
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
calculation of Carbon Tracker Initiative there would be 105 GtCO2 by the companies of coal,
gas and oil manufacturing and it would be equivalent to 1000% of UK Carbon Budget up to
2050[38]. The regulation framework may facilitate green innovation.
Despite best efforts of UK, there is no successful restructuring model to greener
economy. It has discovered existing problems associated with green investment.
Barbados has identified five core sectors to achieve transition to green economy and
these sectors are agriculture, fisheries, building, transportation and tourism. Barbados is a small
island and it has two challenges of price fluctuations of imported fossil fuels and impact of
climate change on its coastal ecosystems. It has identified enabling conditions which include
investment, development strategies, technology, institutions and governance, and
communication, to green economy [ 39]
South Africa has recognized enabling conditions to green economy by signing Green
Economy Accord in 2011. It has recognized certain enabling conditions to green economy. The
single document of Accord fails to define green economy and enabling efforts to achieve green
economy except stressing on the opportunity to create jobs, benefitting innovation drawn from
technology, transferring befits of new prospects on the economic activities of climate change,
making the responsibility of government to achieve enabling environment, and promoting
participation of institutions and citizens to realize the goals of green economy [ 139].
Jordan has found key sectors of economy of energy, water, transport, waste management,
agriculture and tourism for transition to green economy [ 13, 14]
Nepal aims to protect natural resources and to improve the livelihood of poor towards
green economy. It conducted conferences and seminars for defining the specific tasks to achieve
the green economy [ 41].
Canada has conclusively decided to achieve green economy as it will gain more from
green economy than to lose [ 42].
The Heart of Borneo, a small South Asian country, has signed the Heart of Borneo (HoB)
Declaration in 2007 and other signatories are Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunel governments. The

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 74
26
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Declaration is signed to conserve the biodiversity, ecosystems and natural resources of Borneo.
There is a roadmap already to achieve green economy like payments for ecosystem services,
renewable energy incentives and public-private partnership programmers on conservation. It has
been proposed to establish capacity building measures to train skills and knowledge sharing
through the Green Economy Centre of Excellence, HoB Partnership Forum, Green Growth
Generator, and Sustainable Finance Facility for Green Growth, and demonstration projects to
improve people’s lives and environment [ 43].
Green Growth: Africa
African initiatives for Economic Growth and Development
Africa needs growth and inclusive growth. Africa has to get the growth in development
and it achieves sustainable development. Several initiatives have been consistently pursued with
definite purpose of growth and development. The Monrovia Declaration of 1979 aimed to
achieve a high degree of self-sufficiency, a democratic national development with strong African
solidarity. The Lagos Plan of Action of 1980 aimed to tide over the crisis in Africa by promoting
self –reliance and self-sufficiency through development, equity in wealth distribution, expansion
of the public sector, and inter African economic cooperation and integration. The Final Act of
Lagos (1980) was transformed into the Abuja Treaty of 1991 and established African Economic
Community. The Abuja Treaty aimed to establish African Common Market on or before 2000. In
fact the Abuja Treaty of 1991 prepared a detailed process of achieving the African Economic
Community over a period of 34 years since the Monrovia Declaration in 1979. The Organization
of African Unity Assembly of head of States adopted the Economic Recovery programmers in
July 1985. The United nation General Assembly adopted this program and named it as United
Nations program of Action of African Economic Recovery and Development (UNPAAERD) –
1986-1990. The Structural Adjustment Program of Breton Woods Institutions of 1989 failed to
link week economies of Africa to global system. The African Charter for Popular Participation in
Development and Transformation (Arusha 1990) was a renewed effort to undo the effects of
SAP 1989. The African Charter aimed for democratizing the development process unlike SAP.
The Organization of African Union declaration on the Political and Socio-Economic Situation in

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 74
27
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Africa 1990 aimed for promotion of democracy and the recognition of the need of the political
system.
Problems of Africa
1. It is a huge continent and the problems are highly complex.
2. It has its own genuine problems to interact with national issues and global issues.
3. Africa’s current economic growth rate is very low at 1.4% in 2015. With this growth rate
it will take minimum 50 years to double its GDP per capita. The GDP per capita was $
1036 in 2014 at the constant prices of 2015.
4. Africa has not achieved industrial development since 1970.
5. Economic activities are of export oriented manufacturing. The export oriented industries
are not growing in the last four decades,
6. Jobs are not created adequately and therefore there’s growing unemployment.
7. The poverty is growing and the people are suffering. In 1990 280 million populations
were in poverty and the poverty has increased to 330 million in 2012.
8. The worst affected countries on food and nutrition are 20 in the world and 19 of them are
in Africa.
9. Poor health facilities dominate Africa.
10. Domestic violence continues to remain a setback to the peace of Africa.
11. Illiteracy is as high as 40% of the adult’s population in Africa.
12. Almost 40% of urban population and 60% of rural population have no access to basic
services.
13. Corruption is everywhere and Africa is worst affected. Due to high corruption there is no
proper income distribution.
14. Two third of African have no electricity.
Growing Africa
Africa is growing. The real GDP has grown by 4.9% from 2000 to 2008. The total GDP of
Africa is $ 1.6 trillion which is equal to Brazil or Russia. The oil price increased from $ 20 per
barrel to $ 145 in 2008. Similarly, prices of minerals, grain and other raw materials increased on
global demand. Africa benefitted from the price rise. Algeria, Angola, Chad, Congo, Equatorial

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 74
28
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Guinea, Gabon, Libya and Nigeria are large oil exporting countries. Algeria, Angola and Nigeria
alone have earned $ 1 trillion during the period of 2000-2008 but during the period of 1990s they
earned only $ 300 million. African countries have adopted sound macroeconomic policies and
reforms. Political stability returned to several countries of Africa. Investment climate has
improved resulting into growth of foreign direct investment from $ 9 billion in 2000 to $ 62
billion in 2008. Africa recently expands its trade under South-South exchanges with Asia and
Middle East in addition to Europe and the share of Asia’s trade with Africa has increased to 28%
while the trade with Europe has declined from 51% to 28% for the period 2000 to 2008.
Africa has diversified the sources of income. Africa has generated 32% of income from
natural resources and government finance and the remaining sources of income of GDP have
been from other sectors as given below [2]: The prices of oil, minerals and other commodities
increased since 2000 which resulted higher GDP growth of Africa. Africa had achieved $ 1.6
trillion in 2008 and it was equivalent to Brazil or Russia. The oil price increased from $ 20 a
barrel in 1999 to $ 145 a barrel in 2008. Due high investments and growth of natural resources
the Africa’s GDP contributed to 32% growth of GDP from 2000 to 2008. The remaining two
third growth of GDP came from transportation, telecommunications and manufacturing. The
whole sale and retail trade alone provided 13 % growth while natural resources added 24% of
growth as shown in figure 4, the global demand for oil and fuel consumption would increase by
25% and such demand accelerated higher growth in Africa. Africa has 40 % of gold, 10% of
world oil reserve, and 80 % to 90% of minerals reserves of chromium and platinum.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 74
29
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 4

Source: Acha Leke et. al (2010)
From the figure 5, it is observed that the urbanization is fast growing in Africa because of
economic growth and development. In 1980 the urban population of Africa was 28%. In 2014 it
has increased to 40% of total population. More people are moving from agriculture to
employment in urban areas. The faster urbanization has resulted in more private investments in
infrastructure development. The investment on infrastructure has tripled to $ 19 billion from
2006 -2008 at the average annually. The urbanized cities have increased to 40% of the total
population better than India.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 74
30
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 5

Source: Acha Leke et. al (2010 )
Egypt, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia have diversified their economies and they
have achieved consistent growth rate of GDP since 2000. Their diversifications are mostly in
manufacturing and services which include construction, banking, telecom and retailing
accounting for 70% of GDP. Oil exporting countries like Algeria, Angola, Chad, Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Libya and Nigeria depend upon oil and gas prices. These nations
have diversified onto manufacturing and services which account for one third of GDP.
Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia are low
income group economies and they slowly diversify their economies. In these countries 35% of
GDP are from agriculture and natural resources. The remaining two third of GDP are from their
exports As result of export of manufactured items like processed fuels, processed food,
chemicals, apparel and cosmetics their growth rate of GDP has increased from 3.6 % in 1990s to
5.5% after 2000. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali and Sierra Leone are
poor with low GDP of $353. These nations are fast growing since 2000 with an average growth
rate of 7% (2]
Ethiopia and its legacy

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 74
31
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Ethiopia has its unique position in Africa. The earliest country in Africa to accept
Christianity is Ethiopia. One of the few countries in the world is Ethiopia which has never had
been under colonial rule except short spell here and there. The culture of Ethiopia has remained
unpolluted mostly even though the current population consists of Ethiopians, Moors, Jews and
heathens. In the long history of Ethiopia there were several monuments which could not be
preserved for various reasons over period. It had strong stone forts and palaces. The earliest
lifestyle was so rich. There had been long historical ties with Dravidians but the strong evidences
are missing. The agricultural crops of Ethiopia and Dravidians could be found common and the
measurement of food grains was Gala, Kalam of Tamil. Africans belonged to Nubia and the
Dravidians belonged to C-group of Nubia. They had common black and red ware; they had
common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures; and they had a
common rock-cut sepulcher. Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo
group languages that are spoken today in the Niger Valley Senegambia. The Niger –Congo
group had their origin in Nubia. The M1 HG is only found in Ethiopia and Egypt which has
resulted in the migration to Africa from India. The M lineages were found both in East Africa
and West Africa. The Dravidians and Africans speak genetically related languages, share
anthropological and archeological features that unite them both. It is liked to Indus Valley
Civilization ( 136)
Green Economy: Ethiopia
Ethiopia is committed to green growth. It plans to achieve green economy. There are policy
options which Ethiopia has practiced over period of time.

