2. Green growth in Southeast Asia: Trends and commitments
Southeast Asia has achieved remarkable economic development over the past few decades, but its growth has relied heavily on natural resources. As the region’s natural resource endowments deplete and climate change intensifies, environment-related costs are rising. Countries in the region are beginning to integrate green growth objectives into their national development plans. Displacement and reallocation of labour will be inevitable during any transition, but Southeast Asia lacks preparedness for the near- and long-term employment disruption that will result from a green transition. This chapter introduces the concept of green growth and provides an overview of Southeast Asia’s policy frameworks for green growth, particularly from a labour perspective.
Since the early 2000s, member countries1 of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have reported rapid growth rates and demonstrated resilience amidst global crises and uncertainties. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the average economic growth rate for the region in 2021 was 3.2%, and the region is projected to keep growing to 4.6% in 2023 (OECD, 2023[1]). ASEAN countries had a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of USD 3.3 trillion (United States dollars) in 2021, amounting to 3.4% of the world’s GDP (Biswas, 2022[2]). Despite this success, the region faces significant social and environmental challenges. As a global hotspot of biodiversity, Southeast Asia is home to almost 20% of all species known in the world and holds 60% of the world’s tropical peatland, over 40% of the world’s mangrove areas in addition to underground mineral resources (ASEAN Secretariat, 2022[3]). However, rapid agricultural expansion, unsustainable natural resource management, infrastructure development and pollution are causing extreme losses of biodiversity (Coleman et al., 2019[4]). It is estimated that 13-42% of species will be lost in Southeast Asia by 2100, with at least one-half of these facing global extinction (Sodhi et al., 2010[5]). This environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, accelerated by the effects of climate change, is starting to have real consequences for the region’s economy. Environmental protection and green growth are therefore becoming policy priorities for Southeast Asia. ASEAN is actively promoting green sectors and green jobs, as well as green urban planning and management, and is developing policies to support sustainable production and consumption (ASEAN-ILO, 2021[6]). The post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery is also seen as an opportunity to rethink and rebuild the current growth models into models that can reconcile economic benefits with environmental and social objectives.
However, a transition to a greener economy requires a careful impact assessment, particularly regarding job reallocation. In Southeast Asia, agriculture absorbed 27% of the labour force in 2019 (World Bank, 2019[7]), albeit with wide variations by country. A green growth approach will inevitably affect the number and nature of jobs in both emerging and disappearing sectors. This will result in changes in employment prospects for millions of Southeast Asian workers. While most studies on the green transition find that, overall, more jobs will be created than destroyed, not all sectors will be equally affected by the green transition (Wei, Patadia and Kammen, 2010[8]; ILO, 2018[9]). Renewable energy, for example, is more labour-intensive than electricity generated by fossil fuel, and investment in green energy can generate 2.8 times more jobs than the same investment in the fossil fuel sector (Garrett-Peltier, 2017[10]).
The negative impact will also be felt more strongly among those who are already disadvantaged in the current labour market. One of the key issues will therefore be to identify the sectors and economies that will experience job losses and ensure that the green transition is inclusive and fair. This chapter introduces the concept of green growth and provides a rationale for the urgent need for such growth in Southeast Asia. It then describes what green commitments have been made in Southeast Asia at the regional and national levels. Finally, it looks at the possible effects of the green transition on employment and it discusses policy implications, particularly for vulnerable workers.
Green growth is about achieving economic development while ensuring environmental sustainability. The idea of introducing environmental and social factors into the economic growth model has been discussed since the early 1980s and gained momentum under the concept of “sustainable development” with the Brundtland report in 1987 and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (Pezzey, 1989[11]; Colby, 1991[12]). The global financial crisis in 2008 pushed this line of thinking further by considering the sustainable development approach as an alternative paradigm to tackle both the worldwide economic crisis and the environmental damage caused by the conventional carbon-intensive “brown” development strategy (Merino-Saum et al., 2020[13]; Bina and La Camera, 2011[14]). The term “green growth” was first introduced at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific (MCED 2005) held in Seoul, South Korea in 2005.
There is no internationally agreed definition of green growth, but all definitions are based on decoupling economic growth from natural resource use and negative environmental impacts (Box 2.1). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), green growth is about “fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that the natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies” (OECD, 2011[15]). Green growth is not intended to be a replacement for sustainable development. Still, it should be considered as a subset of it, entailing an operational policy agenda that can help achieve concrete, measurable progress at the interface of the economy and the environment (OECD, 2011[15]).
Multiple terminologies have been used to describe the “green” narrative of economic development. Although these terminologies share the common value of promoting economic growth together with environmental sustainability, they differ in their core construct and main advocacy. One end of the spectrum sees ecological protection as compatible and negotiable with continuous economic growth (“relative decoupling”), and thus supports technological improvements and market-driven policies. In contrast, the other end of the spectrum posits that environmental conservation trumps any economic purposes (“absolute decoupling”) (Merino-Saum et al., 2020[13]). Listed below are definitions for various terms related to the green transition:
Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987[16]). Sustainable development is considered an overarching goal that green growth and the green economy should achieve (OECD, 2011[15]).
