 |
Table of Contents |
 |
|
|
Seventh Meeting of the Working Group on the Environment
(WGE-7)
Introduction
The Seventh Meeting of the Subregional Working Group on Environment (WGE-7) was held in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR from 29 to 31 August 2001. The Science, Technology and Environment Agency (STEA), Prime Minister's Office of Lao PDR hosted the Workshop, in cooperation with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The GMS countries expressed their appreciation to the Provincial Government of Luang Prabang, STEA and ADB for the hospitality, organization, and cooperation provided to the Workshop.
The objectives of the Workshop were to assess the progress of the work program of the WGE, and reformulate the WGE work program in the light of updates of the GMS program and its operational strategy. The meeting also discussed project reports of three (3) GMS RETAs on the environment, namely: Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management in Remote GMS Watersheds; Protection and Management of Critical Wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin; and the GMS Strategic Environment Framework (SEF). The meeting also reviewed the results of the Inception Meeting of the Subregional Environmental Monitoring and Information System Phase II project (SEMIS II) which was held in Bangkok on 27 August 2001. The focus of project discussions was on the integration of social, economic, and environmental sustainability concerns in GMS development processses. The meeting further analyzed the new environmental initiatives for the WGE consistent with the revised work program, which could lead to draft recommendations for GMS Senior Official and Ministers, and a possible draft communique from GMS Ministers to the 2002 Earth Summit. The Agenda of the Workshop is attached as Appendix 1.
The participants of the Workshop included delegations from the Kingdom of Cambodia, People's Republic of China (the "PRC"), Lao People's Democratic Republic (the "Lao PDR"), Union of Myanmar, Kingdom of Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Observers/ resource persons from the Mekong River Commission (MRC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as well as ADB staff and consultants, also attended. The list of participants is attached as Appendix 2.
The meeting was co-chaired by Mr. J. Warren Evans, Manager, ENVD, ADB, and Mrs. Keobang A Keola, Deputy Director of Cabinet, STEA.
Opening Session
Mrs. Keobang Keola, focal person of the WGE for Lao PDR, gave an overview of the WGE-7 meeting and introduced H.E. Chansy Phosikham, Governor of the Province of Luang Prabang to deliver the opening remarks. H. E. Chansy Phosikham extended his warm welcome to the delegates and thanked ADB for sponsoring the meeting. He expressed deep appreciation for the GMS Program and keenly followed its progress in poverty reduction and environmental protection. He noted the importance of environmental protection to the community and explained its close relationship to poverty reduction. He cited the gains achieved by the GMS countries in cooperating on environmental issues, in terms of expanding their institutions, sharing information, and financing/ implementing common environmental initiatives, all in the interest of sustainable regional cooperation. He enjoined ADB to support poverty reduction initiatives to ensure that the fruits of development accrue to the poor in remote regions. He fully supported the early integration of environment concerns in the planning of projects, in order to ensure sustainability of development cooperation in the GMS.
Mr. J. Warren Evans expressed his appreciation to H.E. Chansy Phosikham and the officials of the Government of Lao PDR for graciously hosting the meeting. He briefly reviewed the objectives of the WGE and accomplishments to date. He suggested that the WGE focus on three areas. One was addressing transboundary effects of development efforts. Another was addressing common policy and institutional frameworks, including sharing of information. The last was on generating sufficient funding for programmed activities in environment. He informed the meeting of the forthcoming reorganization of ADB, which will reflect the importance accorded to the GMS. He cited the prototype of the Strategic Environmental Framework (SEF) which addressed not only transboundary issues but also provided for the integration of environment concerns in development planning. He cited the need for cooperating with other agencies in the GMS such as the Mekong River Commission (MRC), for more effective results. He also urged the meeting to focus on the action plan for the WGE, and on the expected outcomes.
Mr. Evans provided a brief introduction to the WGE-7 agenda, and noted some changes, notably in advancing the session on SEMIS II, followed by the session on the SEF. The session on RIO + 10 was to be undertaken late in the second day.
