NSDS GMS Assessment Report 2007

8/7/2019 NSDS GMS Assessment Report 2007

1/168

Draft

RETA 6198Capacity Building on Promoting Sustainable Development in the GMS

Sustainable Development Strategies in the Greater MekongSubregion: Status, Needs and Directions

Cielito F. Habito and Ella S. AntonioJune 2007


2/168

2

Table of Contents

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................3

List of Tables, Figures, Boxes & Annexes....................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 7

1. Introduction: The Sustainability Challenge in GMS ................................................ 15

2. Assessment Approach and Framework ................................................................. 17

3. NSDS and NCSDs: Responses to Rio ............................................................... 19

3.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS A COMMITMENT....................................................................................193.2 GMSINSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES .............................................................................................................21

3.3 NCSDS:PREREQUISITE TO NSDS.............................................................................................................224. NSDS: What Is It? .................................................................................................. 25

4.1 NSDSFRAMEWORK..................................................................................................................................254.2 NSDSPRINCIPLES.....................................................................................................................................264.3 NSDSPROCESSES .....................................................................................................................................264.4 SUMMARY NSDSCRITERIA/INDICATORS..................................................................................................27

5. NSDS Readiness in GMS: Overall Assessment.....................................................29

6. NSDS Readiness in GMS: Country Assessments.................................................. 33

6.1 CAMBODIA ................................................................................................................................................336.2 LAO PDR ..................................................................................................................................................47

6.3 MYANMAR

................................................................................................................................................616.4 THAILAND .................................................................................................................................................776.5 VIETNAM...................................................................................................................................................946.6 YUNNAN PROVINCE OF CHINA ................................................................................................................109

7. SDS Readiness at the GMS Sub-regional Level.................................................. 125

7.1 SUB-REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................1257.2 PLANNING INITIATIVES AT THE SUB-REGION LEVEL ...............................................................................130

8. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 136

8.1 TOWARDS EFFECTIVE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SDMECHANISMS ......................................................1368.2 TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE SUB-REGIONAL COORDINATION MECHANISM.................................................1408.3 TOWARDS EFFECTIVE NATIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL SDSTRATEGIES ..................................................146

Annexes ......................................................................................................................149

References.................................................................................................................. 164


3/168

3

Acronyms

5YPESD Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social DevelopmentACCA 21 Administrative Center for Chinas Agenda 21ADB Asian Development Bank

ALGAS Asian Least-Cost Green House Gas Abatement StrategyAMME ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the EnvironmentANDPC ASEAN National Development Planning CommitteeASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsASEAN-CCI ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and IndustryASOEN ASEAN Senior Officials on the EnvironmentBANCA Biodiversity and Nature Conservation AssociationBCSD Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentCA 21 Chinas Agenda 21CAS Country Assistance StrategyCBIK Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous KnowledgeCBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementCDC Council for the Development of Cambodia

CMDGs Cambodia Millennium Development GoalsCPI Committee on Planning and InvestmentCPC Communist Party of ChinaCPRGS Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth StrategyCSOs Civil Society OrganizationsDANIDA Danish International Development AgencyD&D Decentralization and De-concentrationDSENRE Department of Science, Education, Natural Resources and EnvironmentDFID Department for International DevelopmentDONREH Departments of Natural Resources, Environment and HousingEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEOC - Environment Operations CenterEPA Environmental Performance AssessmentEPB Environmental Protection Bureau

EPL Environmental Protection LawESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificESD Environmental and Sustainable DevelopmentFORM Friends of Rainforest MyanmarFTI Federation of Thai IndustriesFR Feasibility ReportsFREDA Forest Resources Environment and Development AssociationFYPEREP Five-Year Plan for Ecological Rehabilitation and Environmental ProtectionGAP Governance Action PlanGDP Gross Domestic ProductGMS Greater Mekong Sub-regionGMSARN Greater Mekong Sub-region Academic and Research NetworkGMS-BF Greater Mekong Sub-region Business Forum

GMS Program Greater Mekong Sub-regional Economic ProgramGO-NGOs Government Organized NGOsHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus /Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeIBC International Business ClubICC International Chamber of CommerceIDRC International Development Research CentreIHLCA Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment ProjectINGO International Non-Government OrganizationIMR Infant Mortality Rate


4/168

4

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesJEQC Joint Economic Quadrangle CommitteeJPOI Johannesburg Plan of ImplementationLA21 Local Agenda 21LDC Least-Developed CountryLEP Law on Environmental ProtectionLEPNRM Law on Environmental Protection and Natural Resource ManagementLNCCI Lao National Chamber of Commerce and IndustryLPRP Lao People's Revolutionary PartyMA 21 Myanmar Agenda 21MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentM & E Monitoring and EvaluationMDG Millennium Development GoalMEF Ministry of Economy and FinanceMFA - Myanmar Floriculturist AssociationMMR Maternal Mortality RatioMNPED Ministry of National Planning and Economic DevelopmentMOC Ministry of ConstructionMOE Ministry of EnvironmentMOH Ministry of Health

MOFA Ministry of Foreign AffairsMOP Ministry of PlanningMONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and EnvironmentMOSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and the EnvironmentMPI Ministry of Planning and InvestmentMRC Mekong River CommissionNCC National Coordinating CommitteeNCCE National Coordination Committee for EnvironmentNCEA National Commission for Environmental AffairsNCSD National Council for Sustainable DevelopmentNDRC National Development and Reform CommissionNEA National Environment AgencyNEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NEB National Environment BoardNEC National Environment CommitteeNECC National Environmental Conservation CommitteeNEM New Economic MechanismNEQA National Environmental Quality ActNERIS National Economic Research InstituteNESAC National Economic and Social Advisory CouncilNESDB National Economic and Social Development BoardNESDP National Economic and Social Development PlanNGPES National Growth and Poverty Eradication StrategyNMC National Mekong CommitteeNPC National People's CongressNPED National Plan for Environment and Development

NPLs Non-Performing LoansNPRS National Poverty Reduction StrategyNRM Natural Resources ManagementNSC National Statistics CentreNSDP National Strategic Development PlanNSDS National Sustainable Development StrategyNSEDP National Socio-Economic Development PlanODA Official Development AssistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPARDYP People and Resource Dynamics (in Mountainous Watersheds) Project


5/168

5

PIP Public Investment ProgramPEAP Provincial Environment Action PlanPEPB Provincial Environmental Protection BureauPM&E Participatory Monitoring and EvaluationPolitburo Political BureauPPC Provincial Planning CommissionPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperREAM Renewable Energy Association of MyanmarRGC Royal Government of CambodiaRRCAP Regional Resource Center for Asia PacificRS Rectangular StrategySAF Sustainable Agriculture ForumSDAPs Sustainable Development Action PlansSDI Sustainable Development IndicatorsSDS Sustainable Development StrategiesSEDP Socio-Economic Development PlanSEDP I First Socioeconomic Development PlanSEDP II Second Socio-Economic Development PlanSEDS Socio-Economic Development StrategySEPA State Environmental Protection Administration

SLORC State Law and Order Restoration CouncilSNEC Supreme National Economic CouncilSPDC State Peace and Development CouncilSTEA Science, Technology and Environment AgencyTA Technical AssistanceTB TuberculosisTBCSD Thailand Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentTCC Thai Chamber of CommerceTDRI Thailand Development Research InstituteTEI Thailand Environment InstituteTNC The Nature ConservancyTWG18 Technical Working Group on Planning and Poverty Reduction or TWG-PPRUMFCCI Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentUN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social AffairsUNDS UN Development SystemUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgramUNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency FundUSDA Union Solidarity and Development AssociationVA 21 Vietnam Agenda 21VACNE Vietnam Association for Conservation of Nature and EnvironmentVCCI Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and IndustryVNCSD Vietnam National Council for Sustainable Development

VNGO Vietnam Non-Government OrganizationVUSTA Vietnam Union of Science and Technology AssociationsWCS Wildlife Conservation SocietyWHO World Health OrganizationWSSD World Summit for Sustainable DevelopmentWWF World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for NatureYEDP Yunnan Environmental Development ProgramYPEPB Yunnan Provincial Environmental Protection BureauYNPRA Yunnan Participatory Rural AssociationYPG Yunnan Provincial Government


