Looking Ahead: 2022–2035 and Beyond

Abstract

One of the most eloquent statements from CCICED in recent times is the introduction to the September 2021 AGM recommendations.

“A Once-in-a-Generation Transition is Underway”

One of the most eloquent statements from CCICED in recent times is the introduction to the September 2021 AGM recommendations.¹ It highlights the existential struggle of multiple environmental crises and the next steps needed on the part of China and globally. The recommendations document is entitled: Great Transition Toward a Green Development Epoch: Low Carbon, Inclusive, and Harmonious With Nature.

The world faces multiple crises, including COVID-19 and from its economic consequences, climate change, the destruction of nature, and pollution…The ongoing economic recovery must place a strategic priority on integrating low-carbon solutions, nature stewardship, and pollution protection.

Global action against COVID-19 has shown us again that global ecosystems are interconnected. No country or region can face these crises alone. Therefore, global solidarity and international cooperation in reducing wildlife trade and the destruction of natural habitats are urgently needed to reduce the risks of future pandemics caused by zoonotic diseases. Commitments are deepening across countries and all levels of society to reach carbon neutrality, protect nature, minimize waste and pollution, fund integrated approaches like One Health, and support greater equity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 15^th Conference of the Parties, in Kunming, and the 26^th Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP 26), in Glasgow, present historic opportunities to advance an inclusive, carbon-neutral, and nature-positive agenda. Efforts to strengthen environmental governance and enhance synergies among multilateral environmental agreements are especially significant to support integrated policies…

CCICED members greatly appreciate President Xi’s commitment to building an ecologically sustainable world and to the harmonious co-existence of humanity and nature. This commitment includes targets and measures mainstreaming high-quality, green development as detailed in the 14^th Five-Year Plan and 2035 Long Range Objectives…CCICED members believe that President Xi’s announcement of the nation’s plan for carbon peaking and carbon neutrality sets a clear direction for China’s post-pandemic recovery and green prosperity.

The world is looking to China for experience and inspiration. To implement its commitments in an efficient, stable, and predictable manner, China needs to pay attention to policy coherence across economic sectors, the interplay between regulatory binding targets and market-based pricing mechanisms, and the dynamic role of demand-side consumption…CCICED members believe that President Xi’s announcement of the nation’s plan for carbon peaking and carbon neutrality sets a clear direction for China’s post-pandemic recovery and green prosperity.

CCICED members recommend that China grasp and capitalize upon the dynamic opportunities offered by technological innovation and the green industrial revolution; pay special attention to targets, timelines, and pathways for structural transformation; formulate actions at both the macro and micro levels; and set out clear, robust, integrated, and systemic green policies that advance and implement a comprehensive socio-economic green transition.

The 2021 CCICED recommendations propose four broad areas for this immediately needed but “once in a generation” transition, as noted in Box 7.1.

Box 7.1. CCICED’s 2021 Four Headline Recommendations to the State Council

• Value the integrity of global ecosystems. Mainstream actions for addressing climate change, protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, and controlling pollution, and enhance policy coordination across regions. Examine steps to establish green responsibility mechanisms through ecological and natural capital accounting in ways that strengthen the micro-level foundation for green, low-carbon development and that ensure a comprehensive, stable, and inclusive transition.

• Develop a new model for green urbanization, taking it as a strategic starting point for commitments on carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. With urban renewal, county development, and green rural revitalization as the three pillars, innovate spatial planning with low-carbon roadmaps.

• Jointly promote sustainable production and consumption, with an emphasis on the utility of digital technology innovation for sustainability. Integrate low-carbon and ecosystem protection standards into green supply chains, including upstream product design to expand materials and product reuse and recycling, to bolster circular economy practices. Establish a green “dual circulation” model to provide new impetus for high-quality development.

• Align domestic green targets and measures with multilateral and international cooperation: Develop closer green development partnerships, promote an equitable and inclusive green transition, and share development achievements, including through the adoption of green investment and green financing, green supply chains and sustainable trade, and jointly building the green BRI.

There are three distinct time frames ahead where CCICED could have useful inputs, both within China and internationally. First is the 14th FYP, which is now underway and to which CCICED already contributed recommendations in 2019–2021. Second is the follow-up need now for more specific suggestions on how this current FYP can set in place the staging for the coming two FYPs out to 2030–2035, by which time China hopefully will have achieved key goals related to ecological civilization and the basic modernization of China’s development. Integrated development strategies will be particularly important between now and 2035. Also, there is a great need to assist with international commitments, such as the peaking of GHG emissions by 2030, meeting goals for biodiversity conservation under a revised CBD national action plan, and the very important commitment to achieve the UN SDGs. Finally, there is the longer term, from 2035–40 to 2050–60. This third time frame is where scenario development and modelling may help to set goals for achieving a fully modernized society that will adhere to ecological civilization principles and action, including a “carbon–neutral” state.