Overview on the GMS Program and Economic Corridor Development
Mr. Toru Tatara, Head, GMS Unit, ADB, provided an overview of the GMS Program, including a summary of the progress achieved so far. He underscored the changes in the strategic priorities of the program, including the adoption of multisectoral development approach within a geographic area, under the economic corridor concept. This would imply accumulated environmental impact along the corridors. He also cited the planned changes in the GMS program's institutional set up, which required strengthening of the capacity in the GMS countries, in line with increasing the latter's ownership of the GMS program. He also mentioned increased cooperation with other agencies operating in the subregion, such as ASEAN, MRC and ESCAP, to avoid overlapping of efforts. He gave the brief history of the GMS program, and outlined its phased progress, from building confidence (Phase I) to full implementation (Phase IV). He noted the changed environment under which the program currently operates, especially in the aftermath of the Asian crisis, which included reduced foreign investments and tighter government budgets for projects.
Mr. Tatara drew attention to the declining availability of RETA resources at ADB and urged the WGE-7 to strengthen its efforts to mobilize other sources of funds for feasibility studies and capacity building. He also underlined that the GMS Program is entering its 10th anniversary, and the renewed GMS Strategic Framework is being prepared to be submitted to the 10th GMS Ministers Meeting. He then enumerated the progress in the various sectors of the GMS Program, specifically in transport, in which he explained the progress in important corridors such as the Ho Chi Minh City- Phnom Penh Road Project, the East West Economic Corridor (EWEC), and the Chiang Rai-Kunming Road Project via Lao PDR. He noted the progress to pilot-test the single-stop inspection mechanism along the major border crossings in the GMS. He also cited the planned activities in other sectors such as telecoms, energy, tourism, trade/ customs facilitation, investment, HRD, and environment. He then presented the key challenges ahead for the program, which included mobilizing financial resources, building human and institutional capacity, protecting shared natural resources, and improving coordination with other initiatives. He enumerated the emerging operational strategies of the program. These included: extending the benefits of infrastructure development to rural and border areas; strengthening sector linkages through holistic/ multisectoral approach; facilitating cross border movement of people and goods; developing economic corridors; broadening participation of stakeholders in the project process; and improving coordination with other key players in the GMS.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Director Zaw Win (Myanmar) pointed out that the EWEC's western section included a road up to Mawlamyine port in Myamnar. Mr. Tatara said that his discussion focused only on the eastern sections, which were underway.
b. Ms. Sumitra (Thailand) confirmed that there is planned Thai assistance to Myanmar, for road improvement.
c. Ms. Keobang A (Lao PDR) suggested fast tracking of capacity building for GMS countries; Mr. Tatara said that an Action Plan would be developed for presentation to GMS Ministers.
d. Mr. Ieng (Cambodia) suggested involving the Planning staff / GMS coordinators in developing the capacity building plan. Mr. Tatara replied that training for the office of the GMS national coordinators was among the activities planned.
Mr. Evans provided a background on the WGE and cited its achievements in relation to the work program. He mentioned the three ongoing RETAs on the environment and presentors for each of these projects. He suggested that the WGE be invited to meetings of other sectors under the GMS program, to ensure environmental concerns were accounted for in said meetings. He suggested for the meeting Secretariat to come out with a list of issues for the WGE members to review on the second day.
Strategic Environment Planning
Mr. Tahir Qadri (ADB) presented on the project "Subregional Environmental Monitoring and Information System (SEMIS) Phase II (TA No. 5899)" assisted by Mr. Rajendra Shrestha (UNEP). Mr. Qadri showed slides, which highlighted the environmental issues in the GMS, such as deforestation, industrial pollution, slash and burn agriculture, etc. He provided an overview of the SEMIS I project and its outputs, which included database design, catalogue of data holdings, training, etc. SEMIS II addressed the need for follow up support to SEMIS I. SEMIS II had five (5) objectives, and these included assessing the availability of data for planning purposes and increasing national government capacity to collect/ process information. Another objective was to conduct, store, and manipulate actual integrated planning information using data from pilot projects for hotspot areas under SEF. He outlined the implementation and coordination aspects of the project, including the implementation plan, work program and activities (the latter were presented by objective). He then showed a timeline of events under the project, which had just completed the subregional inception workshop (August 2001).