Ethiopia: Planning and Development
Ethiopia was familiar with planning and development earlier to 1944 but however a well
organized planning began during the period of 1957-1974 of monarchial rule. It was centralized
planning. During this period the structure of planning was five year period focusing on
infrastructure, agriculture development, mining, manufacturing and industry, and energy.
Energy production had increased by 156%. The GDP had increased to 3.2% during this period.
The annual growth of exports and imports was 3.2% and 6.4% respectively. Industry had

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 32 of 74
32
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
increased its contribution to GDP from 9% in 1954 to 12.5% in 1959 ( 137). The Provincial
Military Administrative Council known as Dreg took over monarchy and implemented Marxist-
Socialist ideologies in 1974. One of them was the land allotment to common man. Secondly the
centralized planning became the model of growth development. Thirdly it established ‘annual
development campaigns’ rather than long term plans. Per capita income increased by 3% and
GDP also increased. More employment was generated through new processing and
manufacturing industries of state owned [ 138]. The illiteracy declined from 99% in 1974 to 37%
in 1984.Primary education improved from 19 % to 48% during this period. Access to health
improved from 15% to 43% during the plans period. Many new processing and manufacturing
industries were started [ 138]. During this period the clean water supply increased from 7% to
16%. Roads were constructed to 18000 km in 1979 from 6700 km in 1974. The military
government was toppled in 1987. The present government had overthrown the Provisional
Military Administrative Council in 1991. From 1991 onwards Ethiopia has adopted to market
economy and Structural Adjustment Program.
In the post-1991, Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front Government initiated
consultation process to widen the scope of poverty reduction strategy and it made efforts to
implement the consultations. The government reconstituted the planning and development
through Ministry of Planning and Economic Development and the Ministry of External
Economic Cooperation. The Government of Ethiopia had merged the Ministries of Planning and
Finance into Ministry of Finance and Economic Development in 2000. In 2000 Ethiopia has
concentrated on poverty reduction program and it has adopted to millennium development goals.
Asian countries like Malaysia, China and India have been successful in planning and
development process. These countries have continued to uninterrupted Planning and
Development. India has adapted to federalism in which regions/ State have their own planning
and development process in the line of National Five Plans. Ethiopia has decentralized the
planning and development process. Each Region including Woreda (District) has the planning
and development process in coordination with national five year development plans. Sub-
regional actors also participate in the national policy formulation exercise at federal level. In fact
the Government of Ethiopia had initiated the decentralization policy of planning and
development process in 1990 with the transfer of powers from the federal to the regional. In the

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 74
33
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
process of it the Woreda (District) Council and Kebele (Village) Councils are strengthened with
the appointment of Managers for policy coordination and policy implementation. It has improved
the collection of tax revenues for generating domestic funds since most of the African countries
largely depend upon the funding from Overseas Development Agencies and official development
assistance. For the period of 2000 to 2010 the donors had made the commitment of US $ 6.277
billion in external assistance but the actual disbursement was US $ 3.245 billion which was only
50% of the commitment. Africa generated domestic funds US $ 520 billion annually through
taxes, and earnings from minerals and mineral fuels. There are other sources of domestic funds
from the remittances of Diaspora, Diaspora Bonds, Sovereign wealth bonds, pension funds,
taxes, export earnings, Eurobonds, and syndicated loans. The Eurobonds and syndicated loans
have increased from 5 in 2007 to 15 in 2014.
Ethiopia has established the monitoring and evaluation system in 1996 through the
Welfare Monitoring Unit which is a part of Economic Policy and Economic Development in the
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and the Central Statistical Authority. The
Welfare Monitoring Unit is responsible for compiling and analyzing data to send reports on the
implementation of national development plan and programmers to the Economic Planning and
Policy Department which is responsible for drafting the annual progress reports on the
implementation of national development planning framework. It is found in Ethiopia that there is
discrepancy between administrative and survey data. It needs to be addressed as it happens in
every developing nation.
Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE): Ethiopia

Ethiopia has initiated action plan in 2011 and it is known as Climate Resilient Green
Economy (CRGE). It is believed that Ethiopia will become middle income economy in 2025.
One of the major aims of them is to maintain the greenhouse gas emissions at 2010 level.
Another important strategy is economy growth is to be achieved without climate change. Third
strategy is to protect agriculture and forestry as they are the key sectors of contributing national
income and household livelihoods. Nearly eighty percent of the populations depend upon
agriculture and forestry. And 43% of the national come is derived from these two sectors.
Fourthly the green economy strategy is also drawn along with it.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 34 of 74
34
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Objectives of the Climate Resilient Strategy: Ethiopia

There are three objectives. One of them is to identify the impact of current weather
vulnerability.
Secondly it is to identify the solutions to safeguard against the weather vulnerability and to
reduce the impact of current weather vulnerability. Third objective is to arrange finance towards
the strategy.

Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia: Nodal Agency

Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia is the nodal agency of these strategies. Ministry of Agriculture
divides these sectors into Disaster Risk Management and Food Security, Agricultural
Development, Livestock, Natural Resources Management and Extension. There are three Sub-
Sectors such as agricultural crops, livestock and forestry. The agricultural crops include cereals,
pulses, coffee, oil seeds, spices, herbs, vegetables, fruits, sugarcane and fiber which contribute
67% of agricultural GDP and 27% of total GDP. The total land area of Ethiopia is 1.1 m km
square. Almost 95% of area is involved in agricultural cultivation through rain-bed farming. The
traditional farming techniques are used. As result of agricultural production and use of fertilizers
the greenhouse gas emissions were 10 Mt CO2 I 2010. It is expected to increase to 60 Mt CO2 in
2030. More efforts are directed towards deforestation and improved techniques of agricultural
farming.

E Ethiopia has the largest livestock which contribute 9% of GDP in 2012/13. Cattle are the
single largest source of GHG emissions accounting for 65 Mt CO2 which is 40% of total national
GHG emissions. There will be 30% of increase of cattle in 2030. National income from forestry
is 4% of GDP. Forest sector produces 55 MtCO2 in 2011 and it will increase to 90 MtCO2 in
2030.

Challenges to Green Economy: Ethiopia

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 35 of 74
35
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
1. The temperature has increased 1 degree Celsius annually since 1960.
2. The rainfall has declined by 20% in South-Central region of Ethiopia
3. There are risks of droughts, floods and soil erosion.
As a result of 1, 2, and 3 abovementioned impacts of climate change the GDP has
declined from 1% to 4% due to droughts and reduction of GDP by 1% on account of soil
erosion recently. It has affected severely the livelihoods of people, cattle and agricultural
production in Ethiopia.
4. It is projected that there will be an increase of temperature to 0.5 C to 2 C in 2050 due to
climate change.
5. The impact of climate may delay achieving the middle income level in 2015 as it may
reduce 10% or more in GDP of 2050.
6. It may impact on the national average rainfall by -25% to + 30% by 2050.
7. It is believed that an increase of 1% temperature may result in loss of 1.3% farm
revenues.
8. The projection of higher temperature may reduce the per capita of agricultural GDP 0f
3% to 30% in 2050.
9. The coffee is the main source of GDP and export earnings. Due to climate change the
land area for coffee production may decline and it may result in loss of coffee production
by 40% to 90% in 2080.It may lead to 30 % reduction of export earning equivalent to US
$ 0.5 billion per year by 2030.
10. It may reduce livestock income by 40% due to reduction in the rainfall and raising
temperature. And it may increase to 50% or more in 2050.
11. It will affect forest and forest coverage leading to ecological change [ 48].
Options and Actions
Ethiopia has examined 350 options towards building climate resilience and reducing
impact of future climate change. Finally 41 options have been identified and 38 of them have
been entrusted with Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia. In order to implement 41 options the
Ministry of Agriculture has estimated to the additional investment of $ 200 million now and it is
estimated to $ 600 million in 2030. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture plans $ 1 billion for the