Green Development and Ecological Civilization in China’s 14th FYP (2021–2025)

The opportunity to set China on a longer-term course of green development is now underway via the 14th FYP. The overall theme is for high-quality development, and the overriding principle is “dual circulation” of stimulating domestic consumption while continuing to expand overseas trade. The pursuit of a low-carbon economy is expected to play a prominent role. There is less emphasis on GDP targets. Indeed, there are no set targets for GDP. Efforts will continue to put in place new GEP measures such as Green Economy Progress² and Gross Ecosystem Product.³ Over the course of the 14th FYP, these new measures will become of increasing value to policy-makers. CCICED researchers have made numerous contributions to these new topics in past years. In the introduction to the 2019 CCICED recommendations to the State Council, the point was made that “transition from high-speed to high-quality development reconciles the conflict among competing objectives such as unbalanced or insufficient economic development and the needs of people for a better life. This transition can also promote environmental protection, ecological stewardship and sustainable development…Ambitious domestic environmental actions need to be aligned with multilateral commitments that include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.”⁴

Three important characteristics of green development were highlighted in the CCICED 2019 recommendations: “holistic, amplifies innovation, and modernizes consumption.” In other words, integrated approaches are needed and, for many initiatives, a long-term approach. Therefore “the 14th FYP should anticipate and support Beautiful China 2035, climate change targets and a 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.” “Green development should revise key development concepts, reform and modernize governance mechanisms, and advance ecological capital accounting. Green development indicators should be integrated and evaluate both policy and cadre performance. Green finance, eco-taxation, green pricing, green procurement and green consumption should work in a coordinated manner to internalize ecological costs.”

Eight detailed recommendations (each is presented in original form in Annex 5) highlighted a number of key concerns starting with the need to “promote green consumption.” Just for this one topic, there were many important suggestions: expand green consumption in key sectors; expand access to green products and services supply; revise the Government Procurement Law to emphasize green sources; promote green supply chains and the circular economy through China’s “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) rules⁵; reduce plastics; establish a science-based, coherent green labelling and certification system; promote the Green Lifestyles Campaign.”

The other seven recommendations dealt with Green Urbanization, Green Development in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, Acceleration of Climate Action, Post-2020 Biodiversity Conservation, Marine Sustainable Development, Green Belt and Road Initiative, and Cross-cutting Issues: Technological and Institutional Innovation. This range of topics demonstrates how diversified the dialogue can be and how many government units must be involved in the uptake of the recommendations. There is no question that implementing green development will require full mainstreaming of E&D during the 14th FYP.

From 2020 to the present, CCICED’s inputs regarding the 14th FYP continued through the work of its research teams with many “virtual” meetings involving the international team members. This was remarkably successful, given the travel constraints imposed by COVID-19. In September 2020, CCICED’s annual recommendations were forwarded to the State Council.⁶ Not surprisingly, the 2020 recommendations’ title is From Recovery to Green Prosperity. The introduction suggests: “The international community will closely follow China’s economic, social, ecological, and environmental strategies laid down by the 14th FYP, which, in the era of globalization, is not only key to China’s sustained and stable growth but also related to global green prosperity and well-being.” Also, the value not only domestically but also internationally of President Xi Jinping’s “Green is Gold” approach, and the government’s continued strengthening of green development efforts. What is now required is further attention to advancing “the comprehensive framework for green development” and “to set up strategic concepts, concrete policy targets, priority areas, and delivery institutions and mechanisms.” In other words, emphasize attention on the practical basis needed for ecological civilization.

It was noted that “China should continue contributing to multilateral environmental and developmental processes, fulfill its obligations as a responsible major developing country, and join global green partnerships in fostering a shared future for all life on Earth.”

Another key concept is “the promotion of effective measures for both COVID-19 and environmental issues, given the close relationship of public health, pollution, and waste management. The ideal will also require the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, poverty alleviation, gender mainstreaming and achievement of social equity and justice.” These points echo the concern heard around the world for “building back better.” Specifically, concerning post-pandemic economic recovery, it is suggested that there is an opportunity to promote green development and pivot toward socio-economic resilience. Concepts and measures might include efforts to bolster green elements in “New Infrastructure Stimulus”, support green jobs, [take] integrated measures for community vulnerability reduction, promote green production and green consumption, and support multilateral initiatives and enhance international cooperation…such as “One Health” and the “UN Decade of Ecological Restoration.” Beyond that, it should be possible to take measures that would “help build out the green finance system.”

Green development requires integrated approaches to advance policy coherence. Short-, medium-, and long-term goals should be better aligned. Additionally, focus should be placed on creating synergies among the legislative, judicial, and administrative organs in the practice of Ecological Civilization, and establishing and improving a modernized environmental governance system. Other mechanisms include exploring more science-based, rational, and practical assessment methods and payment mechanisms for natural capital accounting while formulating policies and plans with a broader vision. It will also be important to integrate environmental considerations into broader economic and social planning and policies, along with establishing and developing green market mechanisms such as the carbon trading market. There also need to be improvements in green standards, green fiscal and taxation systems, and a green finance system. Policy incentives should be aligned with the goals of green development and strengthened by compliance promotion and regulatory enforcement.

Many of these observations have been made by CCICED in recent years and, in some cases, even a decade or more ago. What marks their significance now is the much-enhanced national and local capacity to act steadily towards their implementation. Accountability regarding performance is more significant, and the tools, funds, and will to act quickly are at hand. It is reasonable therefore to seize the opportunity of post-pandemic recovery to promote major green technologies that are readily scalable, strengthen the development of green infrastructure, and enhance socio-economic resilience.

