Sustainable Development

Assessment: Towards Measurable Goals

Grazyna Pulawska

Asia-Europe Foundation

Singapore 21-22 November 2012

Overview

• Introduction • Process • Research scope • Conclusions • Follow up

ASEM process

• The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) was officially established in 1996 at the first summit in Bangkok, Thailand

• ASEM is an interregional forum which consists of the European Commission, the twenty-seven members of the European Union (EU), the thirteen members of the ASEAN Plus three regional groupings

• 2008: India, Mongolia, and Pakistan • 2010: Australia, Russia and New Zealand • 2012: Bangladesh, Norway, and Switzerland

Main components of ASEM process

• Political and security dialogue • Economy • Education and culture • They are so-called three pillars

Asia-Europe Foundation

The Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) promotes greater mutual understanding between Asia and Europe through intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. Through ASEF, civil society concerns are included as a vital component of deliberations of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), which currently comprises of 49 member states plus the European Commission and the ASEAN Secretariat (www.aseminfoboard.org).

Asia-Europe Foundation

ASEF was established in February 1997 by the participating governments of ASEM and has since engaged over 17,000 direct participants through more than 600 projects in the realms of governance and human rights, economy and society, sustainable development and environment, public health, arts and culture and academic co-operation and education. In 2012, ASEF is commemorating its 15th Anniversary and invites everyone to take part in celebrating Connected Histories, Shared Future.

Asia-Europe Environment Forum

• partnership of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), the ASEM SMEs Eco-Innovation Center (ASEIC), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), advisory committee consisting of representatives from UNEP, EU&EEA, ASEAN and recognised think tanks from Asia and Europe

Role of the ENVforum

Asia-Europe Strategies for the Earth Summit

• acting as a bridge between civil society and ASEM governments

• 2-year consultation process • 3 workshops substantiated by research • group of 80 experts involved in the process • Foresight approach to asses IFSD reform options • Outcomes launched during 2 side-events during

Rio+20

workshop in Bangkok

integrating research outcomes assessing all IFSD and IEG options: pros and cons positioning outcomes for Rio+20

2 workshop in Uppsala

presenting outcomes of the first workshop

deepening futures on the base of recent developments in IFSD and IEG

creating alternative option

workshop in Yogyakarta

IFSD&IEG: state of play Megatrends analysis exploring alternative futures

predefined by existing IFSD and IEG options

Research scope A. Creation Sustainable Development Council • A.1. Mapping the existing UN SD structure • A.2. Analysis of the SDC’s place • A.3. Proposing possible structure and functions • A.4. Assessing the civil society participation models including

the need for an accountability framework • A.5. Assessing of the options filtered via scenarios

Research scope Implications of the regional and national SD mechanisms for Vertical Integration • B.1. Mapping existing regional SDC bodies in ASEM • B.2. Assessing the efficiency of existing structures and

choosing the best practices examples • B.3. Analysis of a potential level SDC’s place in the existing

structure • B.4. Analysis of national models for SD structures in ASEM

countries and choosing the best practices • B.5. Assessing the possible civil society participation models

Research scope Analysis of Asian and European positions on strengthening International Environmental Governance • C.1. Upgrading UNEP – practical implications related with

competences and global membership • C.2. Upgrading UNEP – legal aspects of mandate change:

UNEO or WEO. • C.3. Options of governance structure and possible organs of

IEG body • C.4. Funding mechanisms proposals • C.5. Identification of common positions and opportunities for

further dialogue in ASEM based on submissions and further negotiation positions.

Research team

• Ms. Ella Antonio, President, Earth Council Asia Pacific; • Dr. Ingeborg Niestroy, PublicStrategy for Sustainable

Development • Mr. Simon Høiberg Olsen, Policy Researcher, Governance and

Capacity Group, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies;

• Mr. Ruben Zondervan, Executive Director, the Earth System Governance Project;

• Mr. Christer Holtsberg and Ms. Georgia Noaro from the Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP) at the Asian Institute of Technology

Focus points

• Focus on the sustainable development • Asia-Europe lenses • Civil Society involvement • Access to information • SD and IEG – coordination system • Looking at the Rio+20 outcomes

General recommendations • There is an urgent need to update the existing system of the IFSD to

enable it to deal with current and emerging challenges. • There are a host of large systemic problems that need to be dealt

with to effectuate behavioural change and change the course of global development.

• Strengthening the environmental dimension and reforming the IFSD are not mutually exclusive undertakings.

• Integrating the dimensions of sustainable development requires prolonged attention and effort from highest-level line ministries of all sectors on national, regional and global levels.

• National planning can create positive incentives for a wider involvement from the bottom-up by including SDGs throughout line ministries’ portfolios, that will also ensure their participation at the intergovernmental level.

Summary of findings: SDGs

• the implementation of SDGs needs to be discussed and agreed upon at regional levels (by regional, sub-regional bodies, etc.),

• once integrated at the national levels, ensuring common but differentiated responsibilities is crucial

• non-state entities such as civil societies and business councils, etc. must be consulted in the formulation of SDGs

• ideal participation should be proportional (formula should integrate local realities)

• non state actors should be accountable to public

Summary of findings: SDGs

• National SDGs targets are to be set by countries • targets should be measurable (including deliverables

and milestones) • policy review mechanisms should be in place to

enable peer review (ensuring independent monitoring)

Summary of findings: civil society

• a guiding framework should be established • it must include, among others, mandatory

participation of non-state actors in planning and policymaking at all levels

• guidelines for representation • accountability systems and procedures • maintenance of independence

Summary of findings: regional and national measures

• set up a platform for co-ordination and knowledge sharing among sub-regions or across regions since current mechanisms are confined within regions and within sub-regions (ASEM as possible mechanism to explore)

• establish systems and procedures that would improve enforcement and compliance of global agreements

• monitoring and evaluation of performance of nations and sub-global bodies in complying with said agreements

Summary of findings: regional and national measures

• strengthen nsd mechanisms by addressing issues and challenges that beset them foremost of which are inadequate participation of non-state actors

• clarify functions and focus areas of co-ordinating mechanisms at each level (the subsidiarity principle)

• strengthen the existing political and administrative mechanisms for vertical and horizontal coordination

Summary of findings: regional and national measures

• provide access to adequate and sustained financing for NCSDs including for its nonstate members

• build capacity especially of national sustainable development bodies, by strengthening technical and substantive inputs, providing venue for exchange of knowledge and experiences, meetings and joint project

• establish an Asia-Pacific Principle 10 Convention to ensure stakeholders’ access to information and allow them to contribute substantively to policy and decision making

Enabling conditions

• increasing public awareness and education • developing skilled human resources • disseminating information on good practices • creating the appropriate financial mechanisms

(policy level eg. incentives, green tax etc.)

Follow up 2013- 2015 • continuation of research on SDGs in ASEM countries

– knowledge management – information tailored to target group – multi-stakeholder consultation

• proposing a set of SDGs indicators on the regional level Specifically: • what do SDGs mean for ASEM countries • how it translates into strategies at the national level • what are the implementation mechanisms • how the bodies responsible could cooperate • how to ensure connection & consistency with other policies

Conclusions

• Informal process can help to create awareness and provides room for discussion of various suggestions

• Input from civil society provides valuable knowledge from practical experiences and should be heard on political level

• Spin-offs from high-level bi-regional events can lead to practical policy implementation on a national or even local level

• Supranational institutions equipped with sufficient resources, a certain power to act and make decisions, can provide a suitable institutional framework to deal with international/trans-national problems