Impact assessment and the ASEAN Economic Community:

A way forward for regional collaboration

Regional Workshop – Summary Report

Hilton Hanoi Opera Hotel, Vietnam

12-13 May 2015

ii

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................. iv

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Workshop Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2

1. Day One, 12 May 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Opening of the Meeting ....................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Plenary Presentations .......................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Breakout Group Discussions and Plenary Discussion of Initial Findings .............................. 5

2. Day Two, 13 May 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Plenary Presentations .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Breakout Group Discussions and Plenary Presentations ..................................................... 8

2.3. Country Group Discussions and Plenary Presentations .................................................... 10

2.4 Closing ................................................................................................................................ 16

Annex I. Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................................... 18

Annex II. Draft Terms of Reference for the Mekong Regional Technical Working Group on Public

Participation in Environment Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 19

iii

Executive summary

The Mekong Partnership for the Environment (MPE) in partnership with Vietnam’s Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement

Network (AECEN), and other partners carried out a workshop for invited government and civil

society representatives from 12 to 13 May 2015 at the Hilton Hanoi Opera Hotel in Vietnam.

Approximately 40 participants attended from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam,

including: government staff from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) departments and related

ministries, such as the ministry of finance and planning, ministry of mining, etc.; representatives of

non-governmental and civil society organizations; international and regional EIA practitioners; and

academics.

The objectives of the meeting were as follows: to discuss and reach agreement on the establishment

of the Mekong Regional Technical Working Group (MRTWG) for EIA, with an initial emphasis on

public participation; to develop a Terms of Reference (TOR) and an overall road map for the MRTWG

to guide its implementation; to formulate criteria and roles and responsibilities for membership in

the group; and to determine an action plan for the development of a regional EIA guideline as a first

task of the MRTWG.

During the workshop, participants were briefed on current practices and laws in the Mekong region

pertaining to public participation in EIA processes. Presentations on the current legal framework for

public participation in EIA were made by government representatives of each of the five

participating countries. Participants were also informed of the findings of a comparative analysis of

EIA in the Mekong region, in addition to the results of an online survey of EIA practitioners

conducted by AECEN and MPE. The plenary was also briefed on best practices of public participation

in the EIA process. The presentations provided context and inputs into the task of the proposed

MRTWG to formulate regional guidelines on public participation in EIA.

In addition to plenary presentations, the workshop featured breakout sessions in which the

participants met in small groups to discuss and debate the scope and overarching goal of the

MRTWG. The groups were composed of a mix of government and civil society representatives from

different countries. Each small group formulated and proposed options for the goal and related

objectives of the MRTWG. Afterward, the plenary group reviewed and discussed the proposed ideas.

Further small group exercises were conducted to formulate suggestions for the tasks of the MRTWG,

the roles and responsibilities, membership qualifications, profile of potential expert advisors to the

MRTWG, and the next steps to officially establish the MRTWG. Following each small group exercise,

the results were presented to the plenary group for evaluation and discussion. Representatives of

MPE led the plenary discussions and synthesized the participant’s ideas into the draft TOR for the

group, annexed as an attachment to this report. Meeting participants are requested to review and

comment on the draft TOR as a follow up action item following the workshop.

In the weeks ahead, MPE will finalize the TOR and request membership nominations from

governments and applications for membership from civil society according to the criteria developed

by the workshop participants. The aim is to fully operationalize the MRTWG in advance of its first

meeting planned for September 2015.

iv

Abbreviations and acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

AEC ASEAN Economic Community

AECEN Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CSO civil society organization

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

IEE Initial Environmental Examination/Evaluation

IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

MPE Mekong Partnership for the Environment

MRTWG Mekong Regional Technical Working Group

ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning

NGO non-governmental organization

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

TOR Terms of Reference

USAID United States Agency for International Development

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

1

Background

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 is expected to boost a single regional market and

production base, increase competitiveness for the region, promote equitable economic

development, and further integrate its ten member states into the global economy. The ASEAN

Economic Community Blueprint1 highlights an urgent need to simplify, harmonize, and standardize

trade and customs processes and procedures to facilitate the free flow of goods, services,

investment, capital and skilled labor in the region. However, without effective social and

environmental protections in place, increased investments and trade may result in unintended

consequences leading to accelerated deterioration of the region’s rich natural resources, the

foundation for sustained economic growth. In its drive to achieve regional economic integration,