In the 2019, 2020, and 2021 recommendations, there is a level of sophistication and grasp of the greening and sustainable development relationships between national and global action, and also between sectors, that was simply not as well developed half a decade ago at the start of the 13th FYP. This does not mean that future efforts will be easy. It is encouraging that many of the suggestions from CCICED have made their way into the 14th FYP.

Key Mid-Term Actions for 2021–2035

China’s commitments today can accelerate progress on E&D later. This has been said repeatedly by leading researchers, such as Lord Nicholas Stern, concerning peak GHG emissions in China, by organizations such as WWF and IUCN regarding biodiversity conservation, and by the UN for ecosystem restoration. This current decade is a precious time for bending the curve on all of these and other major E&D needs, both inside and beyond China. Globally, the UN 2030 SDGs are critically important. Here, China can help by meeting its own SDGs but also by working with its development partners in other countries through means such as the BRI and South–South cooperation mechanisms, plus through its many enterprises and other organizations working abroad.

A shortlist of potential priorities for domestic China E&D over this FYP period is proposed by the authors of CCICED at 30 in Box 7.2. These priorities are based on our opinion about current situations; however, as we have seen with the emergence of COVID-19, there can be very sudden additions to priorities. Events related to climate change have the potential to be some of the most potent drivers of change. Greater emphasis must be given to both sustainable production and consumption.

Box 7.2. Ten Significant Priorities on China’s Domestic E&D Issues 2021–2035

• 1. Fulfill needs laid out in the goals for 2035 Ecological Civilization, China’s domestic and international efforts for the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and continued efforts to create and apply better green S&T innovations.

• 2. Substantially complete the removal of all major air, water and soil pollutants at their source and through shifts to cleaner production processes, green mining, brownfield remediation, low pollution agriculture, including the minimizing of non-point pollution, better solid waste management, reduced plastic wastes, etc.

• 3. Implement green development that creates opportunities for sustainable livelihoods, boosts natural capital and human capital, and well-being, and increases the capacity to maintain ecosystems and sustainable/green livelihoods. Optimize river basin use and marine areas based on improved ecological integrity.

• 4. Undertake ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation with synergies to address climate change mitigation and adaptation and to increase ecological services.

• 5. Set in place the world’s most advanced and effective programs for a low-carbon economy and mechanisms for turning carbon neutrality and nature-based solutions into new economic opportunities.

• 6. Successfully carry out energy use transformation to drastically reduce coal and other fossil fuel use while at the same continuing efforts to reduce carbon intensity even beyond those currently announced.

• 7. Hasten innovation for ultra-high efficiency in water use for both urban and rural areas and drastically reduce groundwater depletion and quality decline.

• 8. Eliminate unsustainable/perverse subsidies; remove trade and investment arrangements not in line with green supply chains, circular economy, and other environmentally sound practices.

• 9. Ensure green, safe, and livable cities, as well as green and sustainable rural vitalization. Build green bridges between the two lifestyles and protect nature, food security, and ecological services in modernized rural, suburban and city settings.

• 10. Overhaul public and private sector financing mechanisms and sourcing to fully meet needs for green investment, along with improved means to reduce various inequities between rural and urban inhabitants, and to redefine wealth and prosperity in broader terms than economic growth and development.

International and Domestic Cooperation Strategy (2022–2035) for CCICED

Especially during 2019/2020/2021, there have been many calls for intensified efforts to accelerate action regarding eco-environmental and other global emergencies such as COVID-19. Some of this attention has targeted the need for green recovery strategies from the pandemic nationally and regionally as well as globally in relation to the economic, environmental, and social consequences of the pandemic. These efforts, as they relate to China, include several important matters: (1) the ongoing and rising commitment of the Chinese government to fully meet its ecological civilization objectives; (2) the desire to peak GHG emissions before 2030; (3) the need to ensure ecological conservation red lines lead to strict and effective protection of ecosystems and biodiversity; and (4) meeting various other 14th FYP environmental goals related to urbanization, rural vitalization, cleaner industry, and green tech development.

Priority Themes for an Ecological Civilization (2022–2035)

Some of these topics (Box 7.3) might be examined during CCICED Phase VII. In general, they are topics that are already high in Chinese and/or international priority. While most have already been examined quite extensively by CCICED studies, in our roundtables, etc., they are examples of evolving issues requiring long-term attention.

Box 7.3. Potential Themes Addressing 2022–2035 Needs

Ecological Security and Sustainable Resource Use

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Non-Point Source Pollution

Ecological Supporting, Regulating and Cultural Services Enhancement

Ecological Provisioning Food and Fiber Security

Ecological Water and Soil Security

Ocean Sustainable Use

Nature Appreciation and Protection (Parks, Ecological Redlining, Traditional and Modern Conservation Practices)

Green Development Reform

Green Urban Development and Rural Vitalization

Green Transportation

Green Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0, etc.)

Green Recovery and Restoration

Prosperity and Resilience

People’s Well-Being

Public Participation in E&D Decision Making and Initiatives

Domestic Sustainable Production and Consumption Supply and Demand

“One Health”

Livelihoods for and in an Ecological Civilization

Green Development Science and Technology Innovation

Green Development S&T Innovation

Advanced Circular Economy

High Tech (IT and Big Data, Biotech, etc.)