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 36 of 74
36
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
total expenditure and for the regions it is estimated to $ 3 billion to implement 41 options in
2030.
Green Economy Strategies: Ethiopia
Ethiopia had decided four pillar strategies.
There are three pillars of strategies pertaining to climate resilience. One of them is to
improve crop and livestock production practices with twin objectives of increasing food security
and income to farmers and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Second is the protection of
forests to enhance the economic and services and to improve carbon stocks. Third pillar is the
efficient management of livestock and productivity.
Interactive Risk management (IRM)
Ethiopia has adapted to the Interactive Risk management on the recommendation of
Inter-Governmental Panel o Climate Change (IPCC). There are three approaches on the IRM. In
the short term three actions have been identified. One of them is’ low and no regret action’. It is
proposed to achieve economic growth for immediate gain unmindful of climate change. The
second action is ‘ climate proofing actions’. Within the framework of climate smart the
development is integrated into climate smart. Third approach is ‘climate justified’ actions. It
involves research and development of policies and practices of development. These approaches
towards 2025 and beyond 2025 there is long term approach (. 141)
Investment for Green Economy
Additional financial support for implementation is US $ 205 million in 2015, US $ 299 in
2020, US $ 401 in 2025 and US $ 603 in 2030 [ 48]. Federal, Regional, Donors and Private
Sector have to finance the investments. It will e huge task to achieve it.
Recommendations
There are several recommendations which can be offered towards the climate resilience
in Ethiopia.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 37 of 74
37
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
1. The most important recommendations are not to overdo anything which is against the
poverty reduction. Almost 33% of the population is below the poverty line. It is to be
removed. There are 80 % of the populations in poverty. More than 80% – 90% of the
population depends upon agriculture. Agricultural production is not only providing food
security but also the GDP. Modernization of agricultural production would resolve
several problems associated with climate change. The agricultural production contributes
maximum greenhouse gas emissions as there are fewer industries. Hybrid seeds and
development of manures of natural will reduce the consumption of fertilizers. Crop
selection is most important n view of varying weather conditions and rainfalls. Green
revolution of India is the role model. Maximizing agricultural extension centers will train
the farmers on the use of hybrid seeds and natural manures. Theory and practice of
farmers do bring total knowledge and training. It may be achieved through participation
and training. Local farmers are to be trained and equipped with the knowledge of weather
conditions, floods and droughts. The knowledge sharing is possible through Kebele
Councils. Ultimately they have to be empowered and they act independently.
Government and other agencies have to be only facilitators.
2. There shall be fair price marketing for their products. Agricultural income of farmers
shall be at fair price sales.
3. There shall be local water management councils to decide the regular need of water for
cultivation and to develop water storage. The village Kebele Councils should be the
facilitators and not regulators.
4. The farmers shall be equipped with land management techniques. They need to
understand causes of soil erosion and how the soil erosion could be managed. The rainfall
is declining annually due to climate change. There is sufficient time to prevent soil
erosion during the normal period. It needs collective action through government funding.
The government has to pay subsistence allowance for the people who are engaged in the
prevention of soil erosion. It has to be designed in such a way that the rainwater slopes
down to the water storage dam or pond or lake in each village at several palaces with
minimum investment.
5. Land silting should be managed so that the prevention leads to water storage.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 38 of 74
38
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
6. Due to highlands the rain waters are falling down steeply and that force can be converted
into local power generation. Each village can generate power which can be used for
cooking and lighting at villages. Woods would be saved from cooking.
7. Biogas plant can be developed in each village as the cow dung, cattle wastes and human
waste would be used. The biogas can be used for cooking and street lighting and other
lightings. The biogas plant residues could be used as natural manures.
8. Village halls can be built for shelter at the time of floods and otherwise it can be used for
agricultural marketing centers.
9. Drought prone areas are identified so that natural vegetations are developed to generate
drought prone forests. Shifting cultivations can be developed so that crops are cultivated
suitably. Water lifting shall be used through canals as developed in Rajasthan deserts in
India.
10. There shall be regular construction of deep walls and tanks to store water during rainfalls.
Such deep tanks provide source for drinking water and agricultural cultivation with dry
farming methods.
11. Lands are available and there shall be suitable mechanism to ensure fertility of the soils.
12. Schemes shall be developed to engage them in village industries and the products will be
available in the market for direct consumption and others become raw materials to
industries. The power supply will be cheaper and continuous through biogas plant and
tapping energy from rain falls.
13. All the schemes and efforts of planning shall be focused towards agriculture rather
designing schemes alienating from agriculture.
14. There are crops like teff which is highly nutritious and free from fat and carbohydrates. It
can be made as a product for the diet of diabetes and it can be marketed globally.
15. Coffee curing plants can be easily installed for better coffee seeds to manufacture quality
coffee for exports. Procuring raw coffee seeds from farmers fetch poor price which can
be avoided easily through coffee curing plants in villages/
16. Teff plants can be used for paper industry and natural manures.
17. Generate funds from the international institutions initially and make them available
through domestic sources.
18. Ethiopia has no serious threat of pollution but prevention is the most important solution.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 39 of 74
39
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
19. Development has to be achieved without environmental degradation through sustainable
development. Green growth is sufficiently suitable to reduce poverty reduction. This is
the scope of green economy.
20. Increasing renewable sources of energy and multiplying agricultural income as suggested
above will create link between development and environment. Ethiopia has to plan it
accordingly.
21. Develop industries of agricultural oriented predominantly so that natural sources
depletion is minimized.
22. Generate employment in agriculture and surely shift them to service sectors.
Restructuring Models to Green Economy
In 2005 the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development (MCED) had
recognized the green growth model is beyond the sustainable development. The participants of
conference were 52 governments and other stakeholders of Asia and the Pacific at Seoul. This
initiative has become an important regional initiative UNESCAP, 2008 and it has become a
strategy to achieve sustainable development, and Millennium Development Goals (in particular 2
and 7 relating to poverty reduction ad environmental sustainability), ( 140)… It aims to achieve
green growth with environmental sustainability. This restructuring model has attracted several
nations during the global financial crisis [ 142]. In 2008 the Republic of South Korea (RoK) has
adopted the restructured model of ‘low carbon green growth’ I 2009 and it has implemented it in
their National Strategy for Green Growth and Five Year Plan for Green Growth. It has passed
legislation to the effect, the Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth. The OECD
Ministerial Council Meeting was held in June 2009 and the 30 members and 5 prospective
members had adopted that the green and growth would go together. These members almost
represented 85% of the global economy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
summit which held in April 2010 at Hanoi adopted ‘Sustained Recovery and Development’ to
promote green growth. They decided for long term investments in environmental sustainability
and sustainable use of natural resources. The G20 Seoul Summit in November 2010 has
recognized that green growth is an inherent part of sustainable development. In 2012, Mexico
introduced ‘inclusive green growth’ in G20. The G20 members introduced green fiscal policies
during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. The OECD has recommended the Green Growth

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 40 of 74
40
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Strategy. It formulates a framework to achieve economic growth and development without
environmental degradation, and it prevents inefficient use of sources. It aims to combat climate
change. The OECD defines green growth which fosters economic growth and development and
ensures continuance of natural assets availability for well beings ( 8, 9, and 10 ]. Several actions
have been proposed to achieve green economy. One of them is to promote investment in
innovation and R & D and it should be for commercialization of green economics. Secondly the
technologies must be used for common purposes. Thirdly the growth of new entrepreneurial
firms should be promoted. Fourthly the transition to green economy must focus on small and
medium sized enterprises [ 8, 9, and 10 ]. Among other strategies to achieve green economy the
important strategies are mentioned below:
1. Impose taxes to pollution very costly
2. Reform and rationalize subsidies of environmentally harmful
3. Train and develop skills development and labor market policies
4. Promote private investments for green infrastructure technologies
5. Enlighten greening consumer knowledge and behavior ( 51].
The green economy is considered as tool for sustainable development. The green
economy offers alternative model for economic, production and livelihood and it is inclusive
green growth to implement social and sustainable development goals. Among other
recommendations the report, prepared by the OECD in association with the World Bank and the
UN on the request of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in February 2012, has
offered the following options to the countries to design restructuring model to achieve green
economy:
1. Introduce reforms on taxes and charges against negative environmental externalities.
2. Improve product markets functions.
3. Promote innovation, trade and investment policies. [ 52].
There is no specific restructuring model to green economy in practice. Thus it is important to
suggest a new model for green growth. Green growth is not mere development but it is a
development linking to environment. Environment and development is either side of green
growth. There is already sustainable development which links environment and development.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 41 of 74
41
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Thus there is no separate definition for linking environment to development. Poverty is the curse
of humanity and there shall be reduction of poverty. Poverty is associated with income and
expenditure. The concentration of income allows growing industries, manufacturing, business,
and trade. Market economy promotes competition and elimination of poor performance. Profit is
the single instrument of incentive primarily even though there is corporate social responsibility
(CSR).The present economic growth has not benefitted large populations. There are 1.3 billion
people who do not have electricity; there are 2.6 billion people who have no sanitation; and 900
million people who do not have clean drinking water ( 11, 12].
We observe that the restructuring model to green economy has to be different to each
economy on its need and requirements. It is found that the depletion natural resource is not
uniform in the four economies. Secondly the CO2 Emissions per capita is also different in each
economy. Thirdly the renewable energy of total energy consumption is equally different at each
economy. Fourthly the GDP is not uniform. According to European Environment Agency the
green economy aims to achieve human well being in an inclusive manner within the sustainable
natural ecosystem 143].It is further stated that the efficient use of natural resources is ensured
without environmental impacts and it is important to find ways to increase prosperity in the
economy. In order to achieve them the ecosystem resilience shall take into account of the status,
trends and limits of natural system. It is shown below:
Figure 6 Green Economy Model

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 42 of 74
42
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Source: European Environment Agency (2013) [ 54].
EU has decided to reduce GHG (Greenhouse gas emissions) by 20% in 2020, 40% in 2030 and
80-95% in 2050 comparing to 1990. All developed countries have decided to prevent global
mean temperature of not more than 2 degree C. The developing nations will also contribute in
the GHG reductions so that there will be 50% reduction of global greenhouse gas in 2050. The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and Kyoto Protocol are
regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone
Layer (UN, 1985), the Montreal Protocol (UN, 1987) with amendments, and Regulation
1005/2009/EC on substances that deplete the ozone layer (EU, 2009e) regulate on the depletion
of ozone layer. It was agreed to phase out hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) and EU nations
stop production in December 2019. EU has formulated environmental and resource policy issues
as given below:
1. Energy
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ozone Depleting Substances
3. Air Quality and Air Pollution
4. Transport Sector Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollutants
5. Waste
6. Water
7. Sustainable Consumption and Production

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 43 of 74
43
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
8. Chemicals
9. Biodiversity and Land Use
The United States of America rejected the Kyoto Treaty in 2001 on the election of Republican
Party Candidate as President, George W. Bush. Unfortunately USA remains the largest polluter
of GHG. On the ratification of Kyoto Protocol by Russia the Protocol had achieved 55% of
minimum requirement. Canada, Japan and European Union had ratified earlier. It came into
force on 16 February 2005. There are 177 nations that have ratified it In December 2007.
European Union has created two kinds of Kyoto targets to the member nations. One of them is
the binding targets and non binding targets in Figure & and Figure 8. The purpose of them is to
achieve cost-efficient emission reductions at the sources of pollution themselves.
The binding targets of European Union on each selected item are given below:

Figure 7 Binding Targets of European Union

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of 74
44
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Source: European Environment Agency (2013)
European Union submitted its report to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) that the reduction of GHG in 2011 by 3.3% in 2011 as against the
agreed target mentioned above figure 7. EU has committed to achieve 20% reduction of the
GHG emissions compared to 1990 and to increase 20% renewable energy of total energy
consumption. In addition it has decided to improve 20% energy efficiency of European Union.
On the basis of projections by the member nations of EU they will achieve 21% as against the
target of 20%. These nations promise to take additional measures to achieve a reduction of 24%
in 2010 as against 20% of CO2 emissions. The EU has achieved 10.8% of renewable energy
target of 20% in 2011-12. The EU nations had expressed their reservations on the achievement of
20% energy efficiency in 2020 ( 144)

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 45 of 74
45
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
The non-binding targets of European Union are given below:
Figure 8 Non-binding Targets of European Union

Source: European Environment Agency (2013).