Green growth is about “fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that the natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies” (OECD, 2011[15]). The World Bank describes it as “a growth pattern that is efficient in its use of natural resources, clean in that it minimises pollution and environmental impacts, and resilient in that it accounts for natural hazards and the role of environmental management and natural capital in preventing disasters” (World Bank, 2018[17]).
Inclusive green growth was introduced in 2012 at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) following criticism that green growth definitions remained heavily focused on environmental concerns and that the social and structural contexts were being ignored (Unmüßig, Sachs and Fatheuer, 2012[18]). The concept of inclusive green growth has since evolved into a policy agenda with growth, environment and equity as equally imperative objectives.
Green economy indicates “low carbon, efficient and clean in production, but also inclusive in consumption and outcomes” (UNEP, 2011[19]) or “a thriving economy that delivers the linked economic, social and environmental outcomes sought by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement” (Green Economy Coalition, 2020[20]). The term is increasingly used interchangeably with green growth as it has similar economic, environmental and social constructs (Merino-Saum et al., 2020[13]; Adamowicz, 2022[21]).
Green recovery emerged in 2021 in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic to call for a policy direction that promotes post-pandemic recovery in a greener way. A green recovery is an investment that promotes both economic growth and significant environmental and social benefits (UNEP, 2021[22]). Green stimulus programmes were also introduced in 2008 following the global economic crisis.
Just transition emphasises social justice in the process of greening an economy. The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines it as “greening the economy in a way that is as fair and inclusive as possible to everyone concerned, creating decent work opportunities and leaving no one behind” (ILO, n.d.[23]).
Measurement has been another challenge around green growth, partly due to its equivocal definition and context-specific construct. While the OECD, the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) have been working together towards a common methodology for green growth since 2013 (World Bank, 2013[24]), each organisation has developed its own measurement indicators (Box 2.2). While the OECD and UNEP emphasise the policy process and interventions to meet green growth targets, the GGGI focuses more on the targets themselves. However, how much progress has actually been made regarding these indicators is unclear due to the very limited evidence that has been made available since 2013.
Green growth can be estimated by using either a set of multidimensional measures or a composite indicator. The multidimensional measures are suitable for precise information about each dimension of green growth, but they cannot summarise the overall progress. In contrast, a composite indicator may lack detailed information but is more intuitive and useful when comparing countries (Rosenbaum, 2017[25]). The following list outlines the green growth indicators used by each organisation:
OECD’s Green Growth Indicators: The OECD estimates progress in green growth in four main dimensions: 1) environmental and resource productivity; 2) natural asset base; 3) environmental dimension of quality of life; and 4) economic opportunities and policy responses. These dimensions are measured by 4 primary indicators and 17 secondary indicators (OECD, n.d.[26]).
UNEP’s Green Economy Indicators: UNEP uses dimension-oriented indicators to evaluate policies related to a green economy. The indicators are used to: 1) identify priority issues; 2) formulate and assess green economy policy options; and 3) evaluate the performance of policy implementation (UNEP, n.d.[27]).
GGGI’s Green Growth Index: GGGI developed a composite indicator for the assessment of green growth performance and transition in achieving sustainability targets. The Green Growth Index scores green growth performance based on four pillars of green growth: 1) efficient and sustainable resource use; 2) natural capital protection; 3) green economic opportunities; and 4) social inclusion (GGGI, 2019[28]).
ESCAP’s Green Growth Indicators: The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) proposes a set of five indicators to measure the quality of green growth in the context of Asia and the Pacific: 1) equitable distribution of and access to resources; 2) structural transformation; 3) eco-efficiency; 4) investment in natural capital; and 5) recognising planetary limits (UN ESCAP, 2013[29]).
Today, taking into account environmental and social values for economic development is becoming a policy priority in many ASEAN countries. The green growth paradigm can provide a basic framework which countries could use to tailor their national and regional sustainable growth strategies. However, defining and measuring green growth still has significant room for improvement and will require more policy and scientific evidence in order to move it forward. In particular, definitions and indicators for the social inclusiveness of green growth are relatively underdeveloped and need more evidence in order to garner political support. The delay in the development of green growth measures could slow down the pace of global efforts to achieve the SDG targets. Detailed sub-level measures considering a country’s regional and income category might be desirable given that the determinants and performance of green growth may vary according to a country’s level of development (Li et al., 2021[30]).
The empirical evidence of decoupling in developed countries has been mixed to date, while evidence for developing countries is very limited (Parrique et al., 2019[31]; Mann, 2015[32]; Wang et al., 2018[33]). Critiques of green growth argue that the concept reduces the scale of the ecological problem to resource misallocation, shifts problems and costs (e.g. from carbon energy to renewable energy), underestimates the environmental impacts of the service economy, and disregards the issues of political power (Parrique et al., 2019[31]; Unmüßig, Sachs and Fatheuer, 2012[18]). For developing countries, pursuing a green growth strategy can be costly due to limited access to policy ideas, infrastructure and technologies, and may conflict with other national priorities (OECD, 2012[34]).