6/168

6

List of Tables, Figures, Boxes & Annexes

Tables

Table 1 : NSDS Readiness Scorecard for the GMS CountriesTable 2 : Institutional Bodies Involved in Sustainability Agenda in CambodiaTable 3 : Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

Cambodia (As of 2005)Table 4 : Progress toward the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

Lao PDR (As of 2005)Table 5 : Myanmar Government Agencies Involved in Environmental

ConcernsTable 6 : Progress Toward the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

Myanmar (As of 2005)Table 7 : Progress Toward the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

Thailand (As of 2004)Table 8 : Progress Toward the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

Vietnam(As of 2005)Table 9 : Progress Toward the Millennium Development Goals and Targets,

China (As of 2005)Table 10 : Summary Description of Institutional Mechanisms in Mekong River

Sub- regionTable 11 : National and Local Environment and Sustainable Development

Institutions in GMS

Figures

Figure 1 : NSDS FrameworkFigure 2 : The Institutional Arrangement for the NSDP FormulationFigure 3 : Current Sub-regional Institutional Set-UpFigure 4 : Proposed Sub-regional Sustainable Development Mechanism

Boxes

Box 1 : National Council for Sustainable Development

Annexes

Annex A : Relevant Institutional Mechanisms in Greater Mekong Sub-regionand Southeast Asia Region

Annex B : UN System Bodies Covering the GMS Sub-region

Annex Table 1 Cambodia MDGs Indicators and Targets


7/168

7

Executive Summary

The study assesses the state of sustainable development strategies (SDS) in the

Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) within each of the six member-countries and in thesubregion as a whole with a view towards identifying appropriate improvements thatwould bring about strong national SDS (NSDS) and a subregional SDS (SSDS)responsive to present and future SD challenges therein.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) definesNSDS as a coordinated, participatory and iterative process of thoughts and action toachieve economic, environmental and social objectives in a balanced and integratedmanner at the national and local levels. NSDS thus refers to a process, and not merelya document. Formulating a NSDS need not entail producing a new plan or inventing anew process, but means transforming and adapting existing processes to become

consistent with sustainable development principles. Recognizing the above, assessingSDS readiness of the GMS countries and of the sub-region as a group entailed aconsideration of both the content of sustainable development strategies and/or relateddevelopment strategies/plans, along with the institutional context within which thesehave been formulated.

While the GMS countries had been prompt in setting up various mechanisms to addressenvironment and sustainable development concerns especially after the 1992 Rio EarthSummit, the inter-sectoral nature of sustainable development challenges necessarilyimplies involvement of multiple ministries and agencies. A common challenge has beenthe need for stronger coordination, with different offices and ministries sometimes

pursuing overlapping, contradictory or conflicting policies or initiatives. Weakaccountability systems have also fostered incompetence and corruption in thebureaucracy. Meanwhile, lack of coherence in laws and policies governing environmentand natural resources has hampered effective implementation and enforcement ofregulations.

NSDS Assessment Criteria

The rich literature that has emerged on NSDS have defined desirable attributes of aNSDS. These may be summarized in nine key criteria or indicators, which the studyhas employed as bases for the assessment of the status of the GMS countries NSDS

readiness. These are the following:

(1) Policy integration - national strategies give consideration to environmental,economic, and social concerns in integrated approaches and plans.

(2) Intergenerational timeframe - national strategies adopt long-term time framesthat enable inclusion of intergenerational principles and indicators.


8/168

8

(3) Analysis and assessments - integrative assessment tools are used to identifythe environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of policy andstrategy options.

(4) Indicators and targets - strategies are based on structured indicator systems toassist in monitoring progress and to serve as quantitative targets.

(5) Co-ordination and institutions - a wide range of government departments andagencies are involved in the formulation and implementation of nationalstrategies, with overall leadership from the office of the head of government.

(6) Local and regional governance - local and regional authorities are fullyinvolved in the development of national strategies, with certain deliveryaspects devolved to sub national levels.

(7) Stakeholder participation - stakeholders (e.g. business, unions, NGOs) activelyparticipate with government representatives in councils/commissions respon-sible for developing and implementing national strategies.

(8) Monitoring and evaluation - independent bodies or processes are establishedto act as watchdogs monitoring implementation of national strategies and

providing recommendations for their improvement.(9) Resource mobilization adequate, predictable and regular financial resourcesfrom domestic and international sources are available through a suitable mix ofpublic finances, private sector funds, and external donor support.

An assessment was also made of the subregions prevailing situation and progresstowards attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are key goalsin the pursuit of sustainable development in any country.

Assessment Results

The individual GMS countries are in varying states of NSDS readiness, owing tovariations in their economic, social, political, institutional and environmental circums-tances. GMS countries need to go through the exercise of formulating holistic nationalsustainable development strategies (NSDS) that address economic, social and environ-mental concerns comprehensively and integratively. While some member countries(Vietnam, Myanmar and China) have come up with some form of a sustainabledevelopment strategy or agenda, there is need to incorporate new emerging issues thatwere highlighted in the 2002 Johannesburg WSSD, as well as address new challengesarising from more recent developments within the sub-region and its vicinity.

For the GMS countries, it is an appropriate time to respond to the call made in globalAgenda 21 and in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) for countries tointegrate sustainable development in their national development plans, policies andprograms. And as environmental stresses impinge on the Mekong River ecosystemthat binds together the six economies comprising the GMS, such national exercisesmust be undertaken in coordination with one another, and with due consideration for theintra-GMS implications of national and sub-national initiatives in pursuit of economicgrowth and sustainable development.


9/168

9

Table 1 summarizes the results of national assessments of NSDS readiness among thesix GMS countries, based on the nine indicators enumerated above as gleaned from theNSDS literature.

Table 1. NSDS Readiness Scorecard for the GMS Countries

Criteria Cam Lao Mya Tha Viet Yun

Policy Integration 3 1 3 5 3 3

Intergenerational Timeframe 3 3 3 3 3 3

Analysis & Assessments 1 1 1 1 1 3

Indicators & Targets 5 5 3 5 5 3

Coordination & Institutions 4 3 1 3 3 3

Local & Regional Governance 5 5 4 5 5 3

Stakeholder Participation 3 2 3 5 3 3

Monitoring & Evaluation 1 3 1 4 3 1

Resource Mobilization 4 1 1 5 4 3

Overall Assessment 3 3 2 4 3 3

*Scale of 1 (Lowest) to 5 (Highest)

Policy integration is deemed weakest in Lao PDR, where there is candid admission

that economic growth is the dominant concern of government in its developmentstrategy at this time. This comes through both in official documents and in statementsof government officials. On the other hand, Thailand shows the strongest level of policyintegration, having made such a holistic and integrative approach an explicit strategysince its Eighth Plan in the 1990s. The rest appear to be well on the way to achievingsatisfactory integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions ofsustainable development.

All six countries partly address the need for an intergenerational perspective in theirdevelopment planning horizons, but mostly rely on five-year plans and ten-yearstrategies to guide their development initiatives. All of the countries possess at leastone open-ended planning document; however, this does not necessarily mean that theirdevelopment strategies have adequately addressed inter-generational equity issues andlong-term structural change.

Most of the GMS countries remain ill-equipped to undertake integrative situation andpolicy analyses to inform their formulation of national strategies for sustainabledevelopment. Thailand, and to some extent Yunnan province of China (with the help of


10/168

10

external assistance), have obtained a level of capability to employ analytical tools forsuch integrative analysis over their neighbors.

All six countries have developed indicator systems to systematically monitorimplementation and outcomes of their sustainable development initiatives, with

Myanmar and Yunnan lagging somewhat behind. The latter two have embarked onformulation of sustainable development indicators relatively more recently than theothers. However, all are now able or well on the way to being able to systematicallytrack their progress in pursuing the MDGs and wider sustainable developmentobjectives in the years ahead.

Institutional coordination remains a major challenge in all six GMS countries, withMyanmar apparently having greatest difficulty at effecting inter-agency coordination andcollaboration, particularly in ensuring proper consideration of environmental implicationsof its various development initiatives. On the other hand, Cambodia appears to bemaking better progress in this regard, with a planning process that explicitly involves all

key agencies of government and local governments starting at the earliest stages of theplanning cycle.