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 46 of 74
46
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 9 Primary energy consumption and the 2020 objectives

Source: European Environment Agency (2013)
EU has proposed Sixth Environment Action Program known as 6EAP (EU, 2002a) a long
term goals of achieving air quality to remove negative impacts and risks to human health and it
has non-binding objectives to achieve by 2020. The targets of reduction of 47% in loss of life
expectancy, 10% reduction of acute mortalities from exposing to ozone, 74% reduction of excess
acid deposition in forest areas and 39% reduction in surface freshwater areas, and 43%
reduction in areas or ecosystems exposed to eutrophication are important among them. In order

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 47 of 74
47
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
to achieve them, there should be the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions by 83%, nitrogen
oxides emissions by 60%, volatile organic compounds by 51%, and ammonia by 27% comparing
to 2000. EU has taken certain policy initiatives to reduce transport emissions of greenhouse
gases and air pollutants in Figure 10. One of them is to reduce to 50% of the conventionally
fuelled cars by 2030. Secondly it should be phased out completely by 2050. Thirdly it is
proposed to shift 30% of road freights over 300 km to water or rail by 2030 and increasing the
shifting to 50% by 2050. Fourthly it is targeted to shift medium-distance passenger transport to
rail by 2050. Fifthly it is considered important to reduce transport CO2 emissions by 20% in
2030 compared to 2008 levels and by 60% in 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Sixthly the urban
cities have to achieve CO2 free transport by 2030. Seventhly it targets to shift long and medium
distance passenger transport to rail in 2050. Eighthly it proposes to use of low carbon fuels by
40% of airlines by 2050. Ninthly it plans to reduce 40% of CO2 emissions of ships in 2050
comparing to 2005.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 48 of 74
48
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 10 Objectives and Targets for GHG emissions and air pollution in Transport

Source: European Environment Agency (2013)
EU desires to achieve by 2020 that waste becomes a resource to be managed by reuse and
recycling economically with the participation of public and private actors. According to Water
Framework Directive EU, targets, there should be good ecological status and good chemical
status water in 2015. The EU Water Framework Directive was published in the Official Journal
of European community on 22 December 2000 containing water protection policies. It took ten
years to formulate. In 1980 there were suggestions to protect aquatic ecology and protection of

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 49 of 74
49
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
ground water. The European Commission proposed water policy in 1995 and it was published in
1997. It contained Directives of Water management. The water policy emerged slowly from
1973 to 2000 as a result of Environmental Action programmers. The Water framework Directive
of EU is an integrated policy on water. ( 146)
There are certain non-binding objectives in respect of sustainable consumption and
production (SCP) as per the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe [ 55]. These are as follows:
1. Remove the environmentally harmful subsidies.
2. Impose environmental taxes to increase public revenues.
3. Provide incentives for food production of healthier and more sustainable.
4. Reduce 20% inputs of food chain resource.
5. Reduce 50% disposal of edible food waste in EU.
6. Decouple economic growth and well being from resource inputs.
7. Achieve by 2050 the economic growth of EU within the resource constraints and
planetary boundaries.
8. Manage resources sustainably from raw materials to energy, water, air, land and soil.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 50 of 74
50
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 11 Objectives and Targets for SCP and resource efficiency objectives (2010-2050)

Source: European Environment Agency (2013)
According to the EU Sustainable Development Strategy [ 56] the chemicals including
pesticides that are manufactured, handled and used, should not be harmful to human health and
environment by 2020. The decline of biodiversity should be stopped as decided in the Heads of
State meeting held in Gothenburg, Sweden, in June 2001. In 2002 it was decided in the
Convention on Biological Diversity that the reduction of biodiversity be stopped at the global,

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 51 of 74
51
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
regional, and national level. In 2010, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002
decided to call the celebration year for reduction of the loss to biodiversity. In 2006, EU has
adopted the Biodiversity Action Plan to achieve the targets in this regard by 2010.
Figure 12 Objectives and Targets for biodiversity and land use (2010 -2050)

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 52 of 74
52
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Source: European Environment Agency (2013)

The EU has revised priorities in the Seventh Environment Action program. The first
priority has target areas of Eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems due to air pollution. The
second priority areas are pertaining to resource efficiency and third priority areas are relating to
Outdoor air quality in urban areas ( 145). These areas are identified as long term vision for living
well within the limits of earth planet. It aims to promote and conserve natural capital. It is to
establish resource efficient green and low carbon economy. It protects people of European Union
from environmental risks.
There are limitations of European Union environment action program. Firstly it limits to
European Union and not to the entire earth planet. European Union does not exist in isolation.
All the limitations and environmental risks are affecting well beings of European Union citizens
directly and indirectly. The second limitation is the economic prosperity which cannot survive
without consumers. Two third populations which live under poverty and low GDP per capita
income will not buy the products of European Union. Every supply survives on demand. Thirdly
the climate change and global warming are not restricted to European Union alone but universal.
Fourthly the well being of European Union is not assured at the environmental degradation of the
world. Fourthly all the achievements of environmental protection of European Union will be

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 53 of 74
53
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
polluted by the outside pollution of European Union in the long run. Fifthly the human well
being is universal and not partial. For the above reasons there is a need for restructuring model to
greener economy and green growth.
However the targets and strategies of European Union are universally applicable to all the
nations. These policies are noble and highly commendable. Each nation has to learn from them.
Despite global financial crisis it is found that there is growth of welfare in all countries as seen I
figure 13. The observations of growth in welfare from want point of welfare measures are not
accurate and thus it is found elusive with reality. The welfare of advanced economies varies to
Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia as the GDP per capita is very low in both economies comparing to
advance economies and European Union. The growth of welfare as shown here has not
communicated clearly but it projects that the growth of welfare has not been drastically affected
during the global financial crisis. Asia had achieved higher income but that had not been
converted to welfare due to unequal distribution of income. Middle East nations did enjoy more
welfare than income. Western Europe also had more welfare than income.
Figure 13 Welfare and income during the global crisis of 2007 to 2014

Source: Bannister, Geoffrey and Alex Mourmouras, 2017, IMF Working Paper 17/271, 2017

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 54 of 74
54
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
The observations of above are reflected in figure 14. The welfare index in comparison
with US there was welfare growth was only in life expectance and there were negative growth in
all other aspects. Consumption declined very sharply of all. Inequality had increased. The
welfare was negative.
Figure 14 Welfare Index for countries’ welfare

Source: Bannister, Geoffrey and Alex Mourmouras, 2017, IMF Working Paper 17/271, 2017

Thus EU has identified the green economy purely in terms of ecosystem of natural
capital, economy of produced capital and human well being of social and human capital (Figure
6). All the areas of green economy are projected in terms of investment oriented as these nations
have higher GDP and GDP per capita. They enjoy resourceful Research and Development on
science and technology. In the absence of higher GDP the well being is untenable and impossible
Figures 13 and 14). All the regions except Asia have exceeded n welfare than the income growth
during the period from 2007 to 2014. The reason could be lower growth or negative growth
during the global financial crisis as the global financial crisis has not affected economic growth
of Asia. The welfare expenditure remained the same. Due to reduction in the economic growth
the welfare has appeared to be more in the comparative analysis. Reduction in the economic
growth contributing higher welfare appears irrational and wrong. Welfare is expenditure. At the
same there are certain welfare expenditures are fixed and not variable to economic growth. In