Southeast Asia’s impressive economic growth has relied heavily on its natural resource endowments, resulting in natural resource depletion and increased vulnerability to environmental challenges. The region is not on track to achieve the SDGs and is particularly showing slow progress and even regression on environment-related goals (UNESCAP, 2021[35]). In ASEAN countries, natural resources were being depleted at an average of 3.5% of gross national income (GNI) in 2020. For comparison, the mean natural resource depletion rate of OECD countries was 0.9% in 2020 (Figure 2.1). Unsustainable extraction of non-renewable natural resources, overfishing, and intensive and extensive use of land have increased resource depletion, soil erosion, deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Kirch, 2005[36]; Campbell et al., 2017[37]; IPBES, 2019[38]; IPCC, 2019[39]). In turn, environmental degradation makes the region highly vulnerable to climate change-induced disasters (OECD, 2014[40]). Among other issues, frequent catastrophic coastal floods and droughts are a considerable threat. Southeast Asia’s economy relies heavily on its long coastlines, which provide livelihoods for approximately 72% of the region’s population and contribute up to 60% of the GDP in some countries (PEMSEA, 2015[41]). Vulnerability to natural disasters has begun to inflict considerable human and economic costs on the region. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2021, 17 043 Southeast Asians lost their lives, and 157.4 million were affected by natural hazards related to environmental degradation,2 with economic losses estimated at USD 88.5 million (CRED, 2022[42]).
Southeast Asia is facing emerging risks due to the acceleration of climate change and related natural disasters. By 2060, Southeast Asia is projected to lose more than 5% of its regional GDP due to climate change, the largest GDP loss in the world (world average: 0.7-2.5%) (Dellink et al., 2014[43]). Deteriorating environmental conditions could further aggravate the existing socio-economic gap between those who are better off and the most vulnerable populations (i.e. children, youth, women, people with a disability and older adults) (Islam and Winkel, 2017[44]; ADB, 2022[45]). Indeed, the COVID-19 crisis has put Southeast Asian economies’ resilience to the test and revealed their vulnerability to poverty and inequality from external shocks. The pandemic caused a loss of 10.6 million jobs in Southeast Asia in 2020, with women, youth, and workers in small and medium-sized businesses being the most affected (ADB, 2022[45]).
Note: Natural resource depletion is the sum of net forest depletion, energy depletion, and mineral depletion. Energy depletion is the ratio of the value of the stock of energy resources (coal, crude oil and natural gas) to the remaining reserve lifetime (capped at 25 years). Mineral depletion is the ratio of the value of the stock of mineral resources (tin, gold, lead, zinc, iron, copper, nickel, silver, bauxite and phosphate) to the remaining reserve lifetime (capped at 25 years). Net forest depletion is unit resource rents times the excess of roundwood harvest over natural growth. The indicator values for ASEAN are the averages across the ASEAN countries with complete data across the years. For comparison, the mean natural resource depletion rates of OECD countries range between 0.8% and 2.3% for the same period.
Source: World Bank Database (n.d.[46]).
Green development strategies could promise Southeast Asia the benefits of sustained economic growth and a better grip on emerging poverty and inequality risks associated with climate change. In the short term, transitioning to a greener economy could offer Southeast Asia new economic opportunities, with some studies estimating that up to USD 1 trillion could be generated from job creation, business development, efficiency improvement and cost savings in potential sectors by 2030 (Hardcastle and Mattios, 2020[47]). In the longer term, developing an economy that is mindful of its environmental and social impacts could enable the region to sustain economic development and social cohesion, eventually leading to improved human well-being (OECD, 2014[40]). Making the green growth process inclusive is critical for maximising its long-term benefits, as widening inequality is a known barrier to accelerating the pace of poverty reduction and subsequent economic growth (UNU-WIDER, 2020[48]).
Southeast Asia’s overall green growth performance level is currently below the OECD average, with the largest difference being in social inclusion (Figure 2.2). The GGGI Green Growth Index indicates that ASEAN countries are performing relatively well (average or above) within Asia. Nonetheless, they fall short of the OECD standard in all green growth dimensions. Thailand is the overall leader in green growth in Southeast Asia, whereas Myanmar needs to expend major effort to improve its performance. With regard to the social dimension, country performance is highest in Singapore and lowest in Cambodia and Myanmar, suggesting possible gaps in resources available for social development across countries (Li et al., 2021[30]). However, even Singapore’s social inclusion falls behind other high-income countries in North America and East Asia. ASEAN population were exposed to pollution levels well above the World Health Organization’s guidelines. In 2019, ASEAN countries recorded an annual mean concentration of fine particulate matters of 21.22 μg/m3, compared to 13.93 μg/m3 in OECD countries (OECD, 2023[49]).
Note: ESRU: efficient and sustainable resource use; NCP: natural capital protection; GEO: green economic opportunities; SI: social inclusion. The indicator values for ASEAN are the averages across the ten ASEAN countries. Lao PDR is an acronym for Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
Source: Acosta et al. (2021[50]).
Southeast Asia has been gradually increasing its co-operation efforts towards greening economies since ASEAN integrated environmental concerns into regional agendas in 1977 (ASEAN, 2020[51]). The region’s support for sustainable growth gained momentum in 2005 when the Regional Implementation Plan for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific, 2006-2010 was adopted. To date, ASEAN considers sustainable development to be an integral part of post-COVID-19 economic recovery and long-term socio-economic development strategies (ASEAN, 2020[52]). In support of green growth, ASEAN has issued joint statements through ministerial meetings; established relevant committees, working groups and networks; set up financing schemes; and supported programmes, partnerships, policy dialogue and research.