China and the World

Green Investment, Trade and Green Supply Chains

Chinese Green International Development Partnerships,

Green BRI

Green Globalization (addressing Planetary Boundaries, Doughnut Economics, Ecological Civilization and Sustainable Development as mainstream subjects)

Addressing Understudied Topics

CCICED, for various reasons, has not sufficiently explored some major topics that are widely discussed globally or regionally in Asia or other parts of the world. They include full incorporation of poverty concerns and ongoing debates on eco-social impacts of large-scale water projects and other infrastructure development; nuclear power development; hazardous waste management; ongoing aspects of illegal trade involving wildlife, etc.; gender issues in all aspects of CCICED work; various ocean issues, including fulsome examination of distant water fishing fleets; Arctic and Antarctic environmental protection and resource uses; and environmental and occupational health. This list is certainly not a complete one. Should some of these topics be covered in more depth in the future? In the broad context of ecological civilization, that is an important consideration since this concept includes both culture and politics in addition to the usual triangle of sustainable development elements.

Looking Ahead to 2040–2060

At this point, there is not too much to say in detail. Work on scenarios and modelling will be useful during CCICED Phase VII to shed more light on the directions and potential values of long-term green, high-quality development. The most concrete examples of long-term E&D include those related to major themes, such as China’s “carbon neutral” commitment by 2060, the desire for a harmonious relationship between people and nature by mid-century or soon after, and, certainly, the long-term vitalization of rural areas and very challenging shifts in urbanization approaches. The aging of China’s citizens is a current subject of great concern in the 14th FYP, and that concern will likely become even more acute soon after. What we can anticipate is continued progress towards a “Beautiful China,” with help from green technologies and the desire of China’s people for a high quality of life. It must be done with less pressure on planetary boundaries and with a smaller ecological footprint on the part of China and all other well-off countries. Surely all these topics and others will vie for CCICED’s attention in the years ahead. It is encouraging that a new Leading Group on Peak Carbon and Carbon Neutrality was established in Spring 2021, chaired by Vice Premier Han Zheng, CCICED’s Chair.⁷ This government mechanism highlights the need for a coordinated approach among departments.

CCICED’s Future as a “Think Tank”

From its very first AGM in 1992, some CCICED members and others have described it as a think tank. Over the years, there have been mixed views about the value of such a moniker. On the one hand, it is valuable to be considered as a source of wise advice and generator of new ideas or be imbued with other attributes of a think tank. On the other hand, it can also conjure images of being an “ivory tower”—a place that produces ideas but is not always clear on how they fit into real-world settings. A leading assessor of think tanks defines them as “public-policy research analysis and engagement organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis and advice on domestic and international issues, thereby enabling policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy.”⁸ By this definition, certainly, CCICED should qualify as a think tank. Over the years, CCICED has built working relationships with people from at least 13 of the 25 top think tanks in the environmental category of the Think Tank Index Report and long-standing relationships with several of these institutions.

CCICED’s chief client, China’s State Council, must continuously find solutions and mixes of policies for very real problems and must understand the trade-offs and synergies involved. The State Council can draw upon many sources of advice, including its own planning and research organizations such as the Development Research Center (DRC), universities, departmental research facilities in many sectors, and, of course, China’s major research academies.

In the early years of the new century’s second decade, the issue of being classified as a think tank became a serious matter. China’s government determined that only a limited number of research organizations would be considered high-level think tanks. The designation would be important in determining such matters as government financial support and how often major events such as CCICED’s member meetings could be held. Being a hybrid type of organization and CCICED’s uniqueness could be considered either an advantage or a disadvantage in the national struggle for full recognition as a think tank. For CCICED it might also be considered a test of whether the concept of this senior advisory body and its research initiatives were still deemed to be of high value.

In June 2015. a small team led by CCICED’s Secretary-General explored the characteristics of several leading U.S. think tanks at meetings in Washington D.C. These included a major session with the World Resources Institute, the Environmental Defense Fund, plus several others on the “supply side.” CCICED also explored perceptions from the “demand side,” i.e., U.S. government officials and others seeking advice from U.S. think tanks. The 40-person meeting was a successful undertaking since it provided solid advice on positive ways of taking on the best characteristics of think tank leadership. Participants underlined how important it is to continue advancing transformative policy change as the driving force for CCICED.

Prior to holding this meeting, a brief was prepared about CCICED and shared with the American institutions.⁹ The document emphasized some of the strategic lessons learned by CCICED during its first two decades, such as the following points: (1) keep emphasizing key themes while at the same time building the case for new directions; (2) assert that it is not necessary to seek credit for all the policy shifts on topics where CCICED had a strong involvement—much better to be satisfied if the desired shifts are actually taking place and continuing to find ways they can be further improved; (3) the twin needs of good communication and trust-building are essential and must be instilled in all work; (4) avoid being a negotiating forum to second guess or try to influence outcomes that should properly occur via direct negotiations of parties; (5) with the import of ideas, technologies, etc., from outside of China it is necessary to give adequate consideration to Chinese characteristics and situations; (6) recognize that once decisions are taken on policies, action may take place with breath-taking speed, and that will influence follow-up needs. These points were well received as indicators of a degree of maturity in how to conduct business as a successful think tank. The meeting was linked to the 7th U.S–China strategic dialogue.