The role of local governments in sustainable development efforts appears strong in allsix GMS countries. In all six countries, decentralization and devolution figureprominently in the overall development thrust. Notwithstanding this, there is still atendency for governance in China and Myanmar to be more strongly top-down andcentralized in nature, with the key policymaking and relevant implementation resourcesstill largely controlled by the central government.

Participation by non-government stakeholders has also been strengthening in all sixGMS countries, with Thailand being the most advanced in this regard. Lack of a sizabledomestic NGO community continues to be a constraint, particularly in Lao PDR andCambodia, where international NGOs tend to be more prominent in engagements withthe government.

With the exception of Thailand, monitoring and evaluation systems continue to begenerally weak, and especially lack the systematic involvement of independentstakeholders in monitoring both implementation and outcomes/impact of governmentinitiatives. This also relates to the presence or absence of a good performanceindicator system, along with an active civil society community prepared to undertakesuch M&E work, whether within or outside governments monitoring mechanisms. LaoPDRs M&E mechanism benefits from a good indicator system in place, while Vietnamsserious efforts to make its new national council for sustainable development (NCSD)work put it in better position to move towards participatory M&E.

Ultimately, funding resources to support SD initiatives and public investments canspell the ability of the GMS countries to achieve their SD goals. Thailand appears tohave the best capability to support the public investments required to pursue its SDobjectives, followed by Vietnam and Cambodia. The latter two have the advantage of


11/168

11

being able to attract more substantial external assistance from the donor community.Lao PDR and especially Myanmar appear most constrained of resources to supporttheir SD strategies, the former because of weak revenue-raising capability, and thelatter because of a virtual cut-off from any significant external financing.

Overall, Thailand emerges to be in the most advanced state of NSDS readiness amongthe six GMS countries, even as it still continues to work towards having a document toarticulate its national strategy. Myanmar, on the other hand, appears to be in theweakest level of NSDS readiness, even with its early promulgation of an NSDSdocument (Myanmar Agenda 21) as much as ten years ago. This further underscoresthe fact that an NSDS is not merely a document, but comprises a system of processesand conditions that are conducive to a holistic, comprehensive and integrative approachto development. The rest of the GMS countries are making good progress and are well-positioned and equipped to be able to assert possession of strong national sustainabledevelopment strategies in the near future. All these suggest that the countries as agroup are amply prepared to move on to a higher level of SDS formulation, i.e. at the

collective level of the GMS sub-region.

Subregional SD Coordination

Four existing mechanisms are logical candidates to be the basis for a subregional SDcoordination mechanism. ASEAN covers all but one (i.e. China) of the GMS countries,although China has been a dialogue partner for years. The MRC covers only the LowerMekong countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, but has dialoguearrangements with Myanmar and China. It is a mechanism for effecting coordinated andcooperative utilization, management and conservation of the water and relatedresources of the Mekong River Basin. The GMS Economic Cooperation Programwas established by the GMS governments and the ADB in 1992 as a mechanism forcooperation and coordination among the GMS countries on a broad set of developmentconcerns including trade and tourism, infrastructure, human resource development,investment and environment. GMSARN is a network of academic institutions within theGMS countries that have agreed to address development concerns in the sub-regionthrough academic and research cooperation.

Except for GMSARN, which under the UN definition would be considered a civil societyorganization, the institutional mechanisms in the region are observed to have thefollowing common features:

They are inter-governmental bodies bound by norms of conduct and bureaucraticrules and procedures.

They are sector-oriented, with their agenda and structures following sectoral linessuch that integration and assimilation of strategies, policies and programsnecessary for the pursuit of sustainability is not likely to happen.

Stakeholder participation in their respective programs and activities remainslimited, with stakeholders involvement largely confined to consultations. Their


12/168

12

charters, norms and practices usually constrain them from expanding the rolesand levels of participation of civil society organizations.

An appropriate institutional mechanism at the sub-regional level has yet to be found toensure coordination, promote integration and expand participation and cooperation of

stakeholders. There is thus a need to identify and designate a mechanism, preferablybuilt on one of the existing ones, to assume the over-all coordinating role.

Subregional Planning Initiatives

There have been a number of planning initiatives at the subregional or regional leveladdressing the needs of GMS, undertaken by the GMS Program, the Mekong RiverCommission, and the ASEAN. A ten-year GMS Strategic Framework (2002-2012)currently serves as guiding basis for the initiatives under the GMS Program, furtherfleshed out in a GMS Plan of Action (POA). Meanwhile, ADBs assistance to the GMSis guided by its three-year rolling Regional Cooperation Strategy and Program (RCSP),

whose current cycle covers 2007-2009. MRC has formulated a Strategic Plan for 2006-2010, fleshed out further in the Mekong Basin Development Plan (BDP) that had beendeveloped through a participatory process. Covering the ten ASEAN countries is theASEAN Vision 2020 strategy, which has been fleshed out through two Programmes ofAction so far, Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA) adopted in 1998, and the current VientianeAction Programme (VAP) adopted November 2004. To specifically addressenvironmental challenges in the region, ASEAN environment ministers and seniorofficials prepared and adopted Strategic Plans of Action for the Environment (SPAE) for1994-1998 and 1999-2004. Notwithstanding the existence of all these strategies andplans, none of them fully captures the essential elements of a subregional SDS. Theongoing work by the Thailand Environment Institute to spearhead the formulation of aSubregional Sustainable Development Strategy (SSDS) for the GMS under the UNEP-ADB initiative promises to fill this gap.

Recommendations

Towards strengthening national institutional mechanisms for sustainable development inthe GMS member countries, the following recommendations emerge from theassessment:

Establish an institutional development strategy. The development of such astrategy may consider a number of principles such as: (a) use of or building onexisting bodies, to the extent possible; (b) strengthening or reengineering ofexisting bodies; (c) creating a new body only if the first two principles do notapply; (d) abolition or folding into new ones redundant or overlapping bodies; and(e) selecting or creating a body within an oversight agency such as the planningministry.

Learn from other NCSDs. It would be instructive to refer to the experiences ofother countries especially those in the region (i.e. Korea, Philippines and


13/168

13

Vietnam) and learn from their strengths and weaknesses. The European modelsmay also be used as references.

Stengthen stakeholder participation. Countries must establish a legislative orregulatory framework that widens stakeholder participation in recognition of their

value and usefulness in ESD initiatives. Governments may wish to consideradding civil society strengthening and development as a sixth thrust to the GMSStrategic Framework.

Specific recommendations for individual countries have also been identified within thediscussions on national assessments in Chapter 6 of the report.

Towards achieving a strong and effective coordination of sustainable developmentinitiatives at the subregion level, the following are recommended:

Designate the Ministerial Conference of the GMS Program as the SD

coordinating and integrating mechanism, with membership expanded to includeCSOs and other key stakeholders in the sub-region. In addition to its currentfunctions, the Ministerial Conference could serve as the venue for dialogue,information sharing, and integration and consistency check of sector plans,strategies, programs and projects.

Designate the Senior Officials Meeting as the technical-level SD supportmechanism. To ensure thoughtful prior analysis and deliberation of agendaitems taken up by the Conference/Forum and to minimize unnecessarydiscussions in the Ministerial Conference itself, the Meetings of Senior Officialscould pre-process the agenda items in partnership with stakeholder

representatives.

NCSDs to serve as the National SD Coordinators. The Conference/Forum mustreceive strong national support through the respective countries NCSDs. TheNCSD, which mirrors the multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder composition of theConference, must coordinate its agenda with those of the Senior Officials andMinisterial Conference. This implies that the current National Committees wouldform part of the NCSDs to minimize the number of national mechanisms toimprove coordination and integration.

Establish a strong oversight secretariat. The Conference secretariat could thus

be made a composite of its current secretariat and focal points of the secretariatsof the senior officials and the working groups. The focal points would serve asthe link between the Conference and the sectoral groups and would ensure thefree flow of information and knowledge between them and among each other.

Consider a transition phase only if extremely necessary. During this transitionperiod, SD matters may be kept within the ambit of the environment program andWGE while establishing an annual Forum that involves the other eight working


14/168

14

groups in addition to all those already identified above. The EOC, being thesecretariat to WGE, could be the Forum secretariat.

