Secondly, the way that the information was generated did not fully involve and capacitate the target audience in the ministries, which consequently are not well positioned to use the results regularly in their decision-making. Thirdly, there are weaknesses in the CRGE’s lack of inclusion of different social and economic groups, both in engaging them in the formulation of CRGE, but also in recognising the implications (benefits and costs) of CRGE implementation on these different groups. In this sense, it was thought that a ‘spirit of inclusion’ was broadly inherited by the CRGE. On the other hand, the CRGE methodology did little to look at the specific poverty and inequality issues connected to natural assets and environmental hazards, or at the opportunities available for specific environmentally-dependent poor groups - and little to identify the distributional implications of its recommendations. Hence there are not yet clear answers to the question: ‘who will be the winners and losers from the CRGE’s approach to green growth?’