ASEAN remains committed to finding a balance among economic growth, social development, and

environmental sustainability for sustainable development.2

One important tool in support of sustainable development is Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA), which has been legally established and applied in all ASEAN Member States for avoiding,

mitigating, and managing social and environmental issues resulting from any significant

development activity. There is currently a wave of reform efforts related to EIA occurring across the

Mekong sub-region: for example, Myanmar is in the process of developing its first EIA procedures;

Cambodia is in the process of drafting a new EIA law; Laos is developing EIA technical guidelines;

Vietnam’s new environmental protection law took effect in early 2015; and there are ongoing

discussions about reforming Thailand’s EIA processes. These trends highlight a timely opportunity to

collectively advance and strengthen regional EIA policies and practices and their contribution to

sustainable development.

In December 2014 in Bangkok, the Mekong Partnership for the Environment (MPE)3 together with

the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) and partners hosted a

regional workshop on “Environmental Impact Assessment Policy and Practice in the Mekong Region”

bringing together nearly 50 government and civil society representatives and EIA practitioners.4 The

event helped to identify priorities for regional cooperation on EIA, including the potential to

establish a regional framework at the regional (e.g. ASEAN) level, develop standard guidelines for

meaningful public participation and stakeholder engagement in EIA, and foster a regional

community of practice to expand cooperation and strengthen public participation in EIA processes as

a means to contribute to sustainable development.

To advance these recommendations, MPE in partnership with Vietnam’s Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment (MONRE), AECEN, and other partners organized a follow-up workshop

for invited government and civil society representatives in Hanoi, Vietnam on 12-13 May 2015.

1 http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf 2 Bangkok Resolution on ASEAN Environmental Cooperation, 2012 3 http://www.pactworld.org/local-updates/mekong-partnership-environment 4 http://www.aecen.org/events/environmental-impact-assessment-policy-and-practice-mekong-region-safeguarding-sustainable-de

2

Workshop Summary

1. Day One, 12 May 2015

The regional workshop on Impact assessment and the ASEAN Economic Community: A way forward

for regional collaboration was convened in Hanoi on 12-13 May 2015. Mr. Barry Flaming,

Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, served as moderator of the workshop.

1.1 Opening of the Meeting

Dr. Mai Thanh Dzung, Deputy Director of the Vietnam Environment Administration, welcomed the

participants to Hanoi and thanked them for their participation in the regional workshop. He spoke of

the development of EIA law in Vietnam, beginning with the first EIA law passed in 1993, leading up

to the new law on environmental protection enacted in 2014. The new law harmonizes protections

and regulations to achieve the goal of conserving natural resources and fighting against climate

change as the region undergoes rapid development. There is a great need for regional collaboration

on social and environmental priorities to build a strong future. The forthcoming ASEAN Economic

Community will create even more need and momentum for a regional approach to public

participation in EIA.

One goal of this workshop is to move beyond traditional ways of thinking and create a strong and

reliable process for regional collaboration on development projects. Creating a platform will help to

increase cooperation between stakeholder groups on social and environmental goals. To be

successful, this process needs the full support of all participants and stakeholders. Dr. Dzung

expressed his wish that the meeting would advance sustainable development in the region and lead

to strong collaboration across the Mekong region in the months ahead.

Mr. Joakim Parker, Mission Director, USAID Vietnam welcomed the participants on behalf of the

United States Embassy and USAID and commended Vietnam’s recent law on environmental

protection. He noted that economic growth and environmental protection are linked. As

investments are made in infrastructure development for energy, transport and agriculture, stronger

enforcement and implementation of regulations will be required to protect the environment. He

stressed the need for regional thinking to address challenges with regional impact, while also

acknowledging the need for local and national governments to address challenges at those levels. At

this time, there is a window of opportunity to improve EIA processes and to include participation in

the approach to development.

He noted the need to share practical experience across the region. MPE is part of the regional

program to support participation and engagement between government, the private sector and

CSOs. Partners in USEPA, the United States Embassy, and MPE will continue to support public

participation in EIA processes.