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 74
55
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sub-Sahara the expenditures on welfare are drawn from international financial assistance and aid
and therefore the welfare appears to be more than income. Due to global financial crisis the flow
of international financial assistance and aid has declined and therefore the welfare is higher than
economic growth. The welfare is constant unless there is more investment and expenditure. The
GDP is important for well being. Poverty is because of less GDP. In the absence of higher
income the well being is poor and low. Health depends upon on income and better the health
there is higher life expectancy (Figure 14). Thus one of the elements of green economy is the
well being and it is low in low income countries as there is low GDP and low per capita income.
Accordingly restructuring model to green economy of EU is not the same to other economies.
The policy decisions of international institutions of IMF, World Bank, UNDP, and green
economy model of green growth are not universal. UN Secretary General informed that the
world is moving towards green economy taking into account of growth in renewable energy in
EU, USA and China [ 57]. He has omitted to mention well being.
As on 2010, the populations of Europe and North America were 594 million and 349
million respectively. The total populations are 943 million. 73% of the populations of Europe are
living urban areas and 82% of the populations of North America are living in urban areas. The
nations of Europe and North America belong to advanced economies. Latin America nations are
from mostly middle income group with 79% of populations in urban of total populations of 594
million. The total populations of India are 1219 million with 30% of populations in urban. The
total populations of India are more than both Europe and North America. The rural populations
of India are 853 million amounting to 90.45%. The green economy model of Europe and North
America will be absolutely not correct for the following reasons:
1. 70% of rural populations depend upon agriculture. More than 50% of national incomes
are from agriculture.
2. Per capita income of India belongs to lower income group.
3. India belongs to medium human development.
4. Europe and North America belong to very high human development.
5. Human Development Index of these nations is from 0.949 to 0.800.
6. Gross National Income PPP of Europe and North America per capita is from US $ 19428
to US $ 129,918.
7. India is in the Human Development Index rank of 131 with Gross national Income PPP
per capita of US $ 5663.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 56 of 74
56
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
8. The inequality of income and inequality of life expectancy of India are 24% (2010to
2015) and 16.1% (2015).
9. The inequality of income and inequality of life expectancy of Europe and North America
are 6.1% to 2.8% (2010to 2015) and 11.1 % (Czech Republic) to 27 % (USA) (2015).
10. The life expectancy of India and Europe and North America is 68 years and 81-83 years
respectively.
11. The intensity of deprivation on the population in multidimensional poverty is 51.1% in
India
12. National poverty of India is 21.9% and poverty below PPP below $ 1, 90 is 21.2%.
13. Deprivation of poverty in education, health and living standards is 22.7%, 32.5% and
44.8% respectively [ 45].
On the comparison of India, Europe and North America the green economy model of
ecosystem (natural capital), economy (produced capital) and human well beings are not
equally applicable to India.
The Mean average CO2 emissions per capita tones of ten low income including African
nations is 0-2 in 2013 (Table 5). The Mean average of renewable energy is 91.76% of total
energy consumption. The Mean average of natural resources depletion is 14.83% for the
period from 2010-2014.Human Development Index ranks are from 132 to 186. Renewable
energy is by virtue of natural rather than out of heavy investment by advanced economies.
The CO2 emissions per capita tones remained very of 0.2. These nations do not need the
green economy model of EU but different model. These nations earn their livelihood from
natural resources of 36%. This is the main source of income (Table 6.).Advanced economies
earn income from nature is only 2%. The economic growth of African nations is different
comparing to advanced economies (Table 4). There shall be different model of green
economy to these nations.
6. The Restructuring Model
The Green Economy advocates the principles of green growth. The growth is
development and the development is institutionalized expansion of economy. Institution follows
principles and practice and both are mutually inclusive and exclusive. The inclusive principles
always advocate collective wisdom and practice. The exclusive principles are separable to
isolate approaches to problems. Inclusive principles do become exclusive principles and vice.
This is economic doctrine of sustainable development. The failure to implement sustainable

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 57 of 74
57
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
development has invented several approaches. One of them is linking environment with
development and it turns to be the sustainable development. Unfortunately it has become a huge
failure to implement and practice. The exclusive principle is the green economy and inclusive
principle is the green growth. Both are interchangeable in the beginning but in the end it
disappears. The green growth slowly merges with GDP growth and green economy identifies
with national economy. In the process of merging with each there are contradictions. The
Classical economists like Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall did not believe in the exclusion but J
M Keynes believed it. The fiscal policy and monetary policy are two sides of economic
principles. J M Keynes has separated it but it is not found successful in the modern economy
(135). The policy mix of fiscal policy and monetary policy has yielded positive results to recover
from global financial crisis of 2008.
The World Bank, UNEP and OECD have recognized it well ahead. There were
aberrations of understanding of Green Economics and Green Growth in the earlier periods 1999
when Professor Molly Scott Cato published the book of Green Economics. The green economics
has been associated with social justice by Green Party. The global financial crisis has searched
for answer and the green growth has been recognized as solution to the global financial crisis. In
2009 UNEP has initiated Global Green New Deal. The US President Barack Obama recognized
the importance of it at the earliest time. The German Green Party has translated into the election
manifesto. The Green New Deal has been referred to the experience of economic depression of
American economy of 1930s and 1940s.
UNEP, the World Bank and OECD have carried forward to the Rio+20 Conference in
2012 advocating Green Economy which is recognized as a new approach to economic theory and
a new foundation to global environmental policy after Rio Conference of 1992, the Earth
Summit.. Thus Green Economy is found an instrument of solution to global financial crisis of
2008 and sustainable development. UNEP strived hard to establish Green Economy Paradigm in
the place of sustainable development paradigm even though it was not well recognized in the
2012 Conference. It has been institutionalized to form “Green Growth Knowledge” through the
OECD, UNEP, World Bank and Global Green Growth Institute. Green Economy is integrated
into market economy.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 58 of 74
58
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Broadly economists misplace meaningful dialogues of assumptions with perceptions.
When they coin a new term they link it with inclusiveness without appreciation of it. World
Bank wrongfully concludes that that there are inclusive green growth policies. Green growth
does not have the privilege to have inclusive green economic policies. The green growth does not
include policies outside technology and innovation. It is purely related to market economy and
not economy of poverty or malnutrition or drinking water. But it refers to business.
There are challenges in every solution. Historically the celebration of 60 years of
European Union reminds us that the populism brings us distress and not solution ( 135). Failures
and problems are visible while achievements are often forgotten of European Union ( 136) and
this statement is equally applicable to Sustainable Development. The World Community has
turned sufferings into leanings for future and it shall not be ignored. There three challenges to
achieve green growth such as (i) tackling climate change; (ii) eradicating poverty; and (iii)
achieving Sustainable Development Goals. The Climate Change is a global issue which
demands consolidated efforts of community and nations. The solutions are far away from
success. Addressing Climate Change as a stumbling block for eradication of poverty is the policy
of exclusion and not inclusion. This has to be restructured. In order to address the Climate
Change advanced economies have to pay $ 1.3 billion every year to 140 developing nations so
that the low- emission and resilient development are achieved. The Climate Change is not an
issue in Low Income countries and Africa. It has to be readdressed and there is the need of
restructuring model to greener economy.
Table: 15 Evolutions of CO2 Emissions, Poverty and GDP
CO2 Emissions
metric tons per
capita Poverty
Below $ 1.90
per day GDP Per Capita
$
1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2016
Low Income …….. 0.3 67.1 52.5 460.5 598.6
South Asia 0.6 1.2 44.4 24.7 548.8 1691.2
Sub Saharan
Africa 0.9 0.9 55.1 46.5 1252.0 1638.5
Latin America
& Caribbean 2.3 2.9 14.2 6.0 6404.2 9239.2
Low Middle
Income 1.0 1.3 43.5 18.7 965.2 2117.2

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 59 of 74
59
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Low & Middle
Income 2.1 3.2 42.5 22.6 1987.9 4383.4
High Income 11.5 11.6 0.6 0.6 24756.8 35803.6
European
Union 8.6 7.4 Nil Nil 24756.8 35803.6

Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank
At the outset it is stated that the GDP Per capita is considered of 2016 while the Poverty
is considered of 2010. This is the limitation. Low Income countries had 0.3 CO2Emission
Metric Tons per capita in 2000 and 2010 South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa countries had
CO2 Emissions per capita were 0.6 in 1990, and 0.9 in 1990; 0.9 in 2000 and 0.8 in 2000; and
1.2 in 2010 and 0.9 in 2010 respectively. The poverty of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa
were 44.4% in 1990 and 24.7% in 2010; and 55.1% in 1990 and 46.5% in 20101 respectively.
Both of them accounted 644.7 million of total world poor populations of 766.7 million. In other
words 84% of total world poor populations are in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The CO2
Emission Per Capita of Low Income was 0.3 Metric tons Per capita. In respect of Sub-Saharan
Africa it was only 0.9 CO2 Emissions of Metric tons per capita. Therefore the issues are based
on wrong perceptions and assumptions. There shall not be exclusion but it must be looked into
inclusion of green economy.
Eradicating poverty is the major problem but there has been tremendous achievement.
The poverty of Low income countries had declined from 67.1% in 1990 to 52.5 % in 2010. In
South Asia it had declined from 44.4% in 1990 to 24.7% in 2010. It is difficult to conclude the
reduction of poverty was due to global financial assistance. China and India have emerged as the
largest economies of the world and their growth was not due to global assistance but on their
national policies and efforts on the basis of survival of the fittest, struggle for existence,
procreation and preservation (Rathnaswamy (1995). It is unfair to discredit efforts of low income
and developing nations. Therefore the restructuring model of green economy is a must. There
shall be the inclusiveness to green growth and not conditioned green economy propositions
drafted in illusion. Highest 11.6 metric tons of CO2 Emissions per capita in 2010 were from
High Income economies and they had the highest GDP per capita income of $ 35803.6 in 2016
also. They did not have poverty. It is the achievement but with the cost of highest CO2 emissions