How CCICED might evolve as an institution in the future will depend on circumstances that are in the hands of senior decision-makers in China. But it is clear that, at present, CCICED is accepted as a think tank of value to both China and the international community. Perhaps the best signals of that are the continued external and Chinese financial support, the access given by Chinese leaders and their ongoing uptake of CCICED recommendations, and the quality of people and institutions attracted to work with CCICED.

Other Thoughts on the Future of CCICED

Should CCICED continue with the major focus being on China’s future domestic environmental needs, or should it place more emphasis on China and world issues? Should it become an advanced think tank along the lines of some other international E&D organizations?

In the world’s evolving views about what constitutes living within planetary boundaries, reducing ecological footprints, building “carbon neutrality,” maintaining biodiversity, setting new goals for ecological services and ecosystem restoration, how can CCICED help by promoting advances in sustainable development and ecological civilization?

Should CCICED-types of organizations become a new basis for promoting integrated eco-environmental planning and management in various other parts of the world?

How can CCICED improve on its existing relationships with private sector organizations within and outside of China, and what role should it play in promoting market-based solutions and trading arrangements? Also, is there any role for CCICED beyond what it does already in addressing new policies for meeting massive needs for green finance, whether in China or regionally and globally?

How should CCICED itself be funded in the future? Should it continue with five-year renewal periods or be developed and maintained as a permanent body? Certainly, E&D progress to 2030–2035 is of crucial importance on topics such as avoiding further erosion of biodiversity, bending the curve of potential climate change outcomes, reducing/eliminating poverty, and meeting the full range of the UN 2030 SDGs.

At this point, we pose these questions as items to be considered rather than attempting to provide specific suggestions on answers. However, we consider the warning that complacency stalks all organizations of a certain age. So far, CCICED has “kept up with the times,” in part because of China’s dynamic and adaptive approaches. But that is not enough. CCICED has to be ahead of the times in its thinking and advice. As pointed out by some senior Chinese colleagues in government, “Please do not tell us what we already know!” Thus, innovation concerning both institutional and management approaches must continue to be front and centre.

CCICED as a Model Directly Applicable to Other Countries

From CCICED’s beginning, there were high expectations regarding need, uniqueness, and the anticipated high value of international cooperation. CCICED was (and to some extent still is) an experiment since each phase has brought forward new ideas regarding content and adjustments on how work is carried out. There were some initial donor hopes that this type of institution might be valuable for other large countries, notably India and Russia. Indeed, there were some early efforts to do so, although not really very successful.

The most direct efforts towards CCICED cooperation with the potential of seeing a CCICED-style organization in another large country was initiated by the late R. K. Pachauri, a former member of CCICED and Director General of the Energy and Resources Institute (TATA), India. Based in part on his knowledge of CCICED, he set up an India Council for Sustainable Development (ICSD). This body included eminent advisors from India and international sources with the intent of providing recommendations to relevant government agencies. A major meeting sharing Indian and Chinese experiences was convened by CCICED in September 2006. Research cooperation followed with two objectives: (1) understand the E&D paradigms of the two countries and (2) draw commonalities, differences, and lessons to be learned. The hope was that the experience might be shared with other countries. A joint 2011 book was commissioned by CCICED and ICSD from this work.¹⁰

The reality is that CCICED’s success story may not be easy to exactly replicate in other countries. This Council got started in a highly motivated setting where some precursor activities had already set the stage for improved environmental protection nationally and internationally. Its birth took place just before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. China’s national government recognized the urgent need to address the environmental consequences of extremely rapid economic growth. The government was relatively well organized for managing development basics but lacked the knowledge, organization, and frameworks for environmental protection that many OECD countries had gained from the 1970s onwards.

The painstaking efforts during CCICED’s first decade to build strong working relationships at the level of CCICED members and within WGs turned out to be essential grounding. These efforts were coupled with the welcoming attitude of China’s senior leaders, political and scientific, plus the supportive and long-term attitudes of international funders and participating organizations (generally 5-year pledges of cooperation), which all helped to provide stability in work plans and positive outcomes. In return, the ongoing government and partners’ interest in the results and the evidence of positive outcomes in terms of policy development have helped to sustain interest levels in the transition at the end of each CCICED Phase.

China has presented some of the most challenging E&D situations found anywhere in the world. The opportunities to see transformative change in action have been stimulating for most people engaged in CCICED’s earlier activities. This realization is still present today and is an important motivational factor. What was initially discussed as the need for “leapfrogging” efforts now has turned into productive partnerships for tackling today’s global and national environmental emergencies. In the future, it will be learning from China’s advances in many E&D aspects, including the value of overarching visions, such as those of ecological civilization.

Whatever might have “gone off the rails” that could have brought an end to the organization during any one of CCICED’s six phases has been avoided. One matter sometimes raised is that the need for international input and advice eventually would not be necessary. Given the huge advances in Chinese experience and expertise, on the surface, this might already appear to be a valid point. However, there has been a major shift in approach, particularly in the last decade. Now E&D problem solving is much more of a mutual learning process to address complex issues.

Senior Chinese leaders at various times have offered the opinion that CCICED should be a very long-term endeavour, given that today’s international environmental commitments often extend past mid-century. Debates regarding whether CCICED should be mainly working on domestic China priorities or also include a major focus on Chinese and global environmental matters have taken place, but mainly in the past. Now it is generally recognized that substantial commitment to international matters is very important for CCICED’s future.