Mr. R. Shrestha gave a brief on the progress to date of the project. He said the inception workshop came out with the implementation plan. He presented the SEMIS web page, which detailed the project's progress, and also showed data acquisition for land use and land cover data generation.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Ms. Malee (Thailand) suggested that the members of other sector working groups be consulted on the type of data they need or require, to ensure that the data are eventually utilized; Mr. Qadri said the national workshops under the project would undertake consultations with various sector agencies.
b. Mr. Evans clarified that the national workshops could be jointly organized by the GMS coordinator and the WGE focal point to ensure broad representation.
c. Ms. Keobang A suggested inclusion of technology transfer to GMS staff in SEMIS II; Mr. Evans said this was provided for in SEMIS II.
d. Mr. Ieng noted the sensitivity in sharing of data, and the low quality of some data exchanged because of certain factors, such as lack of seniority of staff in charge.
e. Mr. Qadri said the consulting team's role was in ensuring data generated across countries were comparable in quality.
f. Mr. Evans further clarified the roles of consultants and ADB in the project and mentioned initiatives, which could link up with SEMIS II work, to improve environmental data.
Mr. Evans provided an overview of the project "Strategic Environment Framework for the GMS" (TA No. 5783-REG). He explained that the SEF combined analytical, participatory and policy oriented processes to constitute a strategic platform for guiding investment decisions in transport, water resources development and environment sectors in GMS. Project outputs included the main report and background reports, which consisted of Regional Issues and Emerging Trends, GMS Hotspots and CD-ROM on the SEF. He said the SEF process was an output itself, which would be sustained to provide a platform for stakeholder collaboration to keep SEF products alive. He noted that SEF Phase I produced a prototype version of the software SEF 1.0. One of the key features of the software was the early warning of potential impacts from development projects. It allowed overlay of proposed projects into GMS maps that would point out ecological sensitivities to projects. Case studies were carried out in each GMS country covering different project types (roads, dams). Mr. Evans showed a process chart, which outlined links between empirical, analytical and participatory processes.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Dr. Monthip (Thailand) said that with promotion of participatory processes, capacity building for NGOs was needed; she also requested ADB to help enlighten WGE on the work of the other sectors. The environment sector should cut across all sectors of GMS. She also mentioned that various sector reports still lack of comparative analysis between sectors, both on a country and subregional level.
b. Mr. Evans recalled the earlier suggestion for WGE to be represented in other sector meetings. He also said follow up was needed on enhancing information sharing on environment in the GMS.
c. Dr. Monthip suggested greater involvement of WGE members in the review of environmental policy guidelines. The said guidelines would be distributed to the WGE members for consultations within their countries, and this could continue in the WGE meeting.
d. Ms. Keobang A noted that one problem was the lack of software to run the SEF CD-ROM. Mr. Evans suggested that this issue be taken up with UNEP.
e. Mr. Evans asked the WGE members to review the SEF report thoroughly and provide ADB with comments, which could be constituted into a report for the GMS Ministers.
f. Dir. Zaw Win (Myanmar) and Mr. Chanrithy (Cambodia) provided suggestions for the follow up project to SEF. Mr. Evans said that the proposal for Phase II SEF would be jointly developed with the GMS countries. He said the Early Warning Information System (EWIS) was simple and needed to be transformed for use in the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) mode.
g. Dr. Monthip added that ADB's role was to brief consultants on work done in various studies, to avoid duplication and provide proper perspectives for new work by new consultants. Mr. Tatara supported the further strengthening of cooperation between various sector groups.
h. Mr. Tatara added that the WGE institutional mechanism should be reviewed, in terms of representation in various sector meetings. He asked the countries to comment on the proposed creation of sector secretariats.
i. Dr. Monthip proposed that the GMS web site provide information on important sector developments. Mr. Tatara replied that important reports are posted in the GMS web site, and the SEF would be included soon. Dr. Monthip added that the GMS web site be a vehicle for information exchange between WGE members and the other working groups. Inventory list of the members, and address of each member of the working group should be also in the web site.
j. Mr. Chanrithy asked ADB to help in enhancing information sharing; Mr. Evans said assistance depends largely on demand by recipient country, but added that good packaging of products improved their acceptability to countries.
k. Mr. Evans asked if there was a facility in the GMS program for supporting consultation meetings. Mr. Tatara said while resources for this purpose are limited, Thailand, for example, has set up internal mechanisms for this.
l. Dr. Monthip suggested that SEF Phase II be more focused and specific, as many good recommendations have been made, and that this integrate findings from previous projects. Mr. Evans said that the task in the next phase was to move the process from a demonstration to an analytical tool.
m. Ms. Keobang A noted that it would be useful for each GMS country to have common representatives to environment project workshops. Mr. Ieng observed that consistency in WGE membership was not true for all GMS.
n. Mr. Tatara expounded on the secretariat system for each sector under the GMS program. For ASEAN, governments fund the secretariat costs. Mr. Ieng suggested that forthcoming environment RETAs provide for secretariat costs.