Establish a phase up-phase down program. To calibrate the transition processand keep the period short, a definite program for phasing up country ownership

and control while phasing down those of ADB and other donors, must beestablished to guide all the players in the GMS. It must be very clear about theinstitutional framework it would adopt over a definite time frame.

Finally, towards attaining effective national and subregional SD strategies, he followingrecommendations are put forth:

Build capacities. Deliberate capacity building efforts to widen and strengthenunderstanding and appreciation for the concept of sustainable development remainsimperative throughout the subregion. The NCSDs would be best placed tocoordinate such capacity building efforts particularly because they can draw on the

strengths and reach of their civil society and business members.

Strengthen capacity for integration. There is felt need among planners for improvedcapacity in employing integrative tools of analysis that permit proper consideration ofthe economic, social and environmental implications of policies. A deliberate effort toidentify, study, adopt and apply such tools employed elsewhere should be pursued.

Peer review/sharing of NSDS among the GMS member countries would helpstrengthen not only SD planning capacities, but strengthen the strategies/ plansthemselves. As each member country is given the opportunity to review and shareeach others NSDS, a two-way learning process is facilitated that benefits everyone

involved.

Promote joint projects. A program for joint project identification and developmentamong the member countries would facilitate translation of the sub-regional andnational SD strategies into tangible projects on the ground that would be of mutualimportance and benefit to the countries involved.

Encourage peer-to-peer mentoring. The more advanced member countries,particularly Thailand, Yunnan (China) and Vietnam, are well-positioned to providepeer-to-peer mentoring assistance to the less advanced countries, especially in theareas for capacity building mentioned above.

Organize NCSD gatherings. Finally, it would be worthwhile to invest in periodicgatherings of NCSD members from each of the member-country NCSDs, preferablywith guests from other NCSDs within Asia and other regions, to foster cross-fertilization that would promote continuous learning on innovative approaches tosustainable development and sustain the levels of enthusiasm among thegovernment and non-government stakeholders.


15/168

15

1. Introduction: The Sustainability Challenge in GMS

1. The countries that make up the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) areinextricably bound together by an ecosystem base that is among the most sensitive inthe world. The economic, social, political cultural and environmental interlinkagesamong Cambodia, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnamand Yunnan province of the Peoples Republic of China make it imperative that theyplan their respective development initiatives in close coordination with one another.

2. Cooperation and coordination among the GMS countries poses particularchallenges in the face of the significant variation among the circumstances of thesecountries. Overall poverty in the sub-region remains high, and the bulk of the poor areled to seek their livelihood from direct utilization of the natural resources supported by

the Mekong River basin. And as part of the region experiencing one of the most rapidrates of economic growth today, heavy pressure is being exerted on their environmentand natural resources. This has already been manifested in serious environmentalconsequences like widespread deforestation, pollution of water bodies, poor air qualityin urban areas, degradation and indiscriminate conversion of agricultural lands,declining fish and wildlife population in the hinterlands, and even dislocation ofpopulations.

3. The challenge facing these nations, then, is how to avoid the grow now, cleanup later approach that marked the experiences of the more advanced economies in theregion and elsewhere in the world. Those countries realized, too late, that neglect for

the non-economic dimensions of development (i.e. social, environmental, cultural,political and spiritual) could be quite costly, and in many cases irreparable. Anotherchallenge is posed by the fact that the benefits and costs of development have beenspread unevenly, due, among other things, to: (a) unequal levels of development, (b)unequal social structures within the countries, (c) social, spatial, temporal andenvironmental externalities, and (d) development that puts economic growth beforeequity and sustainability (Azimi et al. 2000).

4. How equipped have the GMS countries been to respond to these challenges?How well have they come up with appropriate strategies to address them? How holisticand integrative have been their approaches and strategies, given the acknowledged

need to address the economic, social and environmental dimensions for the effectivepursuit of sustainable development? What are the obstacles to a more strategic andeffective pursuit of sustainable development at the national and sub-regional levels?What vertical and horizontal mechanisms have the governments put in place for thepromotion and coordination of policies and initiatives pertaining to sustainabledevelopment? What are the mechanisms for stakeholder participation in sustainabilityprocesses and initiatives? What are the options for a multi-stakeholder sub-regionalmechanism in GMS? What capabilities need to be strengthened within the GMS


16/168

16

countries towards the formulation of effective national strategies for sustainabledevelopment (NSDS)? These are among the questions addressed in this assessment,with a view towards guiding the GMS countries on appropriate courses of action thatmay be taken individually as nations and collectively as a sub-region. The assessmentmay also help guide external development partners as they seek to assist these

countries and the sub-region as a whole as they formulate and implement coherent andeffective strategies for sustainable development.

5. The organization of this assessment report is as follows. Chapter 2 describesthe assessment framework employed and applied in this study. This is followed inChapter 3 by a discussion of the institutional responses of the GMS countries to theagreements made in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and subsequently the JohannesburgWorld Summit on Sustainable Development, thereby setting the stage for their worktowards sustainable development strategies (SDS) at the national and sub-regionallevels. Chapter 4 defines and describes NSDS on the basis of worldwide experienceand emerging norms and desired attributes. A set of indicators is also defined as the

basis for the country-by-country assessment that follows. The summary assessmentacross the GMS countries is presented in Chapter 5, which includes a scorecard onNSDS readiness. The detailed country-by-country assessment supporting this ispresented in Chapter 6. An examination of sustainable development institutions and anassessment of SDS readiness is made at the sub-regional (GMS) level in Chapter 7.Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the conclusions and recommendations gleaned from thestudy.


17/168

17

2. Assessment Approach and Framework

6. This assessment of national sustainable development strategies and associatedinstitutional mechanisms consists of two major components: (a) information and

knowledge collection; and (b) determination and application of assessment parameters.These are applied at both the national and sub-regional levels in the course ofundertaking the assessment.

2.1 Information and Knowledge Collection

7. A number of methods have been employed to obtain information on the currentSDS situation in the GMS, inasmuch as no one method is sufficient to cover the sixcountries given limited resources and varying phases of implementation in each of thecountries. These methods include the following:

a. Literature review. A scan was undertaken of available literature pertaining todevelopment plans, environment, plans and policies, sustainable developmentstrategies, and institutions concerned with environment, development planningand sustainable development. On the latter, focus was on institutionalmechanisms at the national and sub-regional levels, and analysis of theirmandates, compositions, roles of players, etc. Unfortunately, there is a dearthof literature on this subject, especially on specific details of countries in theGMS. Information gathered were mostly sections that provide institutionalbackgrounders to specific studies such as those on the national environmentalsituation or sustainable strategies.

b. Internet research. The Internet was extensively used for search of literature,institutions and people. It was useful in the search for other relevant informationsuch as the socio-political situation in the focus countries.

c. Visits and meetings. These were most useful because (i) studies on SDinstitutional mechanisms are few and generally non-existent in the focuscountries; (ii) the thrust of the study is to build on existing mechanisms, ratherthan create new ones, which makes it crucial to determine the configuration,functions, areas of influence, etc. of relevant existing mechanisms andinstitutions that can be used for SD promotion, coordination andimplementation; and (iii) it is important to determine the critical players, their

levels of understanding and appreciation of SD and its need to have a coherentinstitutional mechanism, and to gauge their preparedness and commitments topushing SD processes including setting up the appropriate mechanism. Twovisits covering four countries were undertaken:

Visit 1: Vietnam and Cambodia on September 13-20, 2006 in conjunction withthe multi-stakeholder consultation on the proposed Vietnam National Council for


18/168

18

SD (NCSD) and SD indicators in Hai Phong, as well as the RETA projectinception meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Visit 2: Thailand and Lao PDR on October 23-28, 2006 in conjunction with theconsultation workshop on the first draft of the Greater Mekong Sub-region

Environment Outlook in Vientiane.

d. Key informant interviews. During the visits, key players and informants fromdifferent units of government, stakeholders and international developmentinstitutions were interviewed. Focal points of countries not visited were inter-viewed during Consultation Meetings conducted as part of project activities.

2.2 Determination and Application of Assessment Parameters

8. The assessment of SDS readiness of the GMS countries and of the sub-region

as a group entailed a consideration of both the content of the sustainable developmentstrategies and the institutional context within which these have been formulated.Inasmuch as the SDS is a system of processes and not merely a document (as furtherelaborated below), the assessment must examine both institutions and content togetheras inseparable parts of the SDS.

9. Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and its adoption of global Agenda 21,numerous conferences, workshops and meetings had taken place at the national,regional and global levels on the subject of NSDS. Meanwhile, a rich literature onNSDS had developed in the 1990s, building up to and following the 2002 World Summiton Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Taken together, this body of literaturepermits one to glean common desirable features of a NSDS and circumstancesconducive to good NSDS formulation. These in turn provide a suitable basis forassessing SDS readiness at both country level and at the subregional and regionallevels. This is the approach taken in this study.

10. Chapter 4 derives and explains the assessment parameters that aresubsequently applied in the assessment of SDS readiness in the GMS, particularly atthe individual country levels. For the subregion-level analysis, the assessment isundertaken on the basis of a broad consideration of the institutional context and thestate of development planning undertaken at the sub-regional level, including the scopeand nature of sub-regional plans/strategies already existing.


19/168

19

3. NSDS and NCSDs: Responses to Rio

3.1 Sustainable Development as a Commitment

11. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED), more widely known as the Rio Earth Summit, called upon countries toaddress economic, environmental and social dimensions in the overall developmentprocess in a comprehensive, holistic and integrative manner. Agenda 21, the global callto action issued by the Rio Summit, urged every country to come up with a nationalstrategy for sustainable development (NSDS) i.e. a national Agenda 21 to manifestthis new and broadened perspective of planning for development. Furthermore, theworld leaders called on countries to promote participation, partnership and consensusamong stakeholders in the pursuit of sustainable development.

12. Ten years later, during the review of the Rio Summit commitments undertaken in

the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, less thanhalf of the 191 member states of the UN had heeded the call. WSSD renewed the callfor NSDS, and set yet another target: states should begin implementing their NSDS by2005. To this date, only half of the six member countries of the Greater Mekong Sub-region (namely China, Myanmar and Vietnam) have formulated and issued an officialnational Agenda 21 document. Meanwhile, only Vietnam has formally established aworking multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral mechanism (i.e. a national council forsustainable development or NCSD) that would coordinate the formulation andimplementation of said national Agenda 21.1

13. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) reiterated the calls to

formulate sustainable development agenda that integrate economic, social andenvironmental dimensions, as well as the establishment or strengthening of institutionalmechanisms at all levels. In particular, it emphasizes the need to ensure multi-stakeholder participation in sustainable development processes. These processes referto the whole range of activities spanning the formulation of sub-regional, national andlocal strategies for sustainable development; translating these into action agenda,policies and investment programs and projects; putting these into effectiveimplementation; and ensuring proper monitoring and evaluation.

14. Among other things, Chapter 10 of the JPOI calls for the following:

Formulation, elaboration and implementation of NSDSs by 2005, which is one ofthe Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets; Extension of support to the development, enhancement and implementation of

regional development strategies and action plans;

1Thailand, through the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, unofficially created an NCSD by

calling the multi-stakeholder Sub-committee on Agenda 21 of the National Environment Council as theThai NCSD. Soon after WSSD, the government formally established a purely governmental NCSD withleadership from NESDB. However, the NCSD has remained largely non-functional to date.


20/168

20

Strengthening and better integration of economic, social and environmentaldimensions of development in plans, policies and programs at all levels;

Improvement of coordination and cooperation among UN regional commissions,agencies and programmes, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and otherregional and sub-regional bodies;

Promotion of multi-stakeholder participation and partnership in implementingAgenda 21 at the national, regional and sub-regional levels; and

Promotion of coherent and coordinated approaches to national institutionalframeworks through the establishment or enhancement of national councils forsustainable development (NCSDs) or coordination structures at the national level.

15. In response to the JPOI and to step up efforts in the sub-region, the first GMSSummit in November 2002:

reaffirmed commitment to sub-regional cooperation and in the shared vision ofequal partnership in the joint pursuit of growth equity and prosperity;

committed to coordinate their respective national strategies as well as integrateGMS programs into their national agenda; and

pledged to continue active partnership with development institutions, civil societyand business in the pursuit of development goals.

16. Having mostly fallen behind among the more dynamic economies in the region(i.e. with the exception of Thailand) while witnessing continued degradation of theecosystems critical to their development, the leaders recognized the strong need tosynchronize and coordinate their strategies and establish an institutional supportmechanism that will guide the sub-regions environmental management and sustainabledevelopment. Such coordinated approach is made even more imperative by the fact

that the countries have attained a significant level of interdependence that warrantsintra-regional cooperation and governance mechanisms.

17. Countries vary in their levels of accomplishment on heeding Agenda 21 and theJPOI for a number of reasons, including varying degrees of political support, institutionalrigidities, availability of resources, levels of understanding of sustainable development,and external and/or internal pressures. A common obstacle to a more holistic andintegrative approach to sustainable development is the tendency for pre-eminence ofthe economic dimension in the hierarchy of government priorities for development.While the link between the social and economic dimensions is more evident to most,there is a common view that addressing environmental concerns comes at the expense

of economic objectives, and that there is a tradeoff between the two. For the poorercountries of the GMS, for whom catching up with the neighboring dynamic economies isa prominent concern, this appears to continue being a serious obstacle to the advocacyfor NSDS.


21/168

21

3.2 GMS Institutional Responses

18. In the aftermath of and even prior to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the GMScountries had begun taking steps in pursuit of the ideals of Agenda 21, the globalagenda for action for sustainable development that was adopted in Rio. The degree and

nature of progress has varied across the GMS countries, conditioned by differingpolitical, economic, institutional and cultural circumstances. The institutional responsesincluded (a) establishment of high-level institutional structures and mechanisms toaddress environmental concerns; (b) establishment of relevant legal frameworks andpromulgation of policies and guidelines for incorporating environmental considerationsin development planning and processes; and (c) providing opportunities for greaterparticipation of stakeholders, particularly civil society and the private (business) sector,in various sustainable development initiatives.

19. The GMS countries have all undertaken moves to establish appropriate high-level institutional bodies and mechanisms to ensure appropriate consideration of the

environmental dimension in sustainable development. Most of them establishedCabinet-level ministries to deal with environmental concerns, while the othersestablished high-level councils directly under the office of the prime minister for thepurpose.

20. Cambodias Ministry of Environment (MOE) takes charge of environment andsustainable development (ESD) concerns, and represents the country in internationaldiscussions on the subject. The Lao Peoples Democratic Republic has a Science,Technology and Environment Agency (STEA) attached directly to the Office of thePrime Minister. The inter-agency National Environment Committee (NEC) advises thegovernment on environment matters and coordinates planning, management and

monitoring of environment protection activities. Myanmar established the NationalCommission for Environmental Affairs as the key coordinating mechanism forenvironmental protection and sustainable development. A National CoordinationCommittee for Environment (NCCE), with members from ministerial agencies and localauthorities, was recently created to promote horizontal and vertical coordination.Thailand currently has a Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) thatoversees environmental management and natural resources conservation. TheNational Environment Board (NEB) coordinates government initiatives in environmentand natural resources conservation. The Thai National Committee on SustainableDevelopment (NCSD) has also been established for broader coordination of ESDconcerns, but has so far been inactive. Vietnam also has a Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment (MONRE) with counterparts at the provincial level calledDepartments of Natural Resources, Environment and Housing (DONREH). TheVietnam National Council for Sustainable Development (VNCSD), which includes bothgovernment and non-government representatives, is tasked with providing advice to thePrime Minister on ESD matters. China has its ministerial-level State EnvironmentalProtection Administration (SEPA) to oversee environmental concerns at the nationallevel, and the Yunnan Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau (YNPEPB) at thelevel of Yunnan province. While the latter is under the administrative supervision of the


22/168

22

Provincial Government, it is under the technical guidance of SEPA. After the 1992 RioEarth Summit, the Chinese government assembled the Leading Group for ChinasAgenda 21, backed up by an inter-agency body called the Administrative Center forChinas Agenda 21 (ACCA21), to formulate the countrys response to the Rio summit.

