68
ideological interests identifying the winners and losers in the end. I employ the idea of traveling models in this analysis.
The study engages with green development concepts as travel models and have become quite influential in Kenya. I examine how actors define the concepts, and then look at these concepts' international, national, and local agencies. The final part of this section examines how these concepts have been localized and made to find legitimacy in Kenya’s development discourse. I explore the power interplays that have guided the development of the idea and practice of green ideas of development. I also examine the ideas as those that travel through space and find their way in Kenya’s environmental and development politics because of influence beyond the boundaries of Kenya.
69
increase in the standard of living, and rapid population growth rate. The above, in turn, affected the natural resources leading to their continuous decrease. The political and legislative realities of developing sustainably and reducing environmental risks overlapped with these processes facing the world (Dogaru, 2021).
I examine what prompts framing practices among communities, looking at the key actors behind the frames. Bowen & Fankhauser (2011) argue that the term green growth is linked to low carbon, sustainable environment, and climate-resilient increase in the prosperity of humans. It thus emphasizes GE and sustainable development concerning environmental, economic, and social politics. The difference is when GE emphasizes efficiency and an economy that functions as a precondition to attaining progress. Strategically though, green growth permit protection of the environment to be put forward as a question of opportunity and reward as opposed to costly restraint. It focuses on the microeconomic environment, considering the regulatory frameworks and the many market imperfections (externalities) and policy failures. Further, it recognizes that the economic changes needed are profound, systemic, and structural as opposed to minimal, as much of the literature on mitigation tacitly assumes. Another perspective is the link to scarcity of resources and realizing that replacing away from scarce resources such as fossil fuels might eliminate a restraint to long-term growth (Bowen & Fankhauser, 2011; Lederer et al., 2018).
Dogaru argues that the co-existence of green development ideas such as GE, green growth, and sustainable development is realistic due to these concepts' balancing and simultaneous nature.
Herman contends that the ideas, rather than a burden on the economy, are currently viewed as pillars of economic growth and industrialization (Dogaru, 2021; Herman, 2021).
So in their formulations to respond to that, that is how they now start coaching growth with color. So when you say green growth, you are almost saying growth, but we’ll try and make it greener. So then the notions of greening growth become something that…a vocabulary that is now being presented (Senior Staff, DANIDA, Nairobi 07/ 2019).
The above statement shows the pressure that green development has put on ways of economic development considered detrimental to the environment. It indicates an admission that growth in the past has not been friendly to the environment, so there is a need to capture that; however, as he puts it, the aspects of green growth seem to be more focused on vocabulary other than the actual practicalities. As the study has noted, green development concepts aim to synchronize economic growth and environmental sustainability by supporting essential changes in the production and consumption pattern and are marketed as the solution to the problems of the
70
world’s collective future. The ideas, however, have deeper historical roots dating back several centuries. In tracing the history of green visions, it becomes easy to understand the kinds of economic and political power and the cultural forces that have influenced the emergence of green visions. A historical understanding helps to reveal the hidden power plays (Perreault et al., 2015).
Due to the high population growth rate, increased demand for resources, industrialization, among other factors, the world is already going beyond its limits. If this is not checked, there is a potential for the global economy to collapse. The GE concept has been evolving and was first used in 1989 by a group of economists in the Blueprint for a GE report drafted for the United Kingdom Government. In recent years, its emergence from economics has become very influential in making decisions and government policy (Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013; Dogaru, 2021). Such prevailing realities and historical perspectives have prompted actors to rethink their development strategies.
But the point is if we take the same development pathway that the West took or the developed nations took, more correctly said, then we will inevitably push the boundaries of our planet, and that is going to have foretold consequences to one and all, including Africa (Senior Staff, DANIDA, Nairobi 07/ 2019).
Accordingly, there is a caution that since development is necessary, fundamentally, countries in the global south should not do so the way western countries already did. This is because the impacts of the strategies taken by the western countries are already felt, and therefore, there is a need to change tact to reduce the other effects. This has been taking place at a macro scale, whereby survival strategies have continued to be discussed. The Brundtland Commission Report and Agenda 21 provided the turning point for global action on sustainability. The report popularised the sustainable development idea, anchored on social development pillars, economic growth sustainability, and environmental protection. Agenda 21 brought together world nations to the common goal of sustainability. It urged governments to adopt national strategies for sustainable development, or Green Plans, following the global development pathway ushered through the UN MDGs and SDGs in 2000 and 2015, respectively. Brown argues that the 1987 publication by UN dubbed Our Common Future crystallized a new paradigm noting that the primary assumption of the report was that the main reasons for environmental destruction were approaches to growth that were not long term, that the use of
71
suitable technology could resolve, and the desperation of poverty, which left people with no option but to overuse natural resources (Brown, 2016).