Coordination of International Assistance
Dr. Ian Campbell gave a broad overview MRC's current operations and its prospective activities. The MRC programme, framed by the 1995 agreement, concerned itself with broader issues such as basin wide issues, and transboundary issues. The three core programs of MRC were enumerated. One, the Water Utilization Programme (WUP), dealt with modeling and knowledge base, transboundary social and environmental issues, and rules and guidelines. Two, the Basin Development Plan (BDP), currently being established, would address basin-wide planning issues. He foresaw BDP's strong collaboration with the GMS Program's SEF. Three, the Environment Programme, was concerned with monitoring and assessment, humans and ecosystems, decision support systems, and research (system understanding). Monitoring and assessment included water quality monitoring and monitoring ecological health. Humans and ecosystems concern looked at economic valuation of wetlands and human utilization of wetlands. Decision support systems included EIA, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) methods, and Environmental Risk Analysis. System Understanding consisted of understanding ecological processes and limits of primary production in Tonle Sap. He added that MRC operated through National Mekong Committees and implemented a number of sector programs including navigation, fisheries, hydropower, and forestry/ agriculture. He finally showed how the sector programs supported the WUP and BDP through the Environment Programme.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Dr. Campbell added that MRC was involved in the Millenium Ecosystems Assessment through the latter's Steering Committee.
b. Mr. Ieng asked about MRC's work on poverty reduction in the wetlands/ basin area; Dr. Campbell said that as part of the Wetlands Inventory and Assessment Project, MRC was working on human use of wetlands and particularly developing sustainable usage of wetlands resources by the poor.
c. Mr. Ieng noted the need for more cooperation between Cambodia's Ministry of Environment and the MRC, especially in terms of warning on adverse project impacts; Mr. Chin Samouth (MRC) explained MRC's involvement on the issue of Yali Falls runoffs in Cambodia.
d. In response to a question on whether communications to staff in line agencies could be improved, Dr. Campbell explained that there were two links in the communication chain. One between MRC secretariat and the National Mekong Committees, and another between the National Committees and the line agencies. MRC was conscious that communication was not yet adequate. While the secretariat was working to improve communication to national committees, it had less influence on links within countries. A new communication strategy was in place which would see newsletters distributed to line agencies, and hopefully as personal contacts developed between line agency staff and the many new staff at MRCS, this would assist in improving communication flows.
e. Mr. Evans noted the past effort to involve MRC committee members in GMS meetings, and said this could be an option to bridge the communication gap.
f. Dr. Monthip noted the importance of China's participation in MRC programs. She also suggested that MRC should strengthen capacity building. She mentioned that the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) has established the GMS Academic and Research Network (GMS-ARN), and asked MRC how it would be involved in the network.
g. Dr. Campbell replied that China is a dialogue partner, but he would like to have China more involved in the BDP. He noted that MRC has developed early warning systems (for floods, etc.) and would continue refining such. He cited the MRC practice of tapping the region's academics for critical studies.
h. Dr. Monthip asked how MRC's activities are linked to needs of countries. Dr. Campbell replied that the data from MRC, such as on fisheries, are used extensively by the countries.
i. Mr. Qadri asked who determines MRC work programme priorities. Dr. Campbell explained that member countries determine MRC priorities, through input from National Mekong Committees, regional planning meetings in the various core and sector programs, and approval of the activities programs at joint council meetings.
j. Ms. Keobang A asked about how MRC could maximize findings from studies such as on water quality, given limited resources. Dr. Campbell responded that by working collaboratively with programs such as GMS and projects such as the various GEF projects proposed for the region, MRC could leverage its funds to greater effect.