21. From the above discussions, it appears that there is no lack of institutions to dealwith environmental and sustainable development challenges within the GMS countries.However, effective implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI remains hampered bylimitations in these institutions, in their capacities and in their resources. Difficultiescommon among the GMS countries include the following:

Weak coordination among government agencies Overlapping responsibilities and authorities, and unclear accountabilities Problems in governance including corruption Fragmented legal frameworks Ineffective or limited implementation of existing laws and policies

Lack of meaningful non-government participation Inadequacies in human resources and institutional capacities Limited financial resources Limited availability or unreliability of existing data Limited access to technology

22. While the GMS countries had been prompt in setting up various mechanisms toaddress environment and sustainable development concerns especially after the RioEarth Summit, the inter-sectoral nature of sustainable development challenges neces-sarily implies involvement of multiple ministries and agencies. A common challenge inthis situation has been the need for stronger coordination, with different offices and

ministries sometimes pursuing contradictory or conflicting policies or initiatives. Relatedto this is a tendency for overlapping responsibilities and authorities, which has led tosituations of inaction on important concerns due to unclear definition of who has thefinal authority on specific issues. Weak accountability systems have also fosteredincompetence and corruption in the bureaucracy. Thus, a common problem has beenundue control by powerful officials over natural resources, like forest and miningconcessions. Meanwhile, lack of coherence in laws and policies governing environmentand natural resources has hampered effective implementation and enforcement ofregulations.

3.3 NCSDs: Prerequisite to NSDS

23. Another reason integration of policies and coordination of programs and activitieshave remained weak is the fact that the institutions involved are mainly governmentaland participation from non-government stakeholders has been very limited. Thereremains wide scope for meaningful participation by non-government stakeholders insustainable development processes, spanning planning all the way throughimplementation, and on to monitoring and evaluation. While the presence of foreign


23/168

23

NGOs has helped spur a greater non-government role, home-grown NGOs are onlybeginning to assert meaningful participation in most of the sub-region. Formalmechanisms to permit such meaningful participation remain inadequate or absent. Inparticular, multi-stakeholder bodies at the national or sub-national levels to addressenvironment and sustainable development concerns in the form of NCSDs have yet to

be established in most countries of the sub-region. While such NCSDs now exist inmore than 100 countries around the world to permit meaningful civil society and privatesector participation in SD processes, very few countries in Asia, and none of the GMScountries except Vietnam, have functioning NCSDs.

24. Engaging stakeholders in SD initiatives at the national level can take a number offorms, which could be employed individually or in combination:

Consultative Forum. This is the most common participation modality observed inGMS countries. It comes in the form of oral or written comments, positions andrecommendations espoused in meetings and conferences organized in the course of

formulation of plans or policies.

Civil Society/NGO Section or Desk. In some countries, this has become a commonfeature in government ministries and offices, in both sectoral (e.g. Environment,Natural Resources, Industry) and oversight (e.g. Planning, Foreign Affairs, Budget)agencies, as well as in donor agencies and private enterprises. The NGO sectionsusually serve as the liaison and coordinating mechanism between the concernedministry, agency or office and the civil society community. This modality appears tobe rare, if at all present, within the GMS countries.

Multi-stakeholder Mechanism. Such body could be formal or informal, standing orad-hoc, and established at various governance levels and areas, depending on therequirements of the situation. For stability and continuity, a formal standing bodysuch as the NCSD is preferred. In many cases, this body is lodged in either theenvironment or planning ministries or the office of the head of government (PrimeMinister or President).

25. Many countries employ the first mode, some have the first two, but only a handfulhave the third mode, i.e. a multi-stakeholder body or NCSD. The first mode iscommonly used because it is politically acceptable and yet does not tie the hands ofgovernment. When government does not agree with any of the recommendations, itsimply does not consider it. Nonetheless, people attain some level of satisfactionbecause their views are heard and solicited. The second mode, while appearingaccommodative on the part of the concerned office, is often viewed by stakeholders ashighly reactive and bureaucratic. The last mode is least common because it is oftenseen as threatening especially to authoritarian governments, as it provides somemeasure of power to non-government stakeholders. It also directly exposesgovernment to direct engagement with the stakeholders. All these reflect the stillrelatively low level of partnership among government, civil society and business in the


24/168

24

sub-region. This also helps explain why integration of environmental concerns withother development dimensions has remained relatively weak over the past years.

Box 1

National Council for Sustainable Development

In response to a call of the Rio Earth Summit, some countries initiated the establishment of respective nationalcoordinating mechanism to bring together civil society, business and government to implement the Earth Summitagreements. In September 1992, the first NCSD was created in the Philippines, followed closely by theDominican Republic and Hungary. To date, NCSDs in various forms exist in more than a hundred countries.

In Asia Pacific, many countries have established such mechanisms. Some are multi-sectoral but purelygovernmental (e.g., China, Cook Islands, Khazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Tajikistan,Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vanuatu) while others are both multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder (e.g., Iran, Japan,Korea, Mongolia, Philippines and Vietnam). Some countries have attempted to organize NCSDs but have notbeen successful to date (e.g. Australia, Bangladesh, Fiji, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka).

NCSDs vary widely in mandate, mission, composition, mode of operation, programmes and activities. However,they have evolved to operate along three thrusts:a. Ensure and facilitate the participation of civil and economic societies in pursuing sustainable development;b. Promote integration of economic, social, political, cultural, spiritual and environmental dimensions of

sustainability in planning, and project implementation and monitoring.c. Localize global environment and sustainable development agreements especially Agenda 21.

NCSDs have also assumed some or all of the following roles:a. Mechanism for cooperative action and forging of commitments among stakeholdersb. Voice for sustainability and mechanism for localizing and implementing Agenda 21 and JPOIc. Advocate for holistic and integrated approach to sustainable developmentd. Venue for discussing issues & solving problems

e. Vehicle for promoting education, awareness & information disseminationf. Link between local and regional/global bodiesg. Monitor and reviewer of national implementation of Agenda 21

There are no hard and fast rules on establishing NCSDs and guaranteeing their success. Countries have widecontextual and situational differences that a template for an NCSD is not expected to work in many countries. Areview of experiences of NCSDs actually serves as a useful guide to those attempting to establish their own.Hereunder are some practices that have worked well in many countries and may be adapted to their nationalsituations by others:

Stakeholders that are active participants of the whole formation process develop a sense of ownership andcommitment to the NCSD and its agenda

An NCSD created by law is more stable than one created by an executive fiat. The NCSD is best led by the head of state or government. A second best is the head or Minister of an

oversight agency such as the planning ministry.

Major stakeholder groups have equal voting rights and privileges It is useful to have an agreed upon code of conduct and process rules A technically competent and proactive secretariat is important, It is preferably lodged in an oversight

agency .

Adequate and sustainable financial support is a must.


25/168

25

SD VISION

SD GOALS

POLICIES, STRATEGIES,

SD Principles

NSDS Process

4. NSDS: What Is It?

26. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA)defines NSDS as a coordinated, participatory and iterative process of thoughts and

action to achieve economic, environmental and social objectives in a balanced andintegrated manner at the national and local levels.2 Similarly, the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined NSDS as a co-ordinated set of participatory and continuously improving processes of analysis, debate,capacity strengthening, planning and investment, which integrates the economic, socialand environmental objectives of society, seeking trade offs where this is not possible.Both definitions indicate that NSDS refers to a process and not merely a document,although it is usually summarized in one. Formulating a NSDS need not entailproducing a new plan or inventing a new process, but means transforming and adaptingexisting processes (e.g. national development plans or poverty reduction strategies) tobecome consistent with sustainable development principles.

4.1 NSDS Framework3

27. A NSDS proceeds from a defined sustainable development vision that ismanifested in societys sustainable development goals, and translated intocorresponding policies, strategies and plans to attain them (Figure 1).

Figure 1NSDS Framework

2This definition was based on the outcome of the International Forum on National Sustainable

Development Strategies, Accra, Ghana, 7-9 November 2001 (UN 2002). The author served as Chairmanof this particular forum.3

The succeeding discussion on NSDS framework, principles and processes draws from Subrato Sinha(2006), National Sustainable Development Strategy, Powerpoint presentation, UNEP Regional Office forAsia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. The presentation represents a consolidation and summary of the richliterature on NSDS that has emerged over the years.