3

1.2 Plenary Presentations

Ms. Christy Owen, Chief of Party, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, welcomed the

participants on behalf of Pact and MPE. Changes in the region, including those associated with the

ASEAN Economic Community will increase the demand for resources and will challenge institutions

and individuals to find sustainable solutions. Although government and civil society have different

perspectives in some regards, they agree on the importance of regional cooperation, sound social

and environmental safeguards, and meaningful public participation. These three themes are key to

sustainable economic growth in the Lower Mekong sub-region. MPE aims to build strong

partnerships, promote meaningful participation, and increase access to information to encourage

constructive engagement between government, civil society, and the private sector. MPE provides a

platform to build partnerships around a common agenda and adds value by drawing on expertise in

the region to promote constructive engagement.

MPE recently conducted a survey of more than 100 individuals, primarily government, on challenges

of EIA processes in the region. The findings revealed that: (1) public participation in EIA processes is

low at all stages; and (2) EIA policy processes need to involve other ministries because of the close

link between development, impact assessment and investment. Government and non-governmental

stakeholders support increased public participation.

Regional cooperation toward an EIA standard or guideline should be characterized by voluntary

cooperation; agreement between government, civil society and business; and national buy-in to

regional agreements. A regional working group, convened with influential individuals, can promote a

common agenda. The aim of the present meeting is to go through that process and form a multi-

stakeholder working group to discuss, engage, and agree on a foundation for increased participation

and partnership in the region.

Mr. Toshizo Maeda, Regional Director, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, emphasized

the importance of EIA in the development process. In some cases in the past, great economic growth

resulted in severe environmental degradation. From those experiences, people have learned that

environmental resources must be protected and preserved. AECEN, a strong network for

environmental compliance and enforcement, supports ongoing peer-to-peer partnerships (twinning)

to support and strengthen EIA processes in the region. AECEN also maintains an online compendium

of EIA-related laws, regulations, references, relevant news and information for its member

countries.

Public participation in EIA processes is a clear priority in the region. Mr. Maeda expressed the hope

that the meeting would constitute a step toward establishing regional guidelines for public

participation in EIA processes.

Dr. Vong Sok, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, began by describing EIA as a systemic

process for decision-making. EIA processes aim to identify alternatives, and avoid, mitigate and

manage problems. EIA processes should be participatory, and provide opportunities to learn,

document, share knowledge. Stakeholders in the EIA process should cooperate, build trust and work

together to bring about sustainable social, environmental and economic development.

4

The objective of the meeting is to develop a terms of reference (TOR) for the Mekong Regional

Technical Working Group and determine an action plan and next steps to establish the guidelines for

EIA participation. Participants in the meeting will go through a five-step process to discuss and

define the goal and objectives, tasks and roles and responsibilities, and membership criteria of the

Technical Working Group, and outline national and regional actions to follow up with.

Mr. Matthew Baird, Environmental Counsel, provided an overview of key principles of EIA. The aim

of EIA is to promote sustainable development, defined in a 1987 report as development that

improves total quality of life and considers future impact and relationship between people and the

environment. EIA is a process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating biophysical, social

and other relevant effects of proposed projects and physical activities prior to major decisions and

commitments being made.

In the Lower Mekong region, EIA is usually for large projects or for protected areas (resources or

indigenous communities). Permits and concessions should not be granted until after the EIA and

review process has been completed and approved. Enforcement and compliance are essential so

that the EIA process results in environmental preservation and protection.

Mr. Baird shared the following key EIA principles, based on international best practice and review of

relevant laws in the Mekong region.

1. Proponent bears the cost of application and assessment.

2. Genuine and meaningful public participation at all stages of the process.

3. Access to information by civil society and government

4. Legally established clear and effective process

5. Best available scientific information

6. Open and evidence-based decision making

7. Effective monitoring, compliance and enforcement

The comparative review of EIA laws in the Mekong region revealed that most countries have a two-

or three-tiered system including EIA, IEE, and an option where no review is required. Thailand has a

system that includes assessing the impact on health for specific projects. The review also found that

scoping is not a formal stage of the EIA process in every country, and some countries lacked clear

guidelines in the local languages. Some processes were too complex or did not specify what kinds of

information would be shared and with whom. Finally, many EIA processes end with approval and do

not continue into monitoring and compliance during the implementation of the project, and EIA

departments may not be able to follow up to ensure compliance.