The unusual nature of CCICED could have been a threat to its financial support base, especially when China graduated into a higher-income status, with questions about whether CCICED should be supported with development assistance funds from some donors. From its domestic sources, China likely could find the relatively small level needed to keep CCICED well-funded. Such matters have been considered by some donors. Overall, funding has remained at a steady level. The feeling is that the best arrangement is to have support flow from multiple sources, including a range of international sources. This helps in various ways to maintain the independence and quality of CCICED’s work and also gives it the capacity to tap into the most outstanding people and diverse perspectives.

China is the largest funding contributor, especially when in-kind contributions are considered. Canada and several other countries, such as Norway, have provided anchor funding that is important to send a signal to others concerning the value proposition that makes the investment viable. As noted in Annex 1, at any one time, there can be a dozen or more funding partners, each with their own interests in mind and rules that will work for them and for China’s administrative system.

The justification for spending from development funds such as CIDA, SIDA, GIZ, and others was simply that high-quality development depends on good environmental quality. While poverty eradication is essential—as are investments in health, education, and sustainable livelihoods—it is the health of ecosystems and the quality of rural and urban development, including clean air and water, etc., that also can make a huge difference in the quality of people’s existence and happiness. And for the future, with the looming presence of climate change, biodiversity decline, and other such threats, building resilience, restoring productive ecosystems, and safeguarding against toxic substances are front and centre in sustainable development goals. Whether CCICED’s international funds are channelled through a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, currently the case for Canada and some other sources; through arrangements with China for support of specific initiatives, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) contribution that has supported work related to the Yangtze River; or from partners drawn from business and international organizations such as The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, it is spent in accordance with the objectives of CCICED’s annual work plans.

An important point is that substantial in-kind funding by international partners takes place via their contributions to CCICED’s SPS work, support of roundtables, workshops, open forums, etc. Some examples are a 2008 Swedish-sponsored meeting of the Chinese 50 Forum of leading economists that was very helpful for the initial planning of CCICED’s low-carbon economy efforts; WEF meetings on green technology and other topics; WRI’s recent work related to green supply chains; ADB and TNC work on integrated planning and river basin law related to YREB; the Netherlands PBL on scenario development, water basin management, etc.; WWF China on Ecological Footprint; and Germany’s long-standing partnership with CCICED, which draws upon the participation of government departments such as the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and the non-profit organization GIZ. This in-kind support and experience magnifies the quality, contacts, and reach of CCICED efforts immensely.

Greening the BRI

China’s BRI is often described as one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived. Initiated in 2013, it is a “transcontinental long-term policy and investment program” aiming to “promote the connectivity of Asian and European and African continents and their adjacent seas…and realize diversified, independent, balanced and sustainable development.”¹¹ While more than 100 countries and international organizations are involved, it is recognized as a flagship initiative of China. At the BRI Forum for International Cooperation in May 2017, President Xi Jinping proposed that “we should pursue the new vision of green development” and the UN 2030 SDGs. This was followed by an official Guidance Document on Promoting Green Belt and Road.¹² The document proposed sharing China’s experience and practice in ecological civilization and green development, enhancing capability for eco-environment protection, preventing eco-environment risk, and facilitating the joint achievement of the 2030 SDGs by countries and regions along the route.

In mid-2018, CCICED initiated an SPS on the need for a Green BRI, drawing on existing work from MEP and other sources.¹³ This SPS held consultative meetings in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as in China. The meetings in the two partner countries were very useful since they provided insights regarding the developing country partner side of BRI. Some of the key suggestions from these meetings were the need for aligning BRI with the 2030 UN SDG Agenda; enacting principles that would ensure new projects are green from the start; enforcing environmental regulations in host countries should be incorporated into the loan conditionality by China; understanding the role a digital BRI can play; implementing projects that are demand driven and sustainable; and engaging in solid environment-related projects.

Based on the SPS preliminary work and AGM discussions, an extensive set of recommendations for a green BRI were included in the 2018 CCICED report to the State Council. Further recommendations can be found in the SPS 2019 report as summarized below:

(1) actively participating in global environmental and climate governance to build the Belt and Road into a road to ecological civilization and green community of shared destiny; (2) developing the strategic alignment mechanism for Green Belt and Road and promoting the coordination and implementation of strategies with policies, plans, standards and technologies; (3) establishing a Belt and Road risk prevention mechanism to guide green investment with green finance and ecological and EIA; (4) building Green Belt and Road project management mechanisms to encourage green development practice by businesses; and (5) promoting people-to-people bond to strengthen personnel exchange and capacity building.

A follow-up CCICED SPS on BRI was initiated in 2019 to explore some of these themes and others in order to create more detailed suggestions for a green BRI roadmap. In its September 2020 report,¹⁴ this follow-up SPS on BRI placed considerable emphasis on biodiversity, given that many partner BRI countries are located in biodiversity-rich regions. The following excerpt from the SPS recommendations is illustrative.

China should align the BRI with other biodiversity related international conventions that China is a signatory to such as the Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, and foster synergies with climate related conventions such as UNFCCC…

...Take ecological redlining as a key instrument to link the BRI and SDG 15. As the practice of ecological redlining has yielded promising results in China, it is recognized by the international community, with expectations, that the ecological redlining system is most closely aligned with a mitigation hierarchy that is commonly used in biodiversity conservation at the global level.

