The shadow of the pandemic has not yet dissipated, and it is expected to recur in the short term. In the face of the devastating impact of the pandemic, economic and social recovery is the foundation for stabilizing the development of nations, and it is crucial for ensuring the livelihoods and well-being of the people. Since last year, Greenpeace has collaborated with the China Association for NGO Cooperation to launch the “Global Recovery in Progress” project, publishing a series of articles that track and explore the recovery processes of several major economies around the world. Looking back over the past year, how have the green recovery efforts progressed in different countries? What lessons have been learned? To answer these questions, the project team has released the “Global Green Recovery in Progress: International Case Studies of Post-Pandemic Recovery” to provide insights for China’s path towards a green recovery.
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 sparked global discussions about development paths, with “green, inclusive, and sustainable” becoming key buzzwords. Many countries have adopted “green recovery” as a primary goal in their action plans. Green recovery does not merely entail the traditional economic indicators of recovery and growth; it represents a model of recovery that fosters a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, while demanding both the speed and quality of development. Achieving a green recovery requires global efforts and calls for policymakers to carefully consider economic, social, and environmental aspects in a balanced manner. It involves effectively promoting economic restructuring, energy system transformation, and the conversion of ecological values, all while ensuring comprehensive protection for human health and well-being.
As countries have rolled out post-pandemic recovery plans, numerous actions and policies over the past year have shown some positive effects. However, they have also revealed areas in need of further reflection. This case study collection, based on Greenpeace’s green and inclusive recovery policy framework, analyzes and summarizes the recovery policies of several major economies. It distills the best practices and weaknesses observed during the recovery processes. China’s “Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035” explicitly states the goal of “promoting green development and fostering harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.” China has embarked on a new journey of green recovery and development. At this critical juncture, absorbing and summarizing the experiences and lessons from other countries can enhance the scientific nature of China’s green development policies and contribute to achieving green development goals.
While green recovery has become a mainstream topic, the reality is not overly optimistic. A report jointly published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the University of Oxford indicates that only about 18% of the spending by 50 major global economies in 2020 for economic recovery was allocated to green projects. Green recovery still has a long way to go. Nevertheless, amidst the various relief and recovery strategies adopted by countries worldwide during the process of self-help, there are many good practices worth emulating. These practices primarily include:
- Seizing the opportunity of green recovery as a means to establish new competitive advantages, focusing on developing key green and low-carbon technologies, and cultivating green emerging industries.Global green recovery is ushering in a tremendous wave of new industrial opportunities. Studies indicate that the electric vehicle market is expected to surge in the next five years, and the robust growth of renewable energy generation will drive rapid expansion in energy storage technology and demand[1]. The International Energy Agency proposed a green recovery plan in June 2020, suggesting that, between 2021 and 2023, each country worldwide invest around $1 trillion annually in six key areas, including electricity, transportation, industry, buildings, fuels, and emerging low-carbon technologies[2].The United States’ latest recovery plan includes elements to accelerate the development of electric vehicles and renewable energy. Germany and France have officially designated “green hydrogen” as a priority investment. The UK government announced the “Ten-Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution,” covering renewable energy, new electric vehicles, carbon capture technology, and clean ocean technologies, among others. South Korea is focusing on nurturing three new energy industries: renewable energy, hydrogen energy, and energy IT. Japan’s “Green Growth Strategy” sets development goals in various technology fields, including hydrogen, offshore wind power, electric vehicles, and carbon capture. In addition to these initiatives, the European Union, the UK, Germany, Japan, and others have all mentioned their commitment to advancing digital transformation in their recovery plans. Technological innovation and industrial transformation and upgrading will be essential drivers of post-pandemic economic recovery and development, as well as key factors in shaping new competitive landscapes and ensuring genuine green development. Therefore, policymakers need to seize the opportunity, clarify their country’s strengths and weaknesses in green and low-carbon technology and industry, establish priority areas and key measures for developing green and low-carbon technology based on medium and long-term development goals, scientifically allocate resources, nurture talent, actively promote technology transfer and application, and promote overall industrial enhancement, thereby unleashing the enormous potential to drive economic growth and social progress.
- Advancing economic recovery through comprehensive plans, using a “policy toolkit” approach to flexibly adjust policy supply.Most of the international case studies in this report have introduced dedicated relief or recovery plans, which have relatively clear definitions regarding the timeframe and coverage areas of the plans. For example:The United States has rolled out six rounds of relief plans, including the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” under the Trump administration and the “American Rescue Plan” under the Biden administration. The UK has launched initiatives such as “Build Back Better,” “Plan for Jobs,” and “Winter Economy Plan.” Japan has introduced two rounds of economic policies, “Emergency Economic Measures” and “V-shaped Recovery,” and later released the “Green Growth Strategy” at the end of 2020. Germany has implemented relief and recovery plans with a total scale of €750 billion and a “Future Plan” of €500 billion, with the name of the latter already indicating its alignment with long-term goals. The plan aims to promote the development of future technologies (including quantum computing and the digital industry) and hydrogen energy, aligning with Germany’s “National Hydrogen Strategy” and “Quantum Technology – From Fundamentals to Market” research framework plans. Notably, these recovery plans are often divided into two or three phases. The initial phase focuses on providing relief and addressing urgent needs, with measures primarily targeting social security, health system improvements, and extensive business relief loans. In the second or third phase, efforts shift towards enhancing economic recovery momentum, with policies aimed at promoting the development of energy, transportation, manufacturing, and other sectors. Comprehensive plans provide a framework for recovery actions that can be adjusted to specific needs during different phases, facilitating the addition or removal of policy details. They also make it easier to track policy implementation and evaluate policy effectiveness.