Guidelines for public participation should focus on specific issues such as timing of public

consultations, information that should be made available and number of meetings, the proponent’s

reporting requirements, and the involvement of local communities in monitoring and compliance.

Although EIA processes are complex, the focus can stay on three areas: screening/scoping,

assessment, and monitoring, enforcement and compliance.

Checklists are needed so that overwhelmed EIA units can easily see if the EIA consultant has fulfilled

the basic requirements and addressed key issues. Communities need to be engaged within the

5

environmental management plan so they know what the proponent is doing and so they can be

informed about how environmental compliance will work. One option is to share the draft

environmental management plan (EMP) with communities and revise according to community

consultation. Focusing on screening can help to get all relevant parties involved early in the process

and can improve the decisions and outcomes.

Mr. Hai Nghiem, Department of Environmental Impact Assessment and Appraisal, Vietnam

Environment Administration, gave a detailed review of the history and development of EIA in

Vietnam. Using diagrams illustrating the current EIA system, Mr. Nghiem explained that the EIA

review and appraisal process is carried out by a panel of ten people who conduct the official review.

If they approve, a permit will be granted for the project. The current EIA system in Vietnam

delegates power from the central level to the provincial, district or commune level, depending on

the project. Line ministries are also involved based on the kind of project (health transport,

information and communications and ministry of public security).

Over the past decade, Vietnam’s legislation on EIA has become more comprehensive. The 2014 Law

on Environmental Protection introduced a new concept for national level planning and provided for

more extensive biodiversity impact assessment. Public consultations are now more comprehensive,

and a certification system for EIA practitioners has been introduced.

1.3 Breakout Group Discussions and Plenary Discussion of Initial Findings

Mr. Barry Flaming, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, provided an outline of the

workshop’s approach to formulating the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the technical working group on

public participation in EIA processes in the Lower Mekong sub-region. He explained that the plenary

would divide into five breakout groups, each composed of approximately eight meeting participants,

including representatives of civil society and government from each of the five participating

countries, as well as representatives of international organizations. Facilitators provided by MPE

were designated to lead the discussion in each breakout group. The small size of the breakout

groups enabled greater participation in the process and more discussion of various aspects of the

TOR of the proposed technical working group.

The first task of the breakout groups was to discuss and propose options for the goal of the technical

working group, and to identify possible objectives for the group to pursue. The groups met for

approximately one hour, and each group created proposals on the goal and objectives. The

participants then had the opportunity to view and discuss the proposals of each of the other groups.

The plenary reconvened, and Mr. Flaming led the participants in a discussion of the proposed goal

and objectives and participants engaged in the opportunity to debate different options. .

The participants also discussed the proposed objectives toward the goal of the technical working

group. The participants proposed a number of possibilities, which were revised and synthesized into

the following three objectives for the purposes of further discussion:

1. Develop regional guidelines for public participation in EIA;

6

2. Promote information sharing on best practices in EIA; and

3. Develop a monitoring framework/mechanism for implementation.

After the plenary discussion of the goal and objectives, the breakout groups reconvened to discuss

the possible tasks of the working group related to each of the three objectives, and to discuss roles

and responsibilities related to those tasks. For approximately one hour, the breakout groups

discussed tasks and roles and responsibilities, and prepared proposals to share with the other

breakout groups. Before the plenary reconvened, each breakout group had the opportunity to view

and discuss the proposals of the other groups.

The first day of the workshop was concluded following this exercise.

2. Day Two, 13 May 2015

The workshop reconvened on the second day the further discuss and define the proposed TOR of

the Technical Working Group. Mr. Barry Flaming, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment,

served as moderator of the workshop.

2.1 Plenary Presentations

Ms. Robin Coursen, United States Environmental Protection Agency, provided an overview of best

practices in public participation in EIA processes, based on experience in the United States.

Meaningful public participation in EIA processes should be done early, often, and should include all

stakeholders in a process that informs and educates the public. The process should give the public a

voice and should result in better decision-making and results. When science, technology and

engineering fail to protect the environment, measures to mitigate the damage can be very costly,

and meaningful public participation in EIA can help prevent those costly failures.

It is important to ensure that all parties to public participation in EIA processes understand the

purpose of participation, but this can be a challenge when the vision, goals and expectations of each

group differ. To lead to better development outcomes and local buy-in, participatory processes must

build on common ground and common interests.