…Adopt a mitigation hierarchy for those projects identified as having significant biodiversity risks as a result of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The majority of international financial institutions require biodiversity assessments tied to mitigation measures to attain the overall goal of “no net loss” or even a “net gain” in biodiversity…drawing on its own experience with the ecological redlining, biodiversity offsets, ecological restoration, and ecological compensation schemes, China is recommended to develop a standardized biodiversity conservation hierarchy that should include four components of “avoidance”, “mitigation”, “restoration”, and “compensation”…The cooperative measures to be taken depend upon the degree of risk identified in the assessments. Such an approach should include ecological ‘red lines’ across the BRI…

CCICED has worked closely with the BRI International Green Development Coalition (BRIGC)¹⁵ by sharing sources of expertise over the past several years. Further, some key CCICED recommendations are already finding their way into policies—for example, on July 15, 2021, the Ministry of Commerce and MEE jointly issued the Guidelines for Green Development in Foreign Investment and Cooperation. These guidelines are very important for BRI. Under the theme of green and low-carbon development, a meeting was recently held by BRIGC concerning marine ecological and environmental protection and sustainable shipping. This topic is a direct follow-up to CCICED 2021 AGM advice provided by CCICED’s Sustainable Ocean Use SPS.

South–South Cooperation

In 2016, CCICED established a TF on South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization. The intent was to have the TF report quickly since the theme for the 2016 AGM was China’s Ecological Civilization and the World. This was an important initiative since it was the first time the topic had been carefully reviewed by CCICED. Mr. Kandeh Yumkella, a CCICED member and former Director-General of UNIDO, served as the International Co-Chair. The TF produced a number of very useful recommendations, as summarized in Box 7.4.

China’s special relationships with developing countries are valuable globally, regionally, and bilaterally. They have trended towards environmental matters in recent times—for example, in China’s South–South Climate Cooperation Fund announced in 2016 and another such fund related to the UN SDGs. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS New Development Bank, and China’s Development Bank are very important sources of outgoing investment funds for development. In 2018, the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) was announced and, since then, has become an important coordinating body within the State Council on foreign aid matters. It can be presumed that China will continue transforming its approach to be in line with green development and ecological civilization in all its activities, including international development commitments.

Box 7.4. Recommendations of CCICED TF on S-S Cooperation for Ecological Civilization

Establish criteria to guide China’s selection of priorities in South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization: (1) be consistent with the 2030 SDGs; (2) be adaptable to countries at different stages of development and with varying needs; (3) provide systematic solutions that balance livelihood and ecology; (4) operate with innovative technology and development models; and (5) promote environmentally friendly and low-carbon infrastructure. The use of these criteria consistently will send strong signals to partner countries about ecological civilization.

Achieving global sustainable development goals requires both developed and developing countries to make joint efforts with due consideration of common but differentiated responsibilities and actively promote South–South cooperation while continuing South–North cooperation…implement major initiatives in the context of green development such as the BRI, proactively promote South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization with Asia, Africa and small island countries, respond to green development demand from other developing countries, jointly promote and assist implementation of the UN 2030 SDGs, and enhance China’s contribution to global environmental governance.

Establish a coordination mechanism for South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization

• (1) Establish a ministerial-level China International Development Cooperation Agency to integrate international development aid and South–South cooperation. This agency would be responsible for mainstreaming the ecological civilization concept into all decisions and plans, including objective identification and policy making at the macro level and institutional arrangements, process management, monitoring, and evaluation at the micro-level.

• (2) Develop a comprehensive Green Action Guide for China’s Foreign Aid. This guide should provide information on types of projects that are particularly supportive of green development, assess the potential environmental impacts of China’s foreign aid projects and provide support and guidance to mitigate environmental impacts. In addition, the guide should recognize the positive effects of foreign aid on meeting UN 2030 SDGs and addressing climate change.

Create the enabling conditions for South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization

• (1) Develop medium-term and longer-term strategies for Ecological Civilization components of South-South Cooperation. These strategies should give due consideration to the demands of global E&D, as well as demands from developing countries, including priority fields and programs that can take full advantage of Chinese technical, scientific and managerial expertise. Attention should be given to climate change, biodiversity, desertification, landscape restoration and afforestation and various ocean fields, and especially to topics of interest to developing countries adjacent to China.

• (2) Develop a broad multistakeholder participation system for South–South cooperation. Motivate local governments, NGOs, and enterprises, and explore multilateral cooperation with other donor countries, development banks, international NGOs, and multinational companies.

• (3) Strengthen institutional and human capacity building. Improve environmental awareness of people working for South–South cooperation. Enhance fundamental research efforts to provide a better theoretical and data basis for policy development and decision making. Select and train personnel in international perspectives, environmental awareness, and the expertise to take on South–South cooperation work.

• (4) Enhance outreach. Systematically elaborate the relationship between ecological civilization and sustainable development goals to promote the internationalization of the ecological civilization concept. Strengthen information and data collection, pre- and post-project analysis and disclosure for South–South cooperation, and establish an official information release system and a “Government–Civil Society” dialogue platform.