Adopting intra-ASEAN ministerial statements and declarations has been Southeast Asia’s major policy instrument with which to demonstrate regional commitment to sustainable growth (Table 2.1). In 2015, ASEAN leadership agreed to establish a set of development blueprints for the region’s long-term vision, political security, economic prosperity and socio-cultural development up to 2025 with implications for green growth with the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2025 (ASEAN, 2015[53]). In the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprints 2025, ASEAN makes it clear that its member countries should co-operate in order to ensure that economic growth goes hand in hand with social development and environmental sustainability, and provide equal access and opportunity to environmental sustainability and sustainable development (ASEAN, 2016[54]). The ASCC Blueprint 2025 demonstrates the region’s commitment to sustainable growth, focusing on four target areas: the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources; the promotion of environmentally sustainable cities; the enhancement of capacity in implementing climate adaptation and mitigation; and support for sustainable consumption and production.
Statements and frameworks issued in the last five years have increased the regional emphasis on green growth, recognising its employment implications. ASEAN countries acknowledged the need for mitigation and adaptation measures from the labour market perspective in Southeast Asia by adopting the ASEAN Declaration on Promoting Green Jobs for Equity and Inclusive Growth of ASEAN Community in 2018. The Declaration aims to foster green jobs and green skills, support relevant research on education and training, and promote diverse green products and services, with green jobs defined as “decent jobs in economic sectors which reduce negative environmental impacts” (ASEAN, 2018[57]). The ACRF that came about after the COVID-19 crisis anticipates that transitioning to low-carbon energy and creating green infrastructure would lead to job creation (ASEAN, 2020[52]). The ACRF also stresses that ASEAN countries should enhance collaboration and partnership in order to build capacity for green growth, including upskilling and reskilling the ASEAN workforce for green jobs.
However, in contrast to the enthusiasm to promote green growth and green jobs, the ASEAN-wide policy frameworks lack preparedness for workers’ protection and job reallocation during the green transition. In most ASEAN statements and plans, social protection and equity issues are usually mentioned in a separate section from green growth. Social protection is a concern mainly in the context of human security and natural disaster relief (ASEAN, 2020[62]). Considerations for vulnerable workers who are likely to be affected by the structural changes and labour disruption that would result from a green transition need to be better integrated into green growth strategies.
At the national level, ASEAN countries began to map out green growth strategies in the mid-2010s, in addition to updating pre-existing climate change policies. In 2023, green growth has become a mainstream agenda in regional politics. All ten ASEAN countries currently include green growth objectives in their national development plans, and five of them have explicit green growth strategies, a progress compared to two in 2014 (Cambodia and Viet Nam) (OECD, 2014[40]). Likewise, the scope and implementation plans of green growth objectives have become increasingly comprehensive, although the relative focus largely varies by country.
National commitments to promote green growth are clearly laid out in the ASEAN countries’ latest national development plans, but the aims of the green growth objectives and instruments with which to achieve these objectives vary across countries (Table 2.2). Natural resource endowments, development stage and the industrial structure of each country determine the focus areas of national green growth strategies. High-income ASEAN countries (i.e. Brunei Darussalam and Singapore) are more likely than the others to focus on supporting green innovation research and development (R&D) and enterprises with sustainable initiatives. Upper-middle-income ASEAN countries (i.e. Malaysia and Thailand) focus on sustainable and efficient resource management (e.g. energy, water) and the circular economy. Across the ten ASEAN countries, agriculture tourism services, urban environment, and energy- and environment-oriented services stand out as priorities for the green transition over other sectors (ASEAN-ILO, 2021[6]). Policy instruments and incentives that have been put in place in order to achieve green growth objectives consist of various financial and non-financial measures, including green subsidies, tax reductions, import duties exemptions, infrastructure investments and green public procurement.
Along with their national commitments, some countries have established joint initiatives on green growth. In 2007, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia launched a joint initiative that aimed to turn 22 million hectares of Borneo into a green economic zone in order to conserve the biodiversity of the area for the benefit of the people who rely upon it through a network of protected areas (Heart of Borneo) (WWF, n.d.[73]). In 2017, the Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) adopted a common vision to narrow the development gaps, sustainably manage natural resources and promote stronger connectivity across those four ASEAN countries by 2025, which they laid out in BIMP-EAGA Vision 2025 (BIMP-EAGA, n.d.[74]). The BIMP-EAGA–Republic of Korea Cooperation Fund (BKCF) has set clear green and climate-resilient targets to make the member countries and regions resilient, inclusive, sustainable and economically competitive.
A growing body of literature, primarily from Europe and the United States, suggests that policies promoting green growth have a net positive impact on overall employment. Green growth policies would create new sectors and occupations using less carbon and fewer resources, and would modify existing sectors and occupations to be equipped with additional skills (Sharpe and Martinez-Fernandez, 2021[75]; ILO, 2018[9]). But, at the same time, the policies would likely decrease job opportunities in carbon-intensive brown sectors. Although the overall effect sizes are still debatable, climate and energy policies and pollution mitigation measures are estimated to create modest and manageable gains in employment as they shift demand towards less carbon-intensive sectors (OECD, 2017[76]; OECD, 2013[77]; Chateau, Bibas and Lanzi, 2018[78]). Public investments in green recovery after the COVID-19 crisis were also found to be more effective and immediate in creating jobs and boosting economic growth compared with non-green investments (O’Callaghan, Yau and Hepburn, 2022[79]).