Ms. Coursen presented tools to aid in public participation processes and negotiations, including the

Public Participation Spectrum developed by the International Association for Public Participation

(IA2P). The Spectrum outlines degrees of participation according to the capacity of the public to

influence the decision and the promise made to the public for each level (see Figure 1). It can be a

useful tool in designing the strategy for public engagement and ensuring that involved stakeholders

understand the degree of impact the public will have on the decision.

7

Figure 1. Public Participation Spectrum

In addition, stakeholders in participatory processes must understand the audience’s values and

expectations, in addition to their level of education. Public participation implementers must be

aware of language or socioeconomic barriers to public participation. They must be responsive and

sincere to build trust and work toward a common objective.

As the proposed working group begins to formulate regional guidelines on public participation in EIA

processes, they should consider the communication tools, strategies and methods that will help

engage local communities. It may be necessary to conduct a situation assessment to determine the

right level of public participation, given the other factors in the EIA process.

Mr. Barry Flaming, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, gave an overview of the results of

the first day of the workshop and summarized the progress made so far toward defining the TOR of

the Technical Working Group. He then led a discussion on the proposed tasks and roles and

responsibilities of the working group.

Participants debated different approaches to drafting the guidelines and the potential to involve

consultants in the process. Some participants felt the roles and responsibilities of the working group

were to provide inputs to the guidelines, but that the drafting should be assigned to a consultant.

Other participants confirmed that the technical working group should have oversight, but that an

individual should be designated to draft the guidelines. A group of national consultants and a

regional consultant could work together to ensure that each country context is taken into

8

consideration and reflected in the regional guidelines. Nevertheless, other participants expressed

support for a collaborative drafting process involving only the working group. This approach would

enable the participants to share knowledge and learn from each other.

One participant commented that the technical working group should have four key roles: (i) planning

the TOR for the drafting the guidelines; (ii) providing input and experience; (iii) reviewing draft

iterations; and (iv) communicating and advocating to stakeholders. The participant suggested that

MPE could play a role as a facilitator of the discussions with relevant experts during the drafting

process.

Participants also discussed the timeline and the potential for the working group to have longer term

functions.

In preparation for additional breakout group discussions, Dr. Vong Sok, Pact/Mekong Partnership for

the Environment, presented a short summary of the results of the online survey conducted by MPE

and AECEN in February. The purpose of the Survey was to help inform this workshop and to validate

other research conducted on regional collaboration on public participation in EIA. Respondents were

asked to rate various criteria for membership in the proposed technical working group. The highest

rated criteria were experience with public participation and technical expertise in EIA. Another

question asked who should be part of the technical working group, to which respondents showed

the greatest support for representatives of government EIA agencies, NGOs and academics and

researchers. There was also strong support for representatives of other government departments

and multilateral financial institutions. Respondents were asked how many people should participate

in the proposed technical working group. Some 20% preferred a size of 21-30 people, 24% preferred

a size of 5-10 people, while 56% preferred a group of 11-20 people.

The data gathered from the survey, along with the results of the workshop, will feed into the

formation of the technical working group.

2.2 Breakout Group Discussions and Plenary Presentations

Following the presentations, the plenary divided into five breakout groups, composed of a different

mix of meeting participants than the previous day. Nevertheless, the groups had a balance of

representatives of civil society and government from each of the five participating countries, as well

as representatives of international organizations. Facilitators provided by MPE were designated to

lead the discussion in each breakout group.

The task of the breakout groups during this session was to discuss and propose options for the

membership criteria of the working group and to consider the qualifications and desired expertise of

external technical advisors to the working group. The groups met for approximately one hour, and

each group created proposals on the membership criteria of the working group and the kind of

technical advisors to the group that would be most useful. The participants then had the opportunity

to view and discuss the proposals of each of the other groups before the plenary reconvened.

9

Ms. Guadalupe Lagrada, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, provided a summary and

synthesis of the breakout group discussions on membership criteria and the profile of expert

advisors for the technical working group.