Increase Financial Support

Combine various financial sources to achieve an integrated funding [approach], including government aid, development agencies, commercial banks, and the private sector. Fully use the leverage of government funds to encourage more input from commercial banks. Fully utilize the financing capacity of multilateral financial platforms such as AIIB, NDB, GEF, and the Green Climate Fund.

Improve Process Management

• (1) Understand the demands of partner countries and stakeholders to improve project implementation in South–South cooperation. Proactively understand the needs and demands of partner countries and expand project partner relationships to include more environmental protection projects in the project pool of South–South cooperation.

• (2) Consolidate existing foreign aid approaches and further strengthen technical assistance and knowledge sharing. Broadly extend China’s successful experience in green agriculture, industry, and other sectors, and promote the application of new technologies in South–South Cooperation for Ecological Civilization

• (3) Pay close attention to the whole process assessment for large projects in the infrastructure, energy, mining, and agricultural sectors. In assessments, consider the ecological environment to be of the same level of importance as economic and social impacts, and establish an interactive mechanism for projects at all stages: proposal, assessments and monitoring, and evaluation.

The UN and CCICED Relationships

The UN’s role in promoting E&D in ways relevant to China stretches from the 1972 UN Conference on the Environment to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which influenced many of the subjects examined by CCICED from its start to this day. The UN General Assembly has been the stage for some major environmental announcements by China’s Presidents, notably President Hu Jintao’s September 2009 commitment to reduce carbon intensity and President Xi Jinping’s “carbon neutral by 2060” statement in September 2020. In 2012, Premier Wen Jiabao chose the UN Rio +20 Earth Summit as the venue to chair a CCICED roundtable dialogue session with environment ministers from selected countries. In recent years, CCICED has been active in publicizing the UN World Environment Day (June 5), and in 2019, when China was selected to be the global point for this celebration from Hangzhou, the CCICED AGM was held in conjunction with World Environment Day. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon attended in person.

China is a party to most of the world’s global multilateral conventions relevant to E&D. CCICED takes care to differentiate between providing insights on the many aspects related to policies and the actual negotiations of agreements. The two most complex agreements (Biodiversity and Climate Change) are quite central to much of our work, as we have emphasized throughout this CCICED at 30 report. As well, for topics such as trade and environment, development of new approaches to resource accounting and other indices, environmental health, and social aspects of sustainable development, etc., have led to participation in a large number of UN agencies, including those involving social and economic branches, and on regional UN organizations such as ESCAP.

Although all CCICED members serve in their personal capacity, it is hard to ignore the reality that having many members, research team participants, and others with linkages to UN bodies is extremely helpful. For CCICED, this starts with the people at the top of UN agencies. In Box 7.5 is a list of present and former CCICED members distinguished by their role as leaders of UN bodies or initiatives. At the other working levels, of course, there are many more. These affiliations are mutually supportive since the UN agencies can amplify their presence in China and on matters where China plays an important role regionally and globally, such as on many marine and ocean issues, green urbanization and infrastructure, and the circular economy.

A major opportunity for CCICED in future partnerships with UN bodies lies in the implementation of ecological civilization. UNEP endorsed the concept at its February 2013 UN Governing Council meeting.¹⁶ In 2016, UNEP produced a widely circulated report, Green is Gold, which described China’s efforts for ecological civilization.¹⁷ The report was financed in large part through CCICED. The theme of the 2021–22 CBD Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in Kunming is Ecological Civilization: Building a Shared Future for all Life on Earth. It is important to build an understanding of how ecological civilization can provide value-added to existing concepts of sustainable development and, in particular, to achieving the UN 2030 SDGs.

Box 7.5. CCICED Members with Past or Present UN Head-of-Organization Positions

From the start, there have been helpful relationships between various UN specialized organizations and CCICED. Several past or present leaders of UN bodies have been CCICED members.

These members include: Mr. James Speth and Mr. Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrators; Mr. Klaus Topfer, Mr. Achim Steiner, Mr. Erik Solheim, and Ms. Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Directors; Mr. Kandeh Yumkella and Mr. Li Yong UNIDO Director-Generals. Leaders from other important UN-related bodies include: Mr. Barber Conable, former World Bank President, Ms. Kristalina Georgieva, IMF Managing Director and former CEO of the World Bank; Mr. Leonard Good, and Ms. Naoko Ishii, former CEOs of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF); Mr. Martin Lees and Ms. Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Rectors UN University for Peace; Mr. Francesco La Camera, Director-General International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA); Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Permanent Representative on the UN Security Council; Mr. R K Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Mr. Emil Salim, Chair of Preparatory Committee of the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development; Ms. Erna Witoelar, UN Special Ambassador for the MDGs, Asia and the Pacific; Ms. Laurence Tubiana, member of the UN Scientific Advisory Board, and co-architect of the UN COP 21 Paris Climate Agreement.

Ecological civilization is demonstrating its value inside China by providing new means for integrated planning and management to take place, as well as in its association with innovation and new perspectives. It is also a way of strengthening frameworks for green development. At a time when the UN and countries everywhere are searching for a new path to transformative change to build harmonious relationships between people and nature, there is a chance for China to make a big difference, just as it did with poverty reduction over the last two decades. Topics such as “green recovery” and other themes, including the “three global emergencies” promoted by UNEP and other UN organizations such as UNDP, could be included.