PARIS - The OECD Green Recovery Database also shows that the USD 336 billion allocated to environmentally positive recovery measures is close to evenly matched by non-green measures (those with negative or “mixed” environmental impacts), for those measures that have a monetary value.
But this proportion does not imply that the green measures therein are sufficient to enable transformation towards long-term climate and environmental objectives.
Especially given that the billions allocated to green investment may be counteracted by ongoing support to environmentally harmful activities.
What’s more, the remaining two thirds of recovery spending that has not yet been categorised as environmentally impactful cannot be considered environmentally benign.
Tracking progress
The database focuses on measures related to COVID-19 economic recovery efforts with clear positive, negative or “mixed” environmental impacts across one or several environmental categories.
It contains around 680 national-level measures with environmental relevance, spread over 43 countries and the European Union, and covers a range of environmental impacts beyond just energy and climate, and includes pollution (air, plastics), water, biodiversity, and waste management.
Where the money is going
The bulk of green measures represents grants or loans (making up around 37% of the 680 measures in the database), tax reductions or other subsidies (17% of the total), and regulatory changes at around 11%.
More than 60% of green measures are sector-specific (slide 2) and, in terms of number of measures and funding, they target, by far, energy and surface transport (comprising around 20% and 16% of the total respectively).
This is good news since these sectors account for a high proportion of GHG emissions in many countries, and are often good candidates for quick roll-outs (e.g. renewable electricity projects and electric vehicle infrastructure).
On the other hand, measures for key sectors like aviation and industry show overwhelming balance towards mixed and negative categories.
Climate change mitigation is by far the most common environmental dimension impacted by the recovery measures tracked (nearly 90% of funding), both positively and negatively, and about equally split (slide 3). In synergy with climate measures, the next most common dimension impacted is air pollution (with around a third of total funding, again evenly split).
In contrast, other environmental dimensions feature much less strongly. Biodiversity accounts for less than 10% of the allocated funding. Water is also poorly represented, accounting for around 8% of positive measures in both funding and measures. And waste and recycling are hardly represented at all.
What can governments do?
For one thing, we need to walk the talk. Green recovery measures are still a small component of total COVID-19 spending (only 2% of the USD 14 billion rescue and recovery spending combined) and significant funds are still allocated to measures with likely environmentally negative impacts.
For another, we need to align across policies and sectors, and over time. The uneven spread of measures across sectors points to missed opportunities in this respect, which could help drive sustainability and transformation in key sectors, such as agriculture, waste management and forestry.
Finally, we need to invest in skills and innovation. The relatively few measures focused on skills training and on innovation point to an opportunity to direct more attention to measures that can drive sustainable job creation, notably in industries likely to be negatively affected, to ensure a “just transition”.
For more information, visit: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/themes/green-recovery?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=covid-green-recovery&utm_campaign=whatsnew-23-april-2021&utm_term=pac