How green growth policies will affect earnings, overall job quality and employment status is unclear. In the long term, with adjustment to short-term costs, decarbonisation policies are estimated to slightly increase after-tax real wages but moderately decrease total income (Chateau, Bibas and Lanzi, 2018[78]). The overall and distributive impacts of climate and energy policies on wages can differ significantly depending on the design of the policy instruments (e.g. a carbon tax with or without energy efficiency measures) and the regional context (Chateau, Bibas and Lanzi, 2018[78]). What is becoming increasingly evident, however, is that in the absence of a skills strategy and social protection, low-skilled workers in sectors such as utilities, waste management and mining will be disproportionately negatively affected by a green transition (Montt et al., 2018[80]).
In Southeast Asia, both the regional and national policy frameworks for green growth have made little headway in supporting social inclusion. Policies to support job reallocation and protect the livelihoods of vulnerable workers during a green transition are, in most cases, not mentioned in these frameworks (ASEAN-ILO, 2021[6]). Although most ASEAN countries have high-level green development strategies and objectives (e.g. in relation to urban planning and climate adaptation/mitigation), readiness to support skills development during the transition varies widely across countries. Singapore shows the highest level of policy readiness in terms of workers’ protection, whereas Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia and Indonesia lag far behind. Policy readiness for inclusive green growth differs by country income in general because countries with a lower income might choose to prioritise alleviating poverty and meeting basic needs over workers’ protection (Li et al., 2021[30]; Luukkanen et al., 2019[81]). Nevertheless, Cambodia and Viet Nam have clear social protection plans for at-risk populations integrated within their national green growth frameworks (Box 2.3).
Cambodia and Viet Nam were the only two ASEAN countries that had established national strategies specifically focused on green growth around the mid-2010s. Over the years, other ASEAN countries have included green growth objectives in their national development plans or formulated stand-alone green growth strategies. However, Cambodia and Viet Nam are still the only two ASEAN countries that articulate the objectives and implementation plans to protect vulnerable populations from unintended exclusion during the green transition.
Cambodia promotes a “green social safety system”, a socio-economic development plan with low carbon emissions, through enhancing social protection and “green culture social safety” in its long-term green growth plan, which was launched in 2013. “Green culture social safety” refers to an approach to social development within the green growth framework that leverages a social protection system, green growth means, and technology. The green social safety system is anticipated to improve quality of life, health, and the environment, and increase the welfare of vulnerable populations (e.g. women, children, youth, farmers, Indigenous people, older people, people in poverty, or people with a disability).
Viet Nam’s latest strategy on green growth promotes social equality during the green transition by improving: 1) green transformation in social sectors (e.g. labour and employment, healthcare, and tourism), and 2) equal access to opportunities, information and basic social services during the green transformation. The Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs is responsible for overseeing, developing and implementing various policy instruments for social inclusion, including developing technical human resources in green economic sectors, creating green jobs, and enhancing social security and social support for vulnerable groups (i.e. women, children, ethnic minorities, people in poverty, or people with a disability) and entities affected by the green transformation process.
Source: Kingdom of Cambodia (2013[82]); OECD (2014[40]); Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Government News (2021[83]).
Understanding the job implications of climate impacts and of the green transition in the regional context is essential to help ASEAN policies make green growth inclusive. Labour markets in Southeast Asia are characterised by markedly high levels of informality and vulnerability, with some 244 million workers in informal employment with minimal or no labour and social protection (ILO, 2019[84]). The current Southeast Asian policy frameworks for green growth offer little insight into or response to near-term employment prospects and worker protections under the green transition scenario. Most studies available to date can provide a broad indication of what the green growth impacts on employment might look like. However, the specific distributive impacts could differ in Southeast Asia due to its distinctive market characteristics and industry structures (Bowen and Kuralbayeva, 2015[85]). So far, little research has been done to guide policies aimed at strengthening the social dimension of green growth (Li et al., 2021[30]).
In order to ensure that green growth is socially inclusive in Southeast Asia, ASEAN should improve regional policy frameworks to recognise nearer-term job disruption and suggest pathways for a smooth and fair transition. These frameworks need to include social protection measures for businesses, workers and families that are likely to be affected by the green transition. Vulnerable groups living in natural-disaster-prone areas will need specific social assistance in light of increasing droughts and floods linked to climate change. It will also be essential to develop agendas and implementation plans in order to enhance the employability of workers who have been displaced due to the low-carbon transition. Moreover, setting a regional standard for monitoring progress in social indicators could help reduce gaps between countries and create incentives for knowledge sharing on inclusive green growth measures.
For Southeast Asia, ensuring inclusive green growth is a key strategy for long-term prosperity and stability. Identifying the population that will be most affected by green growth is a good starting point to guide regional policy and strengthen social development during the transition period. Identifying the socio-demographic profile of at-risk workers can help to shape relevant public services and supports for displaced workers during the green transition. To this end, Chapter 2 identifies the sectors and workers most vulnerable to environmental degradation.