The OECD presents concepts such as Green Growth as a subset of sustainable development but not a replacement. However, they do not find a clear distinguishing point from the two as shown; no further explanation is given on this. Both green visions and GE are presented as pathways to sustainability. Both UNEP and the World Bank pay more attention to the social aspect of sustainable development than the OECD offering sustainable development as the ultimate goal; this presents a chance for each institution to do what they perceive as the best way and do so convincingly. I trace the origin of the term ‘green growth’ to South Korea during the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development, which pushed for much more than sustainable development (Dale et al., 2016). With the establishment of the GGGI, a treaty-based international, inter-governmental organization dedicated to supporting and promoting strong, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth in developing countries and emerging economies- in 2012 at the Rio + 20 UN conference on Sustainable Development to spearhead the efforts to showcase South Korea to the outside world. It has the vision of a low-carbon, resilient world of strong, inclusive, and sustainable growth. The mission is ‘to support members in transforming their economies into a green visions economic model.’10 In an interview with the Director-General of the GGGI, he noted that ‘the GGGI establishment had as much to do with showcasing Korea in the world, as with the focus on “Green visions,” if you like’ (11/2019).
Accordingly, green development concepts such as green growth are viewed as practical ways to grow economically while ensuring less degraded environment, reducing biodiversity loss, and sustainably using natural resources. It contributes to many countries’ initiatives to develop clean growth sources. While at this, they also aim to capitalize on opportunities to come up with new green industries, technologies, and employment and at the same time be able to deal with the changes associated with the switch to a greener economy. Dogaru looks at the models as a form of economic growth that puts to use natural resources sustainably and argues that they provide an alternative concept to classical industrial economic growth, which leads to the phenomenon of GE, which is a real phenomenon of headway and a concept of environmental security (Dogaru, 2021).
10 Gggi.org/about/
72
Leaders and heads of fundamental institutions driving visions of green development influence the direction the institutions take. The Director-General of GGGI in an interview alluded to this by explaining that when Banki Moon took over as the president of GGGI, he preferred using the term sustainable development instead of ‘green growth’ that had been in use. So different leaders have different priorities, thus framing their narratives and actions. I note that these framings also create institutions that live beyond the frames.
So it was difficult for President Moon; he certainly did not agree to use the terms “Green Growth.” He preferred "sustainable development,”
even though the government planned to increase renewable energy and address several things. His plan was much more in line with GGGIs than the previous president. So gradually, we have got the president to support, not so much “Green growth” as a concept, but GGGI as an institution, that Koreans are proud of (Director General, GGGI, Bonn 11/2019).
Concerning conceptual changes, environmental protection should be viewed as a driver of growth and necessary for long-term economic sustainability rather than a constraint to economic growth. System changes call for the creation of policies that focus on green development and the adoption of green planning that improves eco-efficiency in production and consumption and institutional development and strengthening for effective decision-making. While the green growth approach is relevant for both developed and developing countries, social-economic disparities, politics, governance, and development priorities affect how GE initiatives are adopted, translated, communicated, and implemented and the actors and interests involved.
The World Bank has been seriously advocating for the idea of green visions and has put a lot of resources into initiatives like the Green Growth Knowledge Platform. At the same time, the OECD’s most effective intervention was ‘Towards green growth’ in 2011. The World Bank’s definition of green growth is simply environmentally sustainable economic growth. This definition doesn’t incorporate social inequality. Accordingly, the World Bank refers specifically to ‘inclusive’ green growth, recognizing that social inequality has often been ignored in favor of environmental degradation and economic growth when discussing sustainability.11
Green growth, as presented, is narrower in scope in comparison to sustainability but entails an operational policy plan to aid in achieving concrete, measurable progress at the interface
11 World Bank 2003
73
between the economy and the environment. There lacks a clear definition of the term green growth. Therefore, this allows different actors to interpret it and justify their actions. By questioning what this lack of clarity means to other actors who engage with these concepts, I explore whether they find meaning in them as they navigate the social, economic, and political spaces.