Pro

cessofintegration


26/168

26

4.2 NSDS Principles

28. The following are key principles that are considered desirable attributes of a goodnational sustainable development strategy:

People centered Country led and nationally owned Consensus on long term visions Comprehensive and integrated Specifies clear targets and budget priorities Based on comprehensive and reliable analysis High level government commitments and influential lead institutions Links national and local levels Builds on existing mechanism and strategies Develops and builds on existing capacity Incorporates monitoring, learning and improvement

4.3 NSDS Processes

29. As indicated above, NSDS is a group of processes that comprise political,technical, participatory and resource mobilization processes, all converging towardsattainment of sustainable development for the country.

Political- Identify key stakeholders, including media- Organize seminar or workshop to build awareness

- Create a national coordinating structure like National Council of SustainableDevelopment

- Establish a Secretariat to facilitate the process- Ensure engagement of Planning, Finance and Environment Ministries and

other key Ministries- Engage local level institutions- Develop legal provisions for stakeholders participation

Technical- A knowledge base on existing policies and strategies- Identify requirements for effective policies and strategies

- Develop short, medium and long term strategies and activities- Framework for building human and institutional capacity- Methodological framework for strategy development at national, local and

sectoral levels- Facilitate integration of SD objectives- Develop SD indicators for monitoring progress

Participatory


27/168

27

- Mechanism for systematic participation of relevant stakeholders- Identify relevant stakeholders- Ensure transparent participatory process- Effective involvement of media- Develop innovative approach for building awareness

Resource mobilization- Ensure adequate, predictable and regular financial resources- Resources from domestic and international sources- Domestic resources for country ownership- Engagement of private sectors for resources- Investment plan for implementation of strategies- Involvement of donor agencies for international sources

4.4 Summary NSDS Criteria/Indicators

30. The above may be captured in nine key criteria or indicators that can beconsidered to characterize a satisfactory NSDS, described in turn below:4

(10) Policy integration - national strategies give consideration to environmental,economic, and social concerns in integrated approaches and plans.

(11) Intergenerational timeframe - national strategies adopt long-term time framesthat enable inclusion of intergenerational principles and indicators.

(12) Analysis and assessments - integrative assessment tools are used to identify

the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of policy andstrategy options.

(13) Indicators and targets - strategies are based on structured indicator systems toassist in monitoring progress and to serve as quantitative targets.

(14) Co-ordination and institutions - a wide range of government departments andagencies are involved in the formulation and implementation of nationalstrategies, with overall leadership from the office of the head of government(Prime Minister or equivalent).

(15) Local and regional governance - local and regional authorities are fullyinvolved in the development of national strategies, with certain deliveryaspects devolved to sub national levels.

(16) Stakeholder participation - stakeholders (e.g. business, unions, non-governmental organisations) are able to actively participate with government

4The first eight of these are in the list identified in OECD (2005), National Strategies for Sustainable

Development: Good Practices in OECD Countries, Paris (3-4 October), SG/SD(2005)6.


28/168

28

representatives in councils/commissions responsible for developing and imple-menting national strategies.

(17) Monitoring and evaluation - independent bodies or processes are establishedto act as watchdogs monitoring implementation of national strategies and

providing recommendations for their improvement.

(18) Resource mobilization adequate, predictable and regular financial resourcesfrom domestic and international sources are available through a suitable mix ofpublic finances, private sector funds, and external donor support.

31. These nine criteria/indicators are employed as bases for the assessment of thestatus of the GMS countries NSDS readiness, which are summarized in the nextsection and elaborated for each individual country in Chapter 6. In addition, theindividual country discussions also feature an assessment of the prevailing situation andprogress made towards attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),

which are key prerequisites in the pursuit of sustainable development in any country.


29/168

29

5. NSDS Readiness in GMS: Overall Assessment

32. The individual GMS countries are in varying states of NSDS readiness, owing tovariations in their economic, social, political, institutional and environmental

circumstances. It is imperative at this time that the GMS countries go through theexercise of formulating holistic national sustainable development strategies (NSDS) thataddress economic, social and environmental concerns comprehensively andintegratively. The possible exception is Vietnam, which has an existing NSDSdocument (Vietnam Agenda 21) that was released relatively recently and remainscurrent. Likewise, China and Myanmar each have respective existing national Agendas21, both of which were promulgated in the 1990s. Both are already dated and call formajor revisions and updates given rapid developments in the past decade. In particular,there is need to incorporate new emerging issues that were highlighted in the 2002Johannesburg WSSD, as well as address new challenges arising from more recentdevelopments within the sub-region and its vicinity.

Table 1. NSDS Readiness Scorecard for the GMS Countries

Criteria Cam Lao Mya Tha Viet Yun

Policy Integration 3 1 3 5 3 3

Intergenerational Timeframe 3 3 3 3 3 3

Analysis & Assessments 1 1 1 1 1 3

Indicators & Targets 5 5 3 5 5 3Coordination & Institutions 4 3 1 3 3 3

Local & Regional Governance 5 5 4 5 5 3

Stakeholder Participation 3 2 3 5 3 3

Monitoring & Evaluation 1 3 1 4 3 1

Resource Mobilization 4 1 1 5 4 3

Overall Assessment 3 3 2 4 3 3

*Scale of 1 (Lowest) to 5 (Highest)

33. For the rest of the GMS countries, it is an appropriate time belated as it may be to respond to the call made in global Agenda 21 and in the Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation (JPOI) for countries to integrate sustainable development in theirnational development plans, policies and programs. And as environmental stressesimpinge on the Mekong River that binds together the six economies comprising the


30/168

30

GMS, such national exercises must be undertaken in coordination with one another,and with due consideration for the intra-GMS implications of national and sub-nationalinitiatives in pursuit of economic growth and sustainable development. Table 1summarizes the results of national assessments of NSDS readiness among the sixGMS countries, based on the nine indicators enumerated above as gleaned from the

NSDS literature.

34. Among the six GMS countries, policy integration is deemed weakest in LaoPDR, where there is an unabashed admission that economic growth is the dominantconcern of government in its development strategy at this time. This comes throughboth in official documents and in the candid statements of government officials. On theother hand, Thailand shows the strongest level of policy integration, having made sucha holistic and integrative approach an explicit strategy since at least the Eighth Plan inthe 1990s. The rest are on the way to achieving satisfactory integration of the economic,social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, as evidenced in theirplanning documents.

35. All six countries partly address the need for an intergenerational perspective intheir development planning horizons, but mostly rely on five-year plans and ten-yearstrategies to guide their development initiatives. All of the countries possess at leastone open-ended planning document; however, this does not necessarily mean that theirdevelopment strategies have adequately addressed inter-generational equity issues andlong-term structural change.

36. Most of the GMS countries remain ill-equipped to undertake integrative situa-tion and policy analyses to inform their formulation of national strategies for sustain-able development. Thailand, and to some extent Yunnan province of China (with thehelp of external assistance), have obtained a level of capability to employ analyticaltools for such integrative analysis over their neighbors.

37. All six countries have developed indicator systems to systematically monitorimplementation and outcomes of their sustainable development initiatives, withMyanmar and Yunnan lagging somewhat behind. The latter two have embarked onformulation of sustainable development indicators relatively more recently than theothers. However, all are now able or well on the way to being able to systematicallytrack their progress in pursuing the MDGs, and wider sustainable developmentobjectives in the years ahead.

38. Institutional coordination remains a major challenge in all six GMS countries,with Myanmar apparently having greatest difficulty at effecting inter-agency coordinationand collaboration, particularly in ensuring proper consideration of environmentalimplications of its various development initiatives. This traces to lack of adequateauthority on the part of NCEA to enforce coordination. On the other hand, Cambodiaappears to be making better progress in this regard, with a planning process thatexplicitly involves all key agencies of government and local governments starting at theearliest stages of the planning cycle. Environmental concerns are also addressed at a


31/168

31

ministerial level, giving the Ministry of Environment greater authority in ensuringcoordination and proper consideration of environmental implications of developmentprograms and projects.

39. The role of local governments in sustainable development efforts appears

strong in all six GMS countries. In all six countries, decentralization and devolutionfigure prominently in the overall development thrust. Notwithstanding this, there is still atendency for governance in China to be more strongly top-down and centralized innature, with the key policymaking and relevant implementation resources still largelycontrolled by the central government. The same is true to some extent in Myanmar,where the central government tends to be strong and dominant in the ultimate decision-making processes.