The energy sector is one of the most promising industries for an imminent green transition in Southeast Asia, with large potential economic gains (ADB, 2022[86]; OECD, 2014[40]). Three-quarters of Southeast Asia’s total energy supply currently relies on unabated fossil fuels, mainly coal, despite a gradual increase in renewable power between 2000 and 2020 (IEA, 2022[87]). Deploying diverse renewables (i.e. hydropower, wind, solar photovoltaic, bioenergy, geothermal) could accelerate the clean energy transition and establish Southeast Asia as a solid sustainable energy supplier in the global market and attract energy investment. The region’s large mineral resources also show great potential as the global demand for critical minerals (i.e. copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements) in clean energy technologies is set to increase quickly. Due to their versatile use in advanced technologies, critical mineral resources could attract investment in various projects in Southeast Asia. Finally, policy measures and new technologies promoting energy efficiency could result in additional savings by avoiding excessive energy use. Overall, the net gains from the green growth transition in energy and resources by 2030 are estimated to amount to USD 270 billion (Hardcastle and Mattios, 2020[47]). Chapter 3 of this report presents a case study of the employment effects of the clean energy transition in Indonesia.
Agriculture is another sector that presents a promising opportunity for the transition towards sustainability (ADB, 2022[86]; OECD, 2014[40]). The agricultural sector has the highest GHG emissions in Southeast Asia and is also highly vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. Promoting a green transition in agriculture in the region could help mitigate environmental degradation, thereby preserving natural resources and biodiversity. The transition would promote climate resilience and enable farmers to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. Given that nearly one in three Southeast Asian workers is engaged in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector (ILO, 2018[9]), adopting sustainable farming could also bring new employment opportunities to the region. Such job opportunities would likely arise both upstream and downstream due to the strong industrial interconnection within the agri-food value chain. The positive green job prospects in agriculture could lead to improved food security and livelihoods for the Southeast Asian population. Chapter 4 examines the green (organic) transition in agriculture and its labour market impacts.
References
[50] Acosta, L. et al. (2021), Green Growth Index 2021: measuring performance in achieving SDG targets, Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI).
[21] Adamowicz, M. (2022), “Green deal, green growth and green economy as a means of support for attaining the Sustainable Development Goals”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/10, p. 5901, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105901.
[86] ADB (2022), Implementing a Green Recovery in Southeast Asia, https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS220180 (accessed on 8 December 2022).
[45] ADB (2022), Southeast Asia Rising from the Pandemic, https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS220093-2 (accessed on 7 December 2022).
[52] ASEAN (2020), ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ASEAN-Comprehensive-Recovery-Framework_Pub_2020_1.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
[62] ASEAN (2020), ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework: Implementation Plan, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ACRF-Implementation-Plan_Pub-2020.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
[51] ASEAN (2020), Environment, https://asean.org/our-communities/asean-socio-cultural-community/environment/ (accessed on 30 December 2022).
[58] ASEAN (2019), ASEAN Leaders’ Vision Statement on Partnership for Sustainability, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1.-ASEAN-Leaders-Vision-Statement_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[57] ASEAN (2018), ASEAN Declaration on Promoting Green Jobs for Equity and Inclusive Growth of ASEAN Community, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Final-Draft-Kuala-Lumpur-Declaration-on-Promoting-Green-Jobs_FIN.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[54] ASEAN (2016), ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint 2025, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/8.-March-2016-ASCC-Blueprint-2025.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2022).
[53] ASEAN (2015), Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/November/KL-Declaration/KL%20Declaration%20on%20ASEAN%202025%20Forging%20Ahead%20Together.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2023).
[55] ASEAN (2012), ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Sustainability, https://asean.org/asean-declaration-on-environmental-sustainability/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[56] ASEAN (2010), ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on Sustained Recovery and Development Ha Noi, 9 April 2010, https://asean.org/asean-leaders-statement-on-sustained-recovery-and-development-ha-noi-9-april-2010/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[59] ASEAN Centre for Energy (n.d.), ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC), https://aseanenergy.org/asean-plan-of-action-for-energy-cooperation-apaec/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[3] ASEAN Secretariat (2022), “ASEAN strides to achieve post-2020 biodiversity framework”, News, https://asean.org/asean-strides-to-achieve-post-2020-biodiversity-framework/ (accessed on 4 December 2023).
[6] ASEAN-ILO (2021), Regional Study of Green Jobs Policy Readiness in ASEAN: Final Report, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_810078.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2022).
[74] BIMP-EAGA (n.d.), What is Vision 2025?, http://www.bimp-eaga.asia/goals/what-vision-2025 (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[14] Bina, O. and F. La Camera (2011), “Promise and shortcomings of a green turn in recent policy responses to the “double crisis””, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70/12, pp. 2308-2316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.021.
[2] Biswas, R. (2022), The ascent of APAC in the global economy, S&P Global Market Intelligence, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/ascent-of-apac-in-the-global-economy.html (accessed on 9 January 2023).
[85] Bowen, A. and K. Kuralbayeva (2015), Looking for green jobs: the impact of green growth on employment, https://gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2015-03-Looking-for-Green-Jobs-the-impact-of-green-growth-on-employment.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
[16] Brundtland, G. (1987), Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, World Commission on Environment and Development, Geneva.