Those pushing for GE see this as a means to deal with poverty, thus addressing the existing social challenges. Leading organizations globally presented the concept of GE in three reports.
The World Bank’s Inclusive Green Growth, UNEP’s Towards a GE, and the OECD’s Towards Green Growth. Examining UNEP, OECD, and WB definitions, I note differences in their focus on where the emphasis is laid though their approaches to GE remain the same. They aim to develop a policy framework to achieve green visions (Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013). This focus area is what helps the institutions to come up with strategies for green development. The visions of green development are believed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prevent further environmental degradation, and promote the efficient use of natural resources. The UNEP report highlights that greening the economy can outpace the current environmentally damaging growth rate. This difference in emphasis is useful for the study as it helps to answer the questions about interests (Brown et al., 2014a). I, therefore, argue that it is in the interest of the institutions and not for the general public that they claim to be implementing these strategies, as Brown and others argue that GE does not come up with anything far from the current economic system.
Kenya is not one of the members of GGGI; however, the idea of green visions has found itself in Kenya’s environment and development discourse. GGGI is active as a neutral advisor and a strategic development partner within the countries and governments they work with, and Kenya is not one of the member governments. Interestingly, the ideas are implemented in Kenya. For this reason, I note that these ideas are also picked by other actors and taken to be implemented by their governments and institutions without adequate coordination. Members of the GGGI are supported to come up with green vision plans, and they are also supported to implement the same according to the priorities of every country. Members share knowledge and best practices.
We get money from the country to work in other countries, to share initially, possibly in the government’s ideas the Korean technologies or ideas (Director General, GGGI, Bonn 11/2019).
The WB, in its report, acknowledges the critical function infrastructure plays in greening growth, arguing that infrastructure policies are fundamental to green visions. The question then arises as to whether this could be the reason for the recent large-scale infrastructure
74
development in Kenya and whether this infrastructure has addressed poverty in Kenya and environmental sustainability as is suggested. It appears not to be the case since the Standard Gauge Railway has not yielded any fruit, there has been massive ecological destruction caused by infrastructural development, displacing people in the end, and while some get compensated for the land, others are not because of the complexities that come with the questions of compensation (Lindsay, 2012). Infrastructural development has also brought about other communities’ changes; some were initially pastoralists/farmers but have now been forced into other means of livelihoods (Greiner et al., 2021). The suggestion by the WB to incorporate environmental issues into government operations has so far taken place in Kenya. This has happened through the recent policy changes and institutions being built. Money comes from the WB directly to the treasury for environmental issues and the financial influence should therefore not be ignored. The institutions that provide finances thus become active participants when the policies are being formulated; thus, a lot of the ideas incorporated in these policies come from the institutions.
An opportunity to strengthen the commitment to sustainable development beyond economic dimensions is presented with green visions. The obligations to address challenges of the environment and economic benefit promises are put forward as a combination of a win-win allowing embedding an innovative global economic angle that simultaneously considers environmental and social issues.
Brown, however, remains unconvinced and does not see anything to suggest a radical break with neoliberal orthodoxies and their limitations. To him, the critical conduits of thinking on green development have a familiar ring: the “greening” of productivity and innovation, growing marketization (assigning values to previously unpriced resources), the promotion of flexible regulatory frameworks, and erosion of government administrative and managerial roles, the privatization of energy, land, water and, generally speaking, and the incorporation of natural capital into economic thinking, all without problematizing the concept of the growth (economy) itself (Brown et al., 2014b).
They wanted to find how they could raise the environment’s profile, and to raise the profile of the environment linkages to the economic aspect was very important. People will listen to you if you begin to talk in terms of dollars (Senior Staff, UNHABITAT, Nairobi 06/2019).
75
This statement by an expert reflects that framing is highly linked to the financial aspects. It acknowledges that the environment is essential in the development discourse; however, it has been ranked low and given very little priority. Therefore, to get the attention that was necessary for it to be prioritized by actors in the industry and private sectors, it was going to be critical to find a way to frame it to fit into the economic perspectives. Therefore, with such a background, it is vital to question if it is even possible that a state of balance will be achieved at some point, as the proponents put it.