UNEP/ RIO + 10 Earth Summit
Mr. Surendra Shrestha, Director of the Regional Resource Center (RRC) of UNEP based in AIT Bangkok, presented on the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 (WSSD or RIO + 10). He first gave a history of the summit, starting with the 1972 Stockholm Conference. In 1992, the UNCED brought environment into the political agenda of governments. In 1997, Rio + 5 did a five year review of progress implementation of Agenda 21. He listed the international development goals by 2015, which included reversal of environmental degradation by 2015. He then enumerated environmental concerns in Asia such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Regional and subregional cooperation environmental issues included transboundary air pollution, and sharing water resources and fisheries rights. Tasks ahead for Asia included framing a system for enforcement of environmental laws and undertaking capacity building and institutional/ policy reforms.
He then presented the preparations involved for WSSD and the partnership of UNEP with the ADB. He presented a list of issues and shared visions. The latter included development aspects of sustainable development, visions on sustainability, a balanced and integrated agenda, new political commitments, etc. The way forward included common clusters for discussion, such as poverty, and urban and industrial development, among others. It was noted that the WSSD is a partnership with ADB, ESCAP, UNDP and UNEP. Mr. Shrestha reported that the WSSD Secretariat would constitute five subregional reports consolidated into one regional report, which would be sent to the Secretariat for the summit. Preparations included substantive report preparations and consultations at the subregional level (Beijing, Apia, Almaty, Colombo, and Manila). At the regional level, he noted there would be a synthesis paper and consultations, with the stakeholders meeting to be held in November 2001 in Cambodia. Preparations for RIO + 10, he added, would be undertaken with much less resources than previous summits. Also, focus would be on implementation and integrated sustainable development.
Mr. Evans gave a background on the ADB's participation in the WSSD/ RIO+ 10. He then explained that one decision needed from the WGE was if it wants to send a communique to the summit. Dr. Monthip noted however that due to limited time, an outline should be provided to WGE members on points to be covered in the communique. She mentioned that UNDP would help in the preparation of Thailand's paper. Dr. Shrestha noted that due to time constraints, preparations could be done in parallel across all levels- country to regional. Mr. Evans noted that a team of seven people (including three from ADB) went to AIT and developed the outline and collected available information. Additional information needs would be communicated to the countries soon. Dr Monthip suggested that the paper be circulated as early as possible to obtain comments and gain acceptance from different stakeholders.
Day 2
Mr. Evans noted the presentations for the second day's sessions. He introduced the presentation of Mr. Surendra Shrestha, which commenced with a short a video on how the atmosphere works in relation to pollutants affecting it. Mr. Shrestha showed atmospheric environmental issues arising from ozone depletion, industrial pollutants and greenhouse gases. He noted the impacts of such pollution on agriculture, food security, and marine ecosystems. He also cited marked climate change that resulted in flooding and drought conditions in various parts of Asia. He summarized UNEP's plans in relation to improved monitoring of atmospheric changes in the region.
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
Mr. Anthony Bott, Consultant for the project "Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management in Remote GMS Watersheds" (TA No. 5771), provided an overview of the project and discussed the objectives, activities and outputs of the project's phase I and phase II. Phase II outputs included selection of priority areas in selected watershed areas in Cambodia, China, Lao PDR and Viet Nam, preliminary field studies at selected locations, preliminary analysis of proposed projects, and rapid assessment of a watershed in Myanmar. He enumerated the activities undertaken under each output. He also enumerated the expected project benefits which included more sustainable upland farming technology, promotion of alternatives to poppy cultivation, and preparation of village level participatory resource management/ land use plans.
Mr. Bott then presented the components of project interventions which included institutional strengthening and capacity building, community development, livelihood systems development, rural infrastructure development and environmental management. Beneficiaries included rural communities, local governments, and NGOs. He then outlined the next steps of the project, such as review of the outputs by GMS governments, and preparation of the TORs for the feasibility studies by country. He gave out copies of the project summary sheets for each country, for distribution to WGE members. He showed economic rates of return from the project for each country, but stressed that low rates did not reflect the expected long-term returns from the project.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Mrs. Keobang A stressed the priority accorded by Lao PDR government for the project, particularly the sanitation and health components.
b. Mr. Khamsone said the EIRRs shown, failed to reflect secondary/ intangible benefits and benefits to downstream of watershed; Mr. Evans said ADB has financed projects with similarly low EIRRs, but stressed more work was needed to account for the project's full benefits.
c. Dr. Monthip asked about the relative priorities accorded to the watershed in Thailand; she stressed the need to amend the process to ensure gaps identified by the countries were properly addressed.
d. Mr. Tatara noted Dr. Monthip's comments, but asked the WGE members to consult their planning/ finance ministries on how they wanted to proceed.
e. Mr. Tucker explained that the project components for Thailand and Cambodia, were covered in separate national projects in said countries.
f. Mr. Luo (PRC) noted that he was generally pleased with the proposals prepared, but was concerned that ADB would find the scale of the project, not large enough for a loan project.
g. Dir. Zaw Win said Myanmar submitted the project for Nam Loi because most of the catchment area lies within Myanmar territory.
h. Mr. Evans said the ADB would prepare a response to the countries on the next steps for the project.