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 60 of 74
60
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
metric tons per capita. The green economy principles shall be drawn not only from these
perspectives of High Income economies but also from the perspectives of Low Income
economies. There is the need for restructuring model to green growth and green economy. In 26
years the Low Income had added $ 138.1 to GDP per capita from $ 460.5 in 1990 to 598.6 in
2016. In 20 years the poverty had declined from 67.1% in 1990 to 52.5% in 2010 by 21.7%.
The GDP Per capita increased by 29.1% from 1990 to 2016. In South Asia the poverty reduced
from 44.4% in 1990 to 24, 7% in 2010 by 44% while GDP per capita increased from $ 548.8 in
1990 to $ 1691.2 in 2016 by 208%. It reflects more social inequality in South Asia than in Low
Income. Here is the need for restructuring model to green economy so that poverty reduction is
achieved without much sacrifice from High Income economies as projected in the current green
economy model. The GDP per capita increased from $ 1252.0 in 1990 to $ 1691.2 in 2016 by
35% in Sub Saharan Africa. The poverty reduced from 55.1% in 1990 to 46.5 % in 2010 by
15.6%. The social inequality widened the poverty because the growth of income had not been
distributed equitably. The restructuring model to green economy has to be dedicated here. If the
equitable distribution of income was achieved there would 30% poverty reduction as against
15%.
Latin American and Caribbean reduced poverty from 14.2 % in 1990 to 6% in 2010 by
57.7% while the GDP increased from $ 6404.2 in 1990 to $ 9239.2 in 2016 by 44.2%. It is an
excellent model. The restructuring model has to consider it also. Low Middle income countries
reduced poverty from 43.5% in 1990 to 18.7% in 2010 by 57 % while the GDP increased from $
965.2 in 1990 to $ 2117.2 in 2016 by 119%. It is found unequal distribution of income. Low and
Middle Income reduced poverty from 42.5% in 1990 to 22.6% in 2010 by 46% while the GDP
increased from $1987.9 in 1990 to 4383.4% by 120%. There is absolute inequality of distribution
of income casing poverty. .

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 61 of 74
61
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 16 Evolutions of world and regional poverty estimates 2013

Source: World Bank (2016 b), Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2016
It the above table we find that South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa had the largest number
of poor populations. World poor populations were 766.6 million from the six regions of East
Asia and Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle
East and North America, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The poor populations of South
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa were 256.2 million and 388.2 million respectively and they totaled
to 644.4 million of 84% of total poor populations. The total CO2 emissions metric tons per capita
were 2.1 in 2010. The restructuring model to green economy in these two regions should be not
the same of European Union and High income economies.
Low Carbon Green Growth strategies are pro-poor, pro-environment and pro-
employment in emerging Asia. The strategies involve policies to rectify market failures due to
environmental externalities and low incentives for innovation. Among other action plans the
energy subsidies should be internationalized through carbon pricing. The suitable policies shall
be pursued for promoting local innovation technologies and improvement of management

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 62 of 74
62
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
techniques. The incentives should aim to improve efficiency on the use of natural resources.
There has to be integration of social dimensions of growth into macroeconomic dimensions
(124).
Table 17 Economic, Social and Emissions Indicators for Developing Asia

Source: Asian Development Bank Institute (2012)
The above table indicates the Carbon Growth rate in Asian countries. China has the highest GDP
of Asia with $ 10 trillion and has the largest CO2 emissions of 113,114 Mt CO2e for the period
of 1838 to 2008. The per capita emissions of CO2 Metric tons was 5.3% for the period from
2007-2011. China has the largest population of the world. China has achieved the largest GDP
PPP of the world replacing USA. Unfortunately the rapid economic development resulted in high
inequality, fast urbanization and challenges to environmental sustainability. The economic
development cause environmental degradation. China is in the group of upper middle income
economy. With its successful healthcare measures and policies the life expectancy of Chinese
people has increased to 76.34 years in 2015. The healthcare expenditures have increased to be in
par with advanced economies ( 125). China finds it difficult to meet the health care expenditures
during the slowdown of economic growth. China has achieved high carbon growth of 65% for

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 63 of 74
63
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
the period from 19910 to 2010. In China 36% of the people are living below $2 per day. China
finds it difficult to remove extreme poverty. The restructuring model to a greener economy has to
accept the reality. India has the second largest population of 1.17 billion and 75% of the
population lives below $ 2 a day. The GDP of India is $ 4.20 trillion. Now India is the largest
economy of GDP ppp in the world. The per capita CO2 emissions in metric tons of India were
1.5 for the period of 2007 -2011. As on October 2017 the populations of India are 1.34 billon of
18 % of the world population ( 126). Unfortunately India is ranked 60th position of 79 nations in
the inclusive Development Index. India suffers from serious problem of growing inequality. One
percent of the richest population of India owns 53% of wealth of India. In 2000 it was 38% of
wealth of India. One percent of the richest of USA owns only 36.8 % of the wealth of nation.
One third of the world populations who are living below $ 1.90 per day live in India ( 127). USA
has 1.5 million populations living below $ 2 per day ( 128). India is the third largest cumulative
CO2 emissions of 30,362 metric tons for the period of 1895-2008. The poverty profile explains
that the global poor people are from rural population of 80% and 64% of them are from
Agriculture ( 127). The Carbon growth rate of India was 60.4% for the period of 1990 -2010.
India has the largest rural population and more than 70% of the population depends upon
agriculture. As there is growing disparity of rich and poor the due to inequality of distribution of
wealth the reduction of poverty becomes a challenge to India. Japan has no poverty but it is the
second largest nation to have Cumulative CO2 emissions of 46, 866 metric tons for the period of
1895-2008. Japan has come out with new green growth target of achieving 3% annual economic
growth in 2010 for 2020.It plans to make investment of 50 trillion yen in green energy sector by
2020. It has identified green energy sector to provide 1.4 million new jobs in 2020. The green
sectors include renewable energy, green vehicles, farming and healthcare. Japan prepares to
produce new cars either with zero –emission electric or fuel cell vehicles or highly fuel efficient
hybrids. The Japanese government promotes generous new feed–n tariff-style subsidies for
renewable energy projects. It decides to reduce the nuclear power from 30 % to 25% and finally
it wants to phase out it completely ( 129). Annual deforestation of change in area is -0.02 in 2015.
Total population of Japan is 127 million in 2015 and11.7 million populations are exposed to
pollution in 2012. Japan has achieved 100% in sanitation, access to electricity, and drinking
water. The subsidies to fossil fuel consumption are nil. Renewable energy is 12% of total energy
consumption in 2012 ( 130). The green growth policies are different to India and China. The

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 64 of 74
64
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
fossil fuel consumption subsidies are $ 38.2 billion, 2014 and the populations who are exposed to
pollution are 38% of total population. The access to sanitation in India was 39.6% of total
population, 2015. The CO2 emissions per capita were 1.59 metric tons, 2013. China has archived
better in many areas comparing to India China has achieved 100 % access to electricity but the
access to sanitation is 76.5% of total population. The fossil fuel consumption subsidies are $
17.4 billion, 2014 ( 130).
In Indonesia the population exposure to air pollution was 9.21 against total population of
257.6 million. The access to sanitation and water are 60.8% and 87.4 % of population ( 130). The
Cumulative CO2 emissions of Indonesia were only 7.3 metric tons for the period from 1895 –
2008. There is 51% of the population below less than $ 2 per day and 28 million out of 252
million live below poverty line ( 130, 131). The maternal mortality rate is 126 per 100,000 which
are above the Millennium Development Goals of 102 maternal maternity rate per 100,000 live
births.One third of the children below 5 years of age suffer from stunting or shorter height
because of impaired brain development. The population living below poverty line is 10.9% of
total populations on 2016 in Indonesia. 23 babies die before one year for every 1000 babies born
in Indonesia in 2015 ( 132). The Cumulative CO2 emissions during the period of 1895 to 2008
were 735 metric tons, the lowest of these nations. The economic development provides
employment and income and GDP grows. In order to achieve it the CO2 emissions are bound to
increase. Unless there is rapid growth the poverty reduction policies do not succeed.
Figure 15 Share of CO2 emissions by energy sub-industry, 2000 and 2011: Indonesia

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 65 of 74
65
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Source: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and Global Green
Growth (GGGI) (2015)
Reduction in poverty is due to increase in GDP growth and GDP per capita. In 1990 the
poverty was 58.8% and the GDP per capita were $ 622.9. The poverty was reduced to 15.9% in
2010 from 58.8 % I 1990 while the GDP Per capita had increased to $ 3113.5 in 2010 from $
622.9 in 1990. There is direct relationship between GDP and Poverty ( 134). Similarly there is
direct relationship between GDP and CO2 emissions ( 133). The biggest challenge is the
reduction CO2 emissions at the cost of growth and development and at the same time the poverty
has to be eliminated. In 2000 there were 281.6 metric tons of CO2e and these increased to 435.4
metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2011. The GDP per capita reflected the increase of CO2
Emissions of Indonesia from 200 to 2010.