- Ensuring policy adaptability and synergy by organically connecting short-to-medium-term recovery with long-term policies such as sustainable development, energy transition, and carbon neutrality goals.The development of relief and recovery policies is driven by the specific crisis posed by the pandemic at a particular stage. However, policy formulation needs to take into account both short-term emergency needs and medium-to-long-term transformation requirements. For example:The “Build Back Better” initiative in the UK aims to address not only the current COVID-19 crisis but also various unresolved issues in the country over the past three decades. Following the $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package in the United States in early 2021, the country is planning a $2.25 trillionAs the world embarks on a journey towards green recovery, there are several potential challenges that need to be carefully considered to ensure the success of this transformative process:
- Shifts in Government Ideology with Changing Leadership: The period from late 2019 to late 2021 witnessed a wave of government changes in several Western countries. Economic recovery amidst the backdrop of the pandemic has become a central topic in these transitions, potentially leading to policy shifts. While it’s encouraging to see governments actively engaging in green development practices, there’s also a need to be vigilant about the risks of incomplete implementation or even abandonment of green development policies due to changes in leadership. It’s essential to assess the possibility that commitments to green development and climate change made during these transitions may not materialize as expected.
- Continuous Inefficient Allocation of Relief Funds: Multiple rounds of relief fund allocation can exert significant financial pressure on governments. It’s crucial to judiciously deploy relief and recovery plans and their associated funds, regularly review their effectiveness, and refine them. Repeated rounds of relief fund allocation could strain government finances. Simply “throwing money” at the situation, without considering pandemic control, makes it challenging to genuinely alleviate the hardships faced by both citizens and businesses. Effective execution of relief plans depends not only on sufficient funding but also on careful research and deployment of funding models, frequency, focus areas, and other policy measures.
- Traditional Stimulus Measures vs. Sustainable Recovery: During times of crisis, both governments and the public tend to resort to traditional economic stimulus measures. Infrastructure investment and construction can stimulate economic growth and create jobs in the short term. Infrastructure projects have been commonly used as a means of recovery during previous economic crises. In the current round of economic recovery, several countries have incorporated infrastructure construction into their initiatives to revitalize the economy and employment. However, it’s crucial to focus on the creation of sustainable, high-quality jobs, promote clean energy transformation, and enhance economic and societal resilience when implementing infrastructure projects.
Global green recovery relies on genuine commitment and practices of green development by all countries. It is reinforced through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, international conventions, and collaborative models. Both internal initiatives and external oversight must work together to ensure the comprehensive advancement of global green recovery.
Promoting Green Recovery through International Conventions: International conventions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have established vital tasks and goals for global development. Among these, the Paris Agreement represents the overarching direction of global green and low-carbon transformation and is the minimum action required to protect our planet. When planning their own development, countries need to fully incorporate indicators related to climate change mitigation and sustainable development outlined in these international agreements. We expect all countries to enhance political mutual trust, implement the goals, principles, and mechanisms of these key international conventions, and utilize the regular reporting mechanisms of international conventions to provide external oversight and drive action on climate change and green development.
Promoting Green Recovery through Regional Cooperation: Strengthening dialogue and international cooperation is an effective way to achieve inclusive green recovery. The Asia-Pacific region provides an example of regional cooperation in combating the COVID-19 pandemic, which can serve as a model for promoting green recovery through regional collaboration. In the post-pandemic era, countries need to reexamine the logic and specific methods of regional cooperation to achieve the goal of high-quality economic recovery and development. Innovation and diversification of regional cooperation models should be explored to enhance the effectiveness of regional cooperation.
Promoting Green Recovery through Bilateral Collaboration: Taking China, Japan, and South Korea as examples, the joint statement by the economic and trade ministers of ASEAN and the three East Asian economies in June 2020 highlighted the confidence of East Asian economies in strengthening collaboration to restore normal economic growth. During the critical stage of economic and social transformation in the post-pandemic era, these three countries can promote regional green recovery through enhanced cooperation. Specific measures may include innovative regional green finance and international urban cooperation.
In conclusion, achieving green recovery on a global scale is both a challenge and an opportunity. By addressing potential challenges and enhancing international cooperation at various levels, countries can collectively drive the green recovery forward, inject new vitality into the world’s green recovery, and build a sustainable and resilient future for all.