Mr. Tucker, Project Specialist, AWFN, ADB, presented on the project "Protection and Management of Critical Wetlands in the Lower Mekong Basin" (TA No. 5822). He noted the project's objective, which was to prepare two feasibility studies for Tonle sap and Siphandone. He showed a map of the areas covered by these wetlands.
He proceeded with the proposal for Tonle Sap, which was modified to include a sector development program comprising an investment loan and a program loan. The proposal also included cooperation with UNDP for a biodiversity conservation component for GEF funding. He noted the rationale for the program loan and the required reform of the fisheries sector. He outlined the six components of the investment loan proposal, which included community based fisheries management (CBFM), alternative livelihoods development and improvement (ALDI), multi-purpose harbors (MPH), and wetland resources inventory and management system (WIMS), among others. He gave the project structure, which linked the various project components, and the relationships between the investment and program loans. Mr. Tucker outlined the next steps for the Tonle Sap. The workshop in Phnom Penh in early August 2001 identified a number of gaps in the draft FS, which would be filled by Sept.-Nov. 2001. He mentioned that the loan fact finding would be conducted by Nov.-Dec. 2001. Loan pre-appraisal, EIA completion, and submission of GEF grant proposal was set for March 2002, while the submission of proposal to the ADB Board for approval was set for September 2002.
Among observations/ comments on the preceding presentation were the following:
a. Mr. Ieng and Ms. Keobang A noted that the WGE was not regularly apprised of developments in the project. Mr. Tucker noted the regular involvement of GMS officials in the implementation of the project.
b. Mr. Evans said the recurrence of this issue, raised the need for new arrangements for WGE involvement in meetings and project implementation.
c. Dr. Monthip suggested the review of some project components, such as harbors, to ascertain their relationship to poverty reduction. She also suggested re-wording of some sections. She noted lack of references to material/ information used in the study.
d. Mr. Tucker noted that the FS was not final, and that investment components would be determined after more extensive analysis of their returns/ viability during loan fact finding/ appraisal.
e. Dr. Monthip suggested the GEF biodiversity component be applied to other GMS countries as well. Mr. Tucker said the GEF could be applied only for specific geographic areas, such as Tonle Sap.
f. Mr. Evans added that GEF funds are for project specific locations, but stressed that ADB could help the countries package projects eligible for GEF grants.
g. Mr. Chanrithy noted the various environmental problems that would stem from development of the Tonle Sap, and expressed concern on effects on settlements, sewage, waste management, etc.
h. Mr. Tucker said the project's goal was to support local communities in managing their own resources, considering the extent of degradation in the wetlands.
i. Mr. Qadri asked whether the fisheries law provided for empowerment of local communities, and Mr. Tucker replied that this provision was in the draft.
Mr. Tucker then presented on the Siphandone component, called the Khong-Moun Wetland Community Management and Development Project. He noted that the proposal still needed a lot of work. He cited the project's components, which included community fisheries management, eco-tourism, agriculture, forestry and community development center (AFCDC), and sustainable utilization of non-timber forest products (NTFP). He showed slides detailing the rationale, objectives, outputs, activities, inputs, and anticipated benefits for each component. Mr. Tucker noted the need to work out cross border cooperation for shared management of the migratory fish resources in the area. He also noted the need to support sustainable fisheries management given the very large demand for fish in the Thai market.
Dr. Campbell noted that MRC intended to support a proposal for cross border wetlands management in the Siphandone- Stung Treng area from Lao PDR, which was awaiting Cambodia's response.