[63] Brunei Ministry of Finance and Economy (2020), Towards a Dynamic and Sustainable Economy: Economic Blueprint for Brunei Darussalam, https://deps.mofe.gov.bn/DEPD%20Documents%20Library/NDP/BDEB/Econ_Blueprint.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
[37] Campbell, B. et al. (2017), “Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 22/4, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408.
[78] Chateau, J., R. Bibas and E. Lanzi (2018), “Impacts of green growth policies on labour markets and wage income distribution: A general equilibrium application to climate and energy policies”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea3696f4-en.
[12] Colby, M. (1991), “Environmental management in development: the evolution of paradigms”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 3/3, pp. 193-213, https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(91)90032-A.
[4] Coleman, J. et al. (2019), “Top 100 research questions for biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 234, pp. 211-220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.028.
[42] CRED (2022), EM-DAT The International Disaster Database, https://www.emdat.be/ (accessed on 7 December 2022).
[43] Dellink, R. et al. (2014), “Consequences of climate change damages for economic growth: A dynamic quantitative assessment”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1135, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz2bxb8kmf3-en (accessed on 8 November 2022).
[10] Garrett-Peltier, H. (2017), “Green versus brown: Comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 61, pp. 439-447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.012.
[28] GGGI (2019), Assessment and Main Findings on the Green Growth Index, https://gggi.org/report/assessment-and-main-findings-on-the-green-growth-index/ (accessed on 14 November 2022).
[64] Government of Brunei Darussalam (2018), National Vision Wawasan Brunei 2035, https://www.gov.bn/SitePages/Wawasan%20Brunei%202035.aspx.
[66] GOVPH (2023), Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, https://pdp.neda.gov.ph/philippine-development-plan-2023-2028/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
[20] Green Economy Coalition (2020), Principles, priorities and pathways for inclusive green economies: Economic transformation to deliver the SDGs, https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/GEC-Reports/Principles-priorities-pathways-inclusive-green-economies-web.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2023).
[47] Hardcastle, D. and G. Mattios (2020), Southeast Asia’s green economy: pathway to full potential, Bain & Company, https://www.bain.com/insights/southeast-asias-green-economy-pathway-to-full-potential/ (accessed on 8 December 2022).
[87] IEA (2022), Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2022, https://www.iea.org/reports/southeast-asia-energy-outlook-2022 (accessed on 6 December 2022).
[60] IISD (2004), Asia Pacific ministerial conference on environment and development stresses ‘green growth’, adopt 2006-2010 Regional Implementation Strategy, https://sdg.iisd.org/news/asia-pacific-ministerial-conference-on-environment-and-development-stresses-%E2%80%98green-growth%E2%80%99-adopt-2006-2010-regional-implementation-strategy/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[84] ILO (2019), How to extend social protection to workers in informal employment in the ASEAN region, International Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_735508.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
[9] ILO (2018), World Employment and Social Outlook 2018: Greening with Jobs, International Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_628654.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023).
[23] ILO (n.d.), Frequently Asked Questions on Just Transition, International Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/WCMS_824102/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 23 November 2022).
[38] IPBES (2019), Summary for policy makers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, http://www.ipbes.net.
[39] IPCC (2019), Climate Change and Land - An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
[44] Islam, S. and J. Winkel (2017), “Climate change and social inequality”, DESA Working Paper, No. 152, UN Department of Economic & Social Affairs, https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2022).
[82] Kingdom of Cambodia (2013), National Strategic Plan on Green Growth 2013-2030.
[36] Kirch, P. (2005), “Archaeology and global change: The Holocene record”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 30/1, pp. 409-440.
[30] Li, M. et al. (2021), “Evaluation and research on the level of inclusive green growth in Asia-Pacific region”, Sustainability, Vol. 13/13, p. 7482, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137482.
[69] LSE (2023), Climate Change Laws of the World, https://climate-laws.org/ (accessed on 11 July 2023).
[81] Luukkanen, J. et al. (2019), “Green economic development in Lao PDR: a sustainability window analysis of green growth productivity and the efficiency gap”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 818-829, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.149.
[70] Malaysia Ministry of Economy (2021), RMK12 The Twelfth Malaysia Plan 2021-2025, https://rmke12.epu.gov.my/en (accessed on 11 January 2023).
[32] Mann, C. (2015), The opportunities and challenges of greener growth: Getting the whole policy package right, OECD Yearbook 2015, https://www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/opportunities-challenges-greener-growth.htm (accessed on 28 November 2022).
[13] Merino-Saum, A. et al. (2020), “Unpacking the Green Economy concept: A quantitative analysis of 140 definitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 242, p. 118339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118339.
[80] Montt, G. et al. (2018), “Does climate action destroy jobs? An assessment of the employment implications of the 2‐degree goal”, International Labour Review, Vol. 157/4, pp. 519-556, https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12118.
[65] NESDC (2023), 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), https://www.nesdc.go.th/ewt_news.php?nid=13651&filename=develop_issue (accessed on 5 May 2023).
[79] O’Callaghan, B., N. Yau and C. Hepburn (2022), “How stimulating is a green stimulus? The economic attributes of green fiscal spending”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 47/1, pp. 697-723, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-020640.
[1] OECD (2023), Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2023: Reviving Tourism Post-Pandemic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f677c529-en.
