Home 
Topics Environment Environment Policy Consultation Process
Consultation Process
|
ADB adopted a strategy for gaining wide participation from a diverse group of stakeholders to ensure that they had the opportunity to comment, provide suggestions and enrich the proposed environment policy. This approach ensures that the conceptual framework of the policy has been thoroughly reviewed and that a mutual understanding has been developed during the consultation process of the developmental and environmental challenges underpinning the policy. The consultation process was also needed to identify ways by which partnerships with various stakeholders could be strengthened.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) addresses environmental protection and conservation needs of its developing member countries (DMCs) by integrating environmental considerations into its regional, country, and project-level operations. ADB also supports the capacity building and policy reform efforts of its developing member country (DMC) governments. It also promotes projects and programs designed to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environment and quality of life in DMCs. It trains staff and DMC counterparts and disseminates information for guidance in environmental aspects of economic development.
ADB has sharpened the focus of its environment program to support its own poverty reduction strategy approved in 1999 and the recently launched Long-Term Strategic Framework (LTSF) which sets out ADB's strategic agenda for the next 15 years. The LTSF identifies three core areas of intervention, consonant with the Poverty Reduction Strategy:
To broaden, deepen, and reinforce the three core areas of intervention, the LTSF has three cross-cutting themes:
Through consultation ADB formulated its Environment Policy to complement its poverty reduction strategy and agenda based on the LTSF.
ADB disseminated discussion documents and conducted a series of workshops in both developing and developed member countries from February to October 2001.
ADB's targeted stakeholders included representatives from governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society, the academe, institutions, the private sector and other aid agencies.
ADB adopted the following means to solicit a wide-ranging consultation from various stakeholders within and outside the Asian and Pacific Region.
Meetings with key NGOs to share information about the draft environment policy paper, get their views on proposed major policy changes, and discuss ways to strengthen partnerships with them.
ADB adopted a two-step process to solicit feedback and gather information from its stakeholders.
Step 1. Dissemination of Overview DocumentWith the help of resident missions or local consultants, ADB identified key stakeholders in each targeted country to be personally invited to provide feedback.
ADB then disseminated an overview document entitled "A Note on the Draft Environment Policy Working Paper" to generate ownership and partnership in the development of an environment policy. This five-page document provided background into the need for an ADB environment policy, and an overview of the ADB's philosophy and proposed policy reforms. Accompanying the overview was a short questionnaire for soliciting feedback on the proposed direction. The local consultants followed up with each stakeholder, answered questions and encouraged participation.
After receipt of comments, ADB synthesized the comments and uploaded the synthesis to the web. The comments were considered in formulating the working paper.
Step 2. Dissemination of Environment Policy Working Paper and Country ConsultationsAfter receiving initial comments and completing the environment policy working draft, ADB disseminated the draft and held at least one consultation meeting in each of the 15 countries identified earlier with participants from Step 1. Environment Specialists from ADB participated in those meetings according to their fluency in the national language. Trained consultants facilitated the sessions.
While participation was open to stakeholders in all member countries, ADB was able to undertake consultation involving 25 countries. Workshop consultations were held in Australia, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China (PRC) (three), India (two), Indonesia, Japan (two), Kazakhstan (including representatives from Kyrgyz Republic, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan); Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines (three), Sri Lanka, Sweden (including representatives from Denmark, Finland, and Norway), United States (one in Washington, DC and an open forum during ADB's annual meeting in Honolulu), and Viet Nam.
ADB directly invited stakeholders in four South Pacific nations (Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Samoa, and Vanuatu) to provide written comments on the draft policy. Stakeholders from six other members (Cambodia; Canada; Hong Kong, China; Malaysia; Papua New Guinea; and United Kingdom) also provided written comment on the draft policy. See the workshop schedule and learn more about the participants.
ADB has received 632 comments to date, both on the overview document and the draft working paper. See a synthesis of the comments and ADB's preliminary response.
ADB is responding to each participant in writing, indicating how his/her comments were addressed in the policy paper.
The two-step process of first distributing an overview document, and then disseminating the working paper and holding workshops served to engage stakeholders. For the public, the overview document was much more clear and readable than the working paper. Distributing an overview document first also demonstrated that ADB did not have a fully developed environment policy as yet, and that shareholders could influence the direction of the new policy.
The most important and difficult step in the process was identifying the key stakeholders in each targeted country. ADB’s database of environmental stakeholders was limited on a country-by-country basis. The best approach was to identify an NGO or national consultant with knowledge of the environmental network in the country, and hire them to work closely with us to conduct a stakeholder analysis specific for this activity. As a result, ADB was able to engage an even distribution of stakeholders. Overall, roughly one-third came from government, one-third from non-government organizations, and one-third from all other groups (academe, private sector, donor agencies, research institutions and private citizens).
We found it challenging to identify which stakeholders were interested in contributing and would make a substantive contribution. Based on past experience, some stakeholders were skeptical that their participation would make a difference.
Personal invitations to participate were necessary and key. Of the 632 people who participated in the consultation, only 21 of them were from organizations not invited to respond or attend a workshop. Likewise, ADB received relatively few written (52) comments to the working paper. The majority of comments on the working paper were gathered through the consultation workshops; stakeholders did not have the time or motivation to review such a lengthy and technical document and respond in writing.
A case in point is the unique strategy we used in four countries of the South Pacific. Because it was cost prohibitive to have an ADB environment specialist travel to each country, or bring everyone together on one island, ADB engaged local consultants to help identify stakeholders and send out the two documents and solicit written comments. Forty-eight individuals in the South Pacific nations responded to the overview document but most thought the working paper too long and cumbersome to review independently, given their time constraints. Only 11 responded in writing to the working paper. They would have preferred a “brainstorming” session with colleagues (i.e., the workshop format).
The workshop methodology worked well and most countries followed the standard workshop format or adapted it slightly to suit their needs. Two factors led to higher quality of workshop outputs:
Most of the facilitators were hired locally and were familiar with the participants and subject matter, and trained in participatory processes. The most important part of the workshops were the small groups. Participants prepared for workshop attendance by reading the working paper in advance. In many cases, they felt passionate about what they read, and came ready to critique it. The small group time provided an opportunity for participants to voice their strong views but then to move forward toward constructive comment.
The purpose of breaking workshop participants up into small groups by stakeholder category (government, non-government, private industry and academe) was to be able to compare the comments across stakeholder groups. However, in many cases, the recorders did not provide a detailed accounting of small group work but rather combined the responses. We found it difficult, therefore, to analyze the data by stakeholder grouping.
In general, the quality of the comments received was high, and the comments were helpful in revising the policy paper. The amount of comments received (632) also exceeded expectations. Of particular value was an internal database we developed to capture the comments and assist in generating response letters.
It was difficult to define the scope appropriate for an environment policy. Many participants suggested a greater level of detail that was more appropriate for guidelines rather than a policy. Some participants mentioned the need for certain environmental topics to be addressed that were already included in existing ADB sectoral and cross-cutting policies.
Participants asked that ADB keep them updated on the status of the consultation and revisions to the policy paper. We updated the website periodically, including the latest drafts of the policy paper, and a synthesis of the comments received. At the conclusion of the workshops in October 2001, we analyzed the data anew and wrote a response for each comment. These results were written up in three ways:
This extensive follow-up procedure was difficult but necessary to ensure each participant knew their comments were considered and how.
© 2008 Asian Development Bank Privacy | Terms of Use |
 Top of page |