Group Discussion--- Strategic Environmental Response to the GMS Program, 2001- 2003 and Related Programs
Mr. Evans enumerated a list of issues and discussion points for the WGE members' consideration and decision. The WGE members remained for the WGE group discussions. Mrs. Keobang of Lao PDR chaired the group discussions and presented the following seven key agreements and decisions on the various issues discussed.
a. The WGE members agreed that a draft joint communique should be prepared for consideration by the GMS Ministers for the 2002 RIO + 10 Earth Summit. They asked UNEP and ADB to help prepare the communique. It was noted that the draft would have to be circulated to the WGE members for their comments/ review.
b. The group also discussed systematic approaches to national workshops, where representatives of GMS sector working groups and MRC are brought together to compare notes and exchange information. The group noted the overlapping of functions of GMS sector working groups and MRC, and deemed it important to reduce duplication. One proposal called for rationalizing memberships within each country. Another proposal called for strengthening of the WGE structure and networking. It was clarified that the GMS Unit would start the preparations for the national workshops (which differ from the project specific workshops).
c. On the $20,000-$25,000 remaining funds from SETIS, the group discussed ways to utilize the funds. The group agreed to divide the funds equally among the six countries and left to the countries to decide on the activities to be carried out, which could include translation, publication, etc. of training materials developed from SETIS. For subsequent projects, it was proposed to include in the consultants' TOR, the preparation of executive summaries in the different GMS languages. Mr. Evans asked the WGE members to prepare the proposals soon, since the donors required the project to be closed by December 2001.
d. The group discussed their priority for the next program, considering the difficulty in obtaining funds for RETAs. The group suggested that subsequent priority programs should cover the entire subregion. The priority areas agreed were poverty reduction, SEF II, capacity building for local governments, and cleaner production (CP). The group also asked ADB assistance for formulating a biodiversity conservation program for the GMS countries.
e. On the follow up mechanism to implement WGE agreements and recommendations resulting from RETA projects, the group agreed that project reports should be circulated among the group. The WGE proposed strengthening of mechanisms to involve countries in the implementation of RETAs. This included review of TORs of consultants, circulation of the interim reports among countries, acknowledging the contributions of GMS country representatives to the project, and instituting a system for penalizing non-performing consultants. WGE also proposed that local consultants be tapped for at least 40% of the RETA input, and that WGE be consulted in consultant selection. Mr. Evans noted that the suggestions would be undertaken in line with ADB's guidelines.
f. The group reviewed and assessed the strengths, weaknesses and gaps in the present set up and the required improvements at strengthening measures. The group discussed the mechanics for consultant selection and expressed concern about ensuring the quality of consultants' outputs. They reiterated inclusion of standard provisions in consultants' TORs, such as the input share of local consultants, and the minimum number of report copies, etc. The group supported promotion of ownership by the countries of the project activities and reports.
g. On the provision of support for regular communications among the WGE, to support the exchange of experiences and provide opportunity for mutual learning (in additional to WGE annual meetings), the group agreed to establish the chairmanship based on hosting for subsequent WGE meetings. Hosting shall be rotated among countries alphabetically, starting with Myanmar next year (to be confirmed with Myanmar government). The term of chairmanship shall be one year. Mr. Tatara suggested that the chair country should also represent WGE in sector meetings. He suggested further that the countries nominate at least one focal point, to consistently represent them in the WGE, and this person should also be the focal point for resource mobilization.
Plenary
Mr. Evans noted that the seven items presented by the WGE, and the draft communique would constitute the WGE's report to the GMS Ministers. Mr. Tatara announced that a mini-Senior Officials Meeting (mini-SOM) would be held in Hanoi on September 6-7 2001. He said a decision on the venue and date of the GMS Ministers Meeting could be made during said mini-SOM. Ms. Keobang A added that WGE members requested to be furnished copies of communications between ADB and GMS countries on the matter of GMS program activities.
Conclusion
Mr. Evans thanked the Government of Lao PDR for graciously hosting the meeting and thanked the WGE members for their inputs. He also thanked the GMS Unit and the resource persons for their contributions to the success of the meeting.
Dr. Monthip expressed the WGE members' appreciation to the Government of Lao PDR and Provincial Government of Luang Prabang, and cited Ms. Keobang A's assistance in steering discussions of the group.
On behalf of the Government of Lao PDR, Ms. Keobang A thanked the staff from Luang Prabang and ADB for support in organizing the meeting. She wished everyone a nice stay in the city and hoped for a safe return journey for everybody.
Regions and Countries 
Back
Top of page