[49] OECD (2023), Green Growth - Headline indicators, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_GG%40DF_HEADLINE_IND&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&df[vs]=1.0&pd=2017%2C&dq=OECD.A...&ly[rw]=MEASURE%2CUNIT_MEASURE&ly[cl]=TIME_PERIOD&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false.
[76] OECD (2017), Employment implications of green growth: linking jobs, growth, and green policies [OECD report for the G7 environment ministers], https://www.oecd.org/environment/Employment-Implications-of-Green-Growth-OECD-Report-G7-Environment-Ministers.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
[40] OECD (2014), Towards Green Growth in Southeast Asia, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264224100-en.
[77] OECD (2013), “What Have We Learned from Attempts to Introduce Green-Growth Policies?”, OECD Green Growth Papers, No. 2013/2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k486rchlnxx-en.
[34] OECD (2012), Green Growth and Developing Countries: A Summary for Policy Makers, https://www.oecd.org/dac/50526354.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2022).
[15] OECD (2011), Towards Green Growth, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en.
[26] OECD (n.d.), Green Growth Indicators, https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/green-growth-indicators/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[31] Parrique, T. et al. (2019), Decoupling debunked – Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability, European Environmental Bureau, https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
[41] PEMSEA (2015), Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), http://pemsea.org/sites/default/files/SDS-SEA%202015%20FINAL%2002222016%20FULL.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2023).
[11] Pezzey, J. (1989), “Economic analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development (English)”, Environment Department Working Paper, No. ENV 15, World Bank, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/234121493257444727/pdf/ENV15-REPLACEMENT.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2022).
[71] Republic of Indonesia (2020), Appendix Presidential Regulation No 18 of 2020 Concerning The National Medium-Term, https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/RP_RKP/Narasi-RPJMN-2020-2024-versi-Bahasa-Inggris.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2023).
[25] Rosenbaum, E. (2017), “Green growth—magic bullet or damp squib?”, Sustainability, Vol. 9/7, p. 1092, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071092.
[75] Sharpe, S. and C. Martinez-Fernandez (2021), “The implications of green employment: making a just transition in ASEAN”, Sustainability, Vol. 13/13, p. 7389, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137389.
[67] Singapore Government (2023), Singapore Green Plan 2030, https://www.greenplan.gov.sg/ (accessed on 4 January 2023).
[83] Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Government News (2021), National Green Growth Strategy for 2021-2030, vision towards 2050, https://en.baochinhphu.vn/national-green-growth-strategy-for-2021-2030-vision-towards-2050-11142515.htm (accessed on 16 January 2023).
[5] Sodhi, N. et al. (2010), “The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity”, Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 19/2, pp. 317-328, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9607-5.
[29] UN ESCAP (2013), Green Growth Indicators: a practical approach for Asia and the Pacific, https://sdghelpdesk.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/Green%20Growth%20Indicators_2014_3.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2022).
[22] UNEP (2021), Green Recovery Factsheet.
[19] UNEP (2011), Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2022).
[27] UNEP (n.d.), Metrics and measurements frameworks, https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/green-economy/what-we-do/economic-and-trade-policy/metrics-and-measurements#:~:text=Green%20Economy%20Indicators%20are%20key,the%20performance%20of%20policy%20implementation. (accessed on 8 January 2023).
[35] UNESCAP (2021), Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report 2021, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
[61] United Nations (n.d.), Green growth, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1447 (accessed on 29 December 2022).
[18] Unmüßig, B., W. Sachs and T. Fatheuer (2012), Critique of the Green Economy: Toward Social and Environmental Equity, Heinrich Böll Foundation, https://www.boell.de/en/ecology/publications-critique-of-the-green-economy-14826.html (accessed on 24 November 2022).
[48] UNU-WIDER (2020), “A snapshot of poverty and inequality in Asia: Experience over the last fifty years”, WIDER Research Brief, No. 2020/2, UNU-WIDER, https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/snapshot-poverty-and-inequality-asia (accessed on 30 November 2022).
[68] USDA/GAIN (2021), Vietnam Issues Green Growth Strategy 2021-2030 vision to 2050, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Vietnam%20Issues%20Green%20Growth%20Strategy%202021-2030%20Vision%20to%202050%20_Hanoi_Vietnam_11-02-2021.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
[33] Wang, H. et al. (2018), Measuring the decoupling progress in developed and developing countries, https://doi.org/10.2991/icmcs-18.2018.77.
[8] Wei, M., S. Patadia and D. Kammen (2010), “Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?”, Energy Policy, Vol. 38/2, pp. 919-931, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044.
[7] World Bank (2019), World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group.
[17] World Bank (2018), Green growth for sustainable development.
[24] World Bank (2013), How do you measure green growth? World Bank & partners are working on indicators, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/04/04/creating-global-green-growth-indicators (accessed on 29 November 2022).
[46] World Bank (n.d.), Adjusted savings: natural resources depletion (% of GNI), World Bank Database, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.DRES.GN.ZS (accessed on 5 December 2022).
[72] World Resources Institute (2020), Indonesia adopts its first-ever sustainable development plan, https://www.wri.org/outcomes/indonesia-adopts-its-first-ever-sustainable-development-plan (accessed on 13 January 2023).
[73] WWF (n.d.), Heart of Borneo, https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/borneo_forests/ (accessed on 8 January 2023).