Table: 17 Evolution of Poverty, GDP per capita and annual growth of Indonesia
Indonesia 1990 2000 2010
Poverty headcount rate at $ 1.90 a day (2011
ppp % of population) 58.8 38.3 15.7
GDP Per Capita (Current US $) 622.9 830.6 3,113.5
GDP growth annual 7.2 4.9 6.2

Source: Our calculus based on World Development Indicators, World Bank 2018

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of 74
66
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Vietnam has comparatively less poverty of 7% of total population as on 2015 ( 132).
Table 18 Evolution of Poverty, GDP and CO2 emissions
Countries GDP
Growth % GDP per capita in
US $ Poverty % Poverty $ 1.90
per day %
1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010
Vietnam 5.1 6.4 94.9 1310..4 NA 20.7 4.2
Thailand 11.2 7.5 1508.3 5075.3 NA. 16.4 9.4 0.1
Japan 5.6 4.2 25417.3 44507.7 … …. …. ……
Australia 3.5 2.0 18249.3 51874.1 …. ….. …… 0.3
Source: Our calculus based on World Development Indicators, World Bank
Vietnam had achieved excellent growth of GDP per capita from $ 94.9 in 1990 to $1310.4 in
2010 and there was 20.7% poverty in 2010. In 2015 the poverty declined to 7%. Thailand had
reduced the poverty 16.4% in 2010. Thailand has reduced poverty from 67% in 1986 to 7.2 % in
2015. The poverty of $ 1.90 per day was 9.1% in 1990 and 0.1 % in 2010 in Thailand. Japan
belongs to advance economies and there is no poverty. Thus the poverty cannot be generalized in
Asia as a whole. Australia has no poverty except of 0.3% under $ 1.90 per day. It was negligible
(147).
Restructuring model had to be different comparing to Africa and Asia excluding the
nations mentioned above. The transition economies do not suffer extreme poverty like Asia and
Africa. Hence the restructuring model to greener economy has to be classified broadly into five
groups as follows:
1. Advance economies may adopt the policies and practices of green economy and green
growth with specific changes which will be discussed in the next article.
2. European Union can continue to have the policies and practices of existing Green
Economy and Green Growth with specific changes which will be discussed in the next
article.
3. Low and Middle economies shall restructure its model of other than the policies and
strategies of above (1) and (2)

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 67 of 74
67
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
4. The Transition economies are included in European Union but these nations have to
restructure the model to green economy and green growth and it will be discussed in the
next article.
5. Low economies, Sub –Saharan Africa, and South Asia have to restructure the model to
green economy and green growth suitably and it will be discussed in the next article.
In view of above the existing model of green economy is not found effective to achieve green
economy. Thus there is no uniform model to greener economy and there is a need for
restructuring model to greener economy.

References

1. A Green Economy (2012), A Green Economy, Environmental Audit Committee, Twelfth
Report Volume 1, House of Commons, 2012
2. Acha, L., Land, S., Roxburgh, C., van Wamelen, A., What is driving Africa’s growth,
McKinsy & Company, June 2010
3. Africa Union Commission, Agenda 2063, Framework Document , September 2015, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
4. Guterres ,A., Addressing UN General Assembly High Level Action, 24, March 2017
5. Aubertot, J.N., Barbier, J.M., Carpentier, A., Gril, J.N., Guichard, L., Lucas, G., Savery,
S.,Voltz, M., Pesticides, Agriculture et Environment: Reduire Putilisation de Pesticides et
Limiter Leurs Impacts Environneemtaus, Expertise scientifique collective , Synthetse du
Rapport, 2005, INRA et Cemegref (France)
6. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Green Bonds Market Outlook, 2014
7. Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., O’Brien, G., Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting
Them Together into Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development, 2002, Sus.
Dev. 10, 187-196, DOI: 10.1002/ sd. 199, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP
Environment.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 68 of 74
68
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
8. Buiter, W.H., The Role of Central Banks in Financial Stability: How has it changed,
CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8780 , 2012, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research
9. Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Ideas for Action for a Long –
Business and Sustainable Development Commission Country Report, “Better
Business, Better World”, Business and Sustainable Development Commission , 2017
10. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, A Green Economy for Canada ,,
2011
11. Coburn, J., Cook, J., Cool Response: The Sec & Corporate Climate Change Reporting ,
Ceres 2014
12. Climate 2020, Facing the future, UNA-AK, London
13. Pearce, D., Markandya, A., Barbier, E.B., Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan
Publications Ltd , 1989,1994, London
14. DECC, Annual Statement of Emissions for 2010, March 2012
15. DECC and Ofgem, Statutory Security of Supply Report, November 2011
16. Eichengreen, B.J, El-Erian, M., Fraga, A., Ito, T., Pisani-Ferry, J., Prasad, E., Rajan, R.,
Ramos, M., Reinhart, C., Rey, H., Rodrik, D., Rogoff. K. Shin, H.S., Velasco, A., Weder
di Mauro, B.,Yu, Y., Rethinking Central Banking, Committee on International Economic
Policy and Reform, Washington, D.C: Brookings, 2011
17. Elias T., Oku, A., Asubonteng, E., Kwabena, O., Nutakor, P., Promoting Green
Economy, United Nations University Institute for Natural Resources in Africa (UNU-
INRA), 2017, Ghana
18. EC, Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23, October
2000 b
19. EC , Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002 a, 1-15
20. EC, Directive 2006/66EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September
2006c
21. EC, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe , COM 112 final , Brussels, 8.3.,2011a
22. European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, Brussels, 2017
23. European Environment Agency, Towards a green economy in Europe, EEA, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2013
24. European Union, Study on the potential green bond finance for resource-efficient
investments, European Commission , European Union 2016
25. Ev w5, Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon-Are the world’s financial markets
carrying a carbon bubble?, July 2011:15
26. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy,
Addis Ababa, 2015, Ethiopia
27. Financial Times, Why monetary policy should go green, Financial Times, 2017

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 69 of 74
69
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
28. FOEN, Federal Office of the Environment (FOEN): Design of a Sustainable Financial
System, Swiss Team Input into the UNEP Inquiry , 2015
29. Guarescio, F., EU nulls green finance labels to boost market, tackle ‘green washing’, 18
July, 2017 Reuters, Sustainability , 2017
30. Modigliani, F., Miller, M.H., (1958), the Cost of Capital, Corporate Finance and the
Theory of Investment, The American Economic Review , Volume xlviii, No.3, 1958
31. G20 Green Finance Study Group, Go Green Finance Synthesis Report, 5 September 2016
32. G20 Green Finance Synthesis Report, G20 Green Finance Study Group, 5 September,
2016, http://unepinquiry.org/g20greenfinancerepositoryeng
33. G30 , Fundamentals of Central Banking , Lessons from the Crisis, Washington D.C:
Group of Thirty, 2015
34. Goodhart, C.A.E., The Changing role of Central Banks , BIS Working Papers No 326 ,
2010, Basel: Bank for International Settlements
35. Government of Nepal, Environments of the poor in the context of climate change and
green economy, Nepal , UNEP, 2011
36. Green Growth, Moving towards a common approach on green growth indicators, Green
Growth Knowledge Platform , April 2013, Swiss Confederation
37. Green Investment Bank Report, UK Green Investment Bank plc, Annual Report and
Accounts, 2015-2016
38. Green Investment Report, The Green Investment Report, World Economic Forum , 2013,
Geneva
39. Green, D.,The future of EU financial regulation and supervision, 14th Report of Session
2008-2009, Volume 2: Evidence, European Union Committee, House of Lords
40. Greening Institutional Investment, Input Paper, UNEP Finance Initiative and Principles
for Responsible Investment , 2016
41. Mayor, G., Green Economy: UN joins mission to balance investment goals, Financial
Times, May 12, 2014
42. Thomson, H.E.P., Address: Business and Sustainable Development Commission Global
Report, 17, January 2017, Geneva
43. Hallegatte, S, C., Green, R.J., Nicholls, J., Coffee- Morlot, Future flood losses in major
coastal cities, Nat.Clim.Chang. , 2013, Volume 3, Issue 9, 802-806
44. Stoddart, H., Riddlestone, S. Vilela, M., Earthsummit 2012, Principles of Green
Economy, The Earth Charter Initiative, Stakeholder Forum, 2012
45. Human Development Report, UNDP, New York, USA 2016
46. IEA, International Energy Agency, Annual Report , 2012
47. IPCC (2007), Fourth Assessment Report , February 2007, IPCC Malar Maran, R
(2017a), Corporate Finance Theories and Principles: Redundant, Ecoforum Journal
(Forthcoming) , 2017
48. Burkart, K., How do you define the ‘green’ economy?, MNN-Mother Nature Network ,
9 January, 2009

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 70 of 74
70
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
49. Annan, K. Power People Planet, Africa Progress Report 2015
50. LCEGS, Low Carbon Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS), Report for
2011/2012 , Department for Business Innovation and Skills, July 2013, London
51. Lecocq, F., Hourcade, J.C., Duong, M.H. (1998) Decision Making under Uncertainty and
Inertia Constraints: Sectoral Implications of the When Flexibility, Energy Economics,
1998, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, 539-55
52. Malar Maran, R., Long Term Investments and Sustainable Development, Ecoforum
Journal (Forthcoming) , 2017b
53. Malar Maran, R., Green Economy: Challenges and Opportunities, Ecoforum Journal
(Forthcoming) , 2017c
54. Bapna, M., What is a green economy?, World Resource Institute , April 5, 2011
55. Kaggwa, M., Shingirirai, S., GodwellNhamo, M.,Thakozani, S., South Africa’s Green
Economy Transition: Implications for Reorienting the Economy Towards a Low-Carbon
Growth Trajectory, South African Institute of International Affairs , 2013
56. Oxenford, M. The evolution of US and European Monetary Policy after Bretton Woods,
Research Paper September 2016, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham
House
57. McCollum, D., Nowok, B., Tindal, S. (2014) Public Attitudes Towards Mitigation in
Scotland: Exceptionally and Positive Policy Implications, Scottish Affairs , 2014, Volume
23, Issue 1, 79-102
58. Ministry of Climate and Environment Norway, Green shift – climate and environmentally
friendly restructuring, Government , Issue December, 2014
59. Monarch Ethiopian Government, First Five Year Plan Development Plan (1957-1961),
Berhanena Selam HIS, Printing Press, 1962, Addis Ababa
60. Monarch Ethiopian Government, Second Five Year Plan Development Plan (1963-1967),
Berhanena Selam HIS , 1962, Printing Press, Addis Ababa
61. Monarch Ethiopian Government, Second Five Year Plan Development Plan (1963-1967),
Berhanena Selam HIS , 1962, Printing Press, Addis Ababa
62. Monarch Ethiopian Government, Strategy Outline for the Fourth Five Year Plan
(1974/51973), Berhanena Selam HIS , 1973, Printing Press, Addis Ababa
63. Xu, M., China seen making 25% more solar panels in 2017, Sustainability, 2017
64. Netzer, N., Althaus,J., Green Economy: Turning Over a New Leaf towards Sustainable
Development?, Friedrich Ebert Stifutung , 2012, 17-19
65. New York Times, Duhigg, New York Times USA 2009
66. Nordhaus, An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases, Science, 1992,
Volume 258, Issue 5086, 1315-1324
67. OECD, Fostering Innovation for Green Growth, OECD Publishing , 2011
68. OECD, Towards Green Growth: Monitoring Progress-OEC D Indicators, OECD, Paris,
2011
69. OECD, Towards Green Growth, OECD Publishing , 2011