40. Participation by non-government stakeholders has also been strengtheningin all six GMS countries, with Thailand being the most advanced in this regard. Lack ofa sizable domestic NGO community continues to be a constraint, particularly in Lao

PDR and Cambodia, where international NGOs tend to be more prominent inengagements with the government. There is growing recognition of the importance ofstronger stakeholder participation in sustainable development processes, from planningto implementation and on to monitoring and evaluation. The democratic space appearsto be widening to permit such participation to grow further in the near future.

41. With the exception of Thailand, monitoring and evaluation systems continue tobe generally weak, and especially lack the systematic involvement of independentstakeholders in monitoring both implementation and outcomes/impact of governmentinitiatives. This also relates to the presence or absence of a good performanceindicator system, along with an active civil society community prepared to undertakesuch M&E work, whether within or outside governments monitoring mechanisms. LaoPDRs M&E mechanism benefits from a good indicator system in place, while Vietnamsserious efforts to make its new national council for sustainable development (NCSD)work put it in better position to move towards participatory M&E.

42. Ultimately, funding resources to support SD initiatives and public investmentscan spell the ability of the GMS countries to achieve their SD goals. Thailand appearsto be the best endowed among the group in terms of capability to support the publicinvestments required to pursue its SD objectives, followed by Vietnam and Cambodia.The latter two have the advantage of being able to attract more substantial externalassistance from the donor community. Lao PDR and especially Myanmar appear to bethe most constrained of resources to support their SD strategies, the former because ofweak revenue-raising capability, and the latter because of sanctions from most of thedonor community and its virtual cut-off from any significant external financing.

43. Overall, Thailand emerges to be in the most advanced state of NSDS readinessamong the six GMS countries, even as it still continues to work towards having adocument to articulate its national strategy. Myanmar, on the other hand, appears to bein the weakest level of NSDS readiness, even with its early promulgation of an NSDS


32/168

32

document (Myanmar Agenda 21) as much as ten years ago. This further underscoreswhat had been emphasized at the outset: that an NSDS is not merely a document, butcomprises a system of processes and conditions that are conducive to a holistic,comprehensive and integrative approach to development. The rest of the GMScountries are making good progress and are well-positioned and equipped to be able to

assert possession of strong national sustainable development strategies. All thesesuggest that the countries as a group are amply prepared to move on to a higher levelof SDS formulation, i.e. at the collective level of the GMS sub-region.


33/168

33

6. NSDS Readiness in GMS: Country Assessments

6.1 Cambodia

6.1.1 Institutional Context

44. The Royal Government of Cambodia is described by its 1993 Constitution as aparliamentary, representative democratic monarchy. The government is headed by thePrime Minister, who is appointed by the King who is in turn head of state. Executivepower is exercised by the Prime Minister and his ministerial appointees, while legislativepower is vested in both the executive and the two chambers of parliament, the NationalAssembly of Cambodia and the Senate.

SD Coordination

45. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) has traditionally taken the lead in global orinternational SD discussions in the Cambodian government. MOEs exposure to globaldiscussions on sustainable development has given it full appreciation for the need tomainstream environment in social and economic development. Notwithstanding this,MOE finds difficulty with mainstreaming and integrating environment in Cambodiasdevelopment strategy given the governments sectoral orientation and the ministryslimited mandate focused on the environment. 5 Compounding this is the weakunderstanding of the concept of SD within MOE, the government as a whole and thegeneral public. Hence Cambodias approach towards SD is predominantly environ-mental in orientation. As in most countries, the MOE ranks low in the hierarchy ofgovernment, thereby limiting its ability to coordinate other ministries (see Table 2).

Planning Mechanisms

46. The Ministry of Planning (MOP) undertakes plan formulation work through theinter-agency and multi-stakeholder Technical Working Group on Planning and PovertyReduction (TWG 18). A review of the structure, functions and processes of MOP andresponses by key informants indicate that MOP is not adequately equipped to formulatethe preparation of a long-term integrated sustainability agenda on its own, but needstechnical support from other agencies. As is true anywhere, development planningrequires the active participation and inputs of concerned sectors and stakeholders, withthe planning agencys critical role and competence lying primarily in the coordination

and integration of the various concerns and inputs into a coherent and internallyconsistent whole. This requires that the planning agency take a strategic view of thepast, present and future circumstances of the country both in the internal and externalcontexts, and possess the capacity for such strategic analysis. In Cambodia,respondents indicated that the Supreme National Economic Council (SNEC, discussedfurther below), a high-level technical advisory body to the Prime Minister, may be betterplaced to undertake such strategic analysis.

5Interview with Minister of Environment Mok Mareth, Phnom Penh, September 18, 2006.


34/168

Table 2. Institutional Bodies Involved in Sustainability Agenda in Cam

TWG-PPR (18) MOP MOE MEF SNEC

Nature Multi-stakeholder;multi-sectoral taskgroup

Ministry Ministry Ministry Advisory Group

Area of Concern Formulate theSEDP

Socio-economicPlanning

Environment Economy &Finance

Economicdevelopment

Composition 40 Govt; 16Donors; 10 CSO;Chair:SecState,MOP

Governmentofficials

Governmentofficials

Governmentofficials

Experts

Influence topolicy &

decision-making

High but confinedto planning

High High Very High Very high

Reach andAccessibility

National level butsome membershave local reach

National withprovincial reach

National withprovincial reach

Nationallevel

Office of PM

Stability Average(Created by PMCircular)

High(created byLaw)

High(created byLaw)

High(created by Law;senior Ministry)

Average (cantechnically beabolished anytim

Scope forstakeholderparticipation

Very high; CSalreadyrepresented

Low; possibleonly in some ofits activities

Low; possibleonly in some ofits activities

Low; possibleonly in some of itsactivities

N/A


35/168

35

47. TWG 18 was created through a Prime Ministers Circular to implement thedecision of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) to consolidate the SEDPand the National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS) 2003-2005 within theframework of the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals (CMDG). TWG 18aims to support the Government in promoting a more efficient and effective

planning process for the achievement of its poverty reduction goals as committedwithin the framework of the Millennium Declaration and the Cambodia MillenniumDevelopment Goals. The MOP (through the Secretary of State) chairs TWG 18and serves as its technical secretariat.

48. The Prime Ministers Circular and resulting Prakas6 from MOP are quitefocused on the formulation of the NSDP as the role of TWG 18. This is in spiteof the fact that the Terms of Reference accompanying the Prakas state that TWG18 was created as a consultative and coordinating mechanism to support theformulation, implementation and monitoring of NSDP.7 While implementationand monitoring are important elements in the development planning process,

these were only mentioned in passing.

49. TWG 18 is composed of representatives from 40 ministries and agencies,16 donor institutions (including 2 facilitators), and 10 civil society organizations(CSOs). Interestingly, donors are more heavily represented than CSOs, andbusiness is not at all represented. This appears to reflect the governmentscontinuing strong reliance on external assistance and its expectation and desireto continue as such for time to come.

50. The Circular creating TWG 18 instructed MOP to undertake all its tasksrelated to the formulation of the NSDP in collaboration with the SNEC. Thus, theSNEC Secretary General, who is concurrently the Secretary General of theMinistry of Economy and Finance (MEF), was designated as one of the TWGsthree Deputy Chairpersons. The strong presence and lead roles of SNEC andMEF indicate that the NSDP is primarily an economic agenda, not necessarily bydesign, but borne by the orientation of its institutional mechanism. MOE, throughits Secretary of State, is a member.

51. As Table 2 and Figure 2 indicate, TWG 18 can be a potent coordinatingmechanism for planning, endowed with influence and a focused mandate. It isconfined at the center because it is meant to be a national coordinator. While itsmember agencies have the organizational capacity to elicit inputs and feedbackfrom stakeholders at sub-national levels, this is not always true for otherstakeholders in the group. The TWG was created through an executive fiat,which technically makes it less stable than the other agencies created by law.However, this has the advantage of flexibility to make changes in structu

NSDS GMS Assessment Report 2007

Documents

Transcript of NSDS GMS Assessment Report 2007