No abstract

SUMMARY A key challenge at the beginning of the 21st century is to de‐carbonize and de‐materialize the global economy in time to avoid irreversible changes to the global and local environment while generating enough social and economic development opportunities to reduce poverty and inequity. Four main ‘development paradigms’ dominate the contemporary public discourse on how to best meet this challenge and achieve the social, economic and environment pillars of sustainable development: (i) a growth‐focused development paradigm; (ii) a pro‐poor growth development paradigm; (iii) a green‐growth development paradigm; and (iv) a resilient growth development paradigm. Although these four development paradigms are usually perceived as mutually exclusive, the paper argues that they should be regarded as complementary, with each providing a necessary but in itself insufficient response to the challenge of sustainability. The new sustainable development paradigm will require a substantial transformation of the present economic development model analogous to what transition economies underwent during the industrial revolution. The paper discusses the political, managerial and social implementation challenges for this societal shift and finds that its success will depend on whether public administrations are adequately prepared to translate government policies into action at the different levels, negotiate conflicts and build trust among stakeholders. The paper concludes by summarizing some of the solutions advocated in the individual contributions to this Special Edition of PAD to strengthen the capacity of public administrations in creating a sustainable future. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

In the absence of a significant reduction in global emissions from current levels between now and 2050, global temperatures could rise by 4 °C, and possibly 6 °C by 2100. The world now has 100–150 months to dramatically change the world’s energy supply trajectory and limit temperature rise to a “safe” 2 °C. The sums involved in a shift to a low-carbon economy are daunting but not impossible to achieve. Global capital markets, representing $178 trillion in financial assets, have the size and depth to rise up to the investment challenge. Rather than a problem of capital generation, the key challenge of financing the transition toward a low-carbon society is to redirect existing and planned capital flows from traditional high- to low-carbon climate resilient investments. Over the past few years, the international community has developed a number of public- and market-based instruments to shift investments from fossil fuels to more climate-friendly alternatives. As a result, investments in the sustainable energy market have grown from $22 billion in 2002 to $155 billion in 2008. They could reach $400–500 billion by 2020. Unfortunately, only a limited number of developing countries are benefiting from these new financing opportunities, as their markets have up until now failed to attract green investments. Contrary to a widespread view that climate change negotiations and efforts should focus on the largest greenhouse gas emitting countries, this paper argues that a failure to provide fair access to climate finance to all developing countries would have severe political, financial, and climate change consequences. Developing the capacity of low income countries to create conditions that enable markets and private investment flows to address pressing environmental problems is a key priority to finance the transition toward a low-carbon society. This paper proposes a novel country-driven, multistakeholder climate finance framework to assist developing countries to scale-up efforts to address climate change. The framework is built on four mechanisms at the country level: formulation of low carbon, climate resilient strategies—to bring about bottom-up national ownership, incorporate human development goals, and take a long-term outlook; financial and technical support platforms—to catalyze capital from businesses and households; nationally appropriate mitigation action/national adaptation plan-type instruments—to bring about balanced access to international public finance; coordinated implementation and monitoring, reporting, and verification systems—to bring about long-term, efficient results.