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 71 of 74
71
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
70. OECD, Greening Development: Enhancing Capacity for Environmental Governance,
OECD Publishing , 2012
71. OECD, Towards Green Growth: Monitoring Progress-OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris,
2013a
72. OECD, World Bank, United Nations, Incorporating Green Growth and Sustainable
Development Policies into Structural Reform Agendas, A Report by the OECD, The
World Bank, and the United Nations prepared for the G20 Summit, Los Cabos, 18-19
June 2012, OECD Publishing
73. Office of the National Committee for Central Planning 1984, Two Year Development
Plan (1984/85-1986/87), Addis Ababa
74. Office of the National Committee for Central Planning 1986, Three Year Development
Plan (1986/87-1988/89), Addis Ababa
75. People’s Bank of China, United Nations Environment Programme, Establishing China’s
Green Financial System Final Report of the Green Finance Task Force, People’s Bank of
China, United Nations Environment Programme , 2015
76. Hardi, P., Zdan, T. (Eds.), Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice,
International Institute for Sustainable Development , Winnipeg 1997
77. Planning Commission Office, April 1973, Strategy Outline for the Fourth Five Year Plan
(1967-1971 EC or 1974/5 – 1978/9)
78. Jackson, T., Oral Evidence, Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee, 7,
September, 2011, A Green Economy: twelfth report of session 2010-2012, Volume 1:
Report Volume 1, Parliament House of Commons, Great Britain
79. Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia, September 1984, Ten Year
Perspective Plan- 1984/84-1993/94, Bole P. Press, Addis Ababa
80. Rathnaswamy, P., International Environment Management, Manas Publications , 1998,
New Delhi, India
81. Rathnaswamy, P., Empowerment of Sustainable Development, Bookwell Publications ,
2000, New Delhi, India
82. Rathnaswamy, P., Environment Management: Faiths and Hopes, Spirituality and
Morality Bookwell Publications, 2004, New Delhi, India
83. Renewable Energy Association and Innovas, Renewable Energy , 2012, Great Britain
84. Republic of South Africa, Green Economy Accord, Economic Development Department ,
2011, Pretoria, SA
85. Romania-Insider.com, 1, February 2017
86. Samans, P. R. (2013), Green Growth and the Post-2015 Development Agenda: an issue
paper for the Nations High Level Panel of Eminent Persons
87. Simmons, B., Green Economy Context and Definition, Paper presented at the Green
Economy Initiative: Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum, UNEP Green
Economy Initiative , 2010

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 72 of 74
72
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
88. South Africa, About the Green Economy, DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs) ,
2013
89. South Africa, About the Green Economy, DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs) ,
2012
90. Subacchi, P., The role of the United states in the post-crisis economic order, in Niblett, R.
(ed.) (2010), American and a changed world: A Question of Leadership, published by
Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of Chatham House
91. Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Term and Sustainable Financial
System, January 2017
92. The Nature Conservancy, The Biggest Environmental Challenges of 2017, The Nature
Conservancy , 2017
93. UK Green Investment Bank, UK Green Investment Bank, Annual Report and Accounts
2015-2016, Presented to UK Parliament, 2016, House of Commons, England
94. UN, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: The Future we want, A/RES/66288 ,
11 September 2012
95. UN Environment, Singapore to Issue Grants to Boost Green Bond Growth , UN
Environment News, UN 2017
96. UN Environment, Greening the Financial system: Enhancing Competitiveness through
Economic Development, UN Environment News, UN 2017a
97. UN, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 26 August
-4 September, New York: United Nations, 2012
98. UNA-UK , Climate 2020, Facing the future , London
99. UNCTAD, Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development, United Nations,
2015
100. UNEP, Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and
poverty eradication, UNEP, 2011a , Nairobi
101. UNEP, Towards a Green Economy in Jordan , UNEP 2011b
102. UNEP, Creating A Sustainable Financial System, UNEP Inquiry , United Nations
Environment Programme, 2015
103. UNEP, UNEP report on design of a sustainable financial system, UNEP Inquiry ,
United Nations Environment Programme, 2016
104. UNEP (UN Environment Programme), Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to
Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradications, 2011
105. UNEP and the World Bank Group, Roadmap for a Sustainable Financial System,
Inquiry: Design of a Sustainable Financial System, April 2017, UN Environment and the
World Bank Group
106. UNEP, UWI, Government of Barbados, Green Economy: Scoping Study Synthesis
Report Barbados , 2012, Christchurch, Barbados
107. UNEP-WCMC , The UK National Ecosystem Assessment, June 2011

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 73 of 74
73
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
108. United Nations Economic Commissions for Africa, Planning for Africa’s
Development, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
109. United Nations Environment Programme, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways
to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication-A Synthesis for Policy Makers,
UNEP 2011
110. United Nations Environment Programme, On the role of central banks in
enhancing green finance, Inquiry: Design of a Sustainable Financial System , 2017
111. UNO, Millennium Ecosystem Synthesis 2005, Washington D.C Island Press,
Washington
112. WEF, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, 23-27 January 2013, Davos-
Klosters, Switzerland, World Economic Forum, 2013
113. World Bank, The Changing Wealth of Nations Measuring Sustainable
Development in the New Millennium, World Bank , 2011, Washington D.C
114. World Bank, Inclusive Green Growth: Pathway to Sustainable Development,
World Bank , 2012, Washington D.C
115. World Bank ,Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathways to Sustainable
Development, World Bank, 2012, Washington
116. World Bank, Ethiopia Economic Update II: Laying the Foundation for Achieving
Middle Income Status, World Bank, 2013, Addis Ababa
117. World Bank, Mobilizing Resources to End Poverty in Africa, World Bank , 2014
118. World Bank, Improving Basic Services for the Bottom Forty Per Cent –Results of
the Poverty and Social Impact Assessment of Decentralized Basic Service Delivery in
Ethiopia, World Bank , 2014, Addis Ababa
119. World Bank, World Development Indicators, World Bank , 2016, Washington D.C
120. World Bank, IMF, From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development
Finance, Development Committee , World Bank and International Monetary Fund , 2015
121. World Investment Report, Reforming International Investment Governance,
UNCTAD , 2015
122. WWF, P., Roadmap for a green economy in the Heart of Borneo, 2011
123. Xian, Z., Liping, Z., A Framework for Green fiancé: Making clear waters and
green mountains China’s gold and silver, Chapter 1, Greening China’s Financial System ,
Development Research Center of the State Council, 2015, China
124. Asian Development Bank Institute, Policies and Practices for Low-Carbon Green
Growth in Asia ADB –ADBI Study on Climate Change, Highlights , 2012
125. World Bank, Deepening health Reform in China, China Joint Study Partnership ,
2016a
126. Wright, A., 8 things you need to about India’s economy , India Economic
Summit, World Economic Forum , 2017
127. World Bank, Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2016, Taking on Inequality, World
Bank, Washington D.C 2016b

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 74 of 74
74
Sustainability 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
128. Feeney, L., Living on $ 2 a day: Exploring extreme poverty in America,
December 27, 2015, 11.30 AM PBSO New Hour
129. Murray, J., Japan puts green growth at heart of economic recovery plan, Business
Green, 2012
130. Green Growth Knowledge Platform (2012- 2018), Japan, 2018
131. The World Bank Group in Indonesia , April 09, 2018
132. Asian Development Bank, Basic Statistics Data 2017, April 2017
133. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and Global Green
Growth (GGGI), Global Green Growth, Experiences of Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, the
Republic of Korea and South Africa,Vienna and Seoul , Volume 2, 2015
134. World Bank, World Economic Indicators, World Bank, 2018
135. Malar Kumaran, R., Monetary Policy of Romania: A Critical Review, Ecoforum ,
2017, Volume 6, Issue 2
136. Winters, C., Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers, Int. J Hum Genet , 2008,
Volume 8, Issue 4, 325-329
137. Ethiopian Monarch Government, Government of Ethiopia, 1998, Addis Ababa
138. Provincial Military Government of Ethiopia, The Statesman’s Year Book, 1982-
83, The Macmillan Press Ltd , 1982
139. Republic of South Africa, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC)
Ministerial Meeting on Climate, 2011
140. UNESCAP , Survey: Pursuing Shared Prosperity , United Nations, 2012
141. Ethiopia’s Climate –Resilient Green Economy, Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 2011
142. Green Growth Leaders, World Bank, Washington D.C, 2011
143. European Environment Agency, EEA Report No. 11/2012b
144. European Environment Agency , Trends and projections in Europe 2013, EEA
Report No. 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark
145. European Environment Agency, Environmental indicator Report 2017, EEA
Report No.21/2017
146. Chase, P., The EU Water Framework Directive, IWA Publishing , London 2001
147. The World Bank in Thailand, Overview, March 2018