The proposed general qualifications for membership in the technical working group included the

following:

3-5 years of experience;

Competency in English and the national language;

Status as a representative of a key stakeholder such as line ministries, business associations

(chambers of commerce), and CSO or NGOs organization/agency (the prospective member

should represent the agency, not her/his own interests);

Commitment to the tasks of the TWG;

Strong connection and network with policymakers;

At least one member from each country should have legal or policy development

experience; and

Good understanding of the Mekong regional context.

The participants proposed that government representatives should have at least 5 years of

experience in public participation in EIA, legal expertise and influence in decision making.

Representatives of the Ministry of Environment or the EIA department should be nominated by the

director or deputy director.

The participants proposed that each country’s membership should reflect gender balance and other

aspects of proportionality and that there should be fair representation of different groups. Countries

should consider nominating alternates to fill in for members if needed.

The participants proposed that the profile of experts and external advisers to the technical working

group include the following:

Facilitation skills and good communication skills—hard and soft skills, understanding of

consultation tools and techniques;

Neutral or independent views, no agenda;

No geographic limitation;

Legal experts who understand trans-boundary issues;

8-10 years of experience;

Ability to represent indigenous groups or demographic groups;

6 years advisory experience;

Practical experience on projects in the Mekong region;

Policy process experience; and

Good professional reputation.

Participants expressed particular interest in engaging expert researchers, academics and scientists to

advise the group, in addition to representatives of US EPA, UNDP, or other organizations with the

capacity to review specific issues or provide targeted expertise. They also envisioned an advisory

10

role for project proponents, and developers, representatives of development banks and members of

EIA communities of practice.

The group proposed 5-10 external advisors could be engaged to support the TWG on a short term

basis. While a small number of experts could be engaged as permanent advisors to the technical

working group, a pool of additional advisors could be drawn from as needed.

2.3. Country Group Discussions and Plenary Presentations

Following the plenary discussion, the participants divided again into five breakout groups, composed

this time by nationality. Representatives of civil society and government met together in country

groups to discuss the process to select or nominate the members of the technical working group

(government and non-government) and to outline three concrete steps that could be taken at the

national level to establish the working group. The groups met for approximately one hour, and each

group created a short presentation for the plenary group on the steps they would undertake

following the workshop.

In addition to the presentations of membership criteria and next steps at the country level,

government representatives of each participating country were invited to share a brief presentation

on their national EIA laws and procedures.

Thailand

What is the process to select or nominate the members of the working group?

Government representatives should be nominated from the Office of Natural Resources and

Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) or MONRE. MPE should send a letter to the Minister

requesting that he/she delegate or nominate a representative to participate in the group, and select

alternates.

To ensure a transparent and credible screening process, NGO membership in the working group

should be restricted to credible NGOs registered with MONRE, the Department of Environmental

Quality Promotion (DEQP), or the Coordinating Committee of NGOs.

To engage others, including academics and EIA researchers, MPE can make a call for applications

through media channels in collaboration MONRE. MPE is responsible to establish a selection

committee and carry out the selection process.

What are three actions that you can take to follow up at the national level?

Following the meeting, MPE will summarize the meeting notes and send request letter to MONRE

and identify ONEP as MPE’s implementing agency.

1. Request MONRE to nominate representatives;

2. Request ONEP to coordinate with MPE to identify suitable academics; and

11

3. Request ONEP to coordinate with DEQP and the Coordinating Committee of NGOs to review

information.

Presentation on EIA in Thailand

Law and regulations on EIA in Thailand date back to 1975. Since then, regulations have been enacted

to address more than 36 types of EIA. There are general guidelines along with sector and specific

guidelines for EIA approval, including assessment processes for health impacts. Different rules apply

when assessment of health impacts are required. EIA approvals and rejections are decided by

committee, and Thailand has nine expert review committees for different sectors. Committees

include technical experts on air pollution, risk assessment, etc. EIA reform efforts are aiming at

decentralization and encouraging public participation.

Efforts are made to ensure that various stages of the EIA process do not exceed specified

timeframes. Approval or disapproval is an administrative order. If the EIA report is rejected, the

proponent may revise and resubmit it within 30 days. Monitoring reports are submitted twice a

year, and a smart phone application has been developed for monitoring.

Cambodia

What is the process to select or nominate the members of the working group?

The participants proposed that two of Cambodia’s members of the working group should represent

the government, two should represent CSOs and one should represent academia. The participants

agreed that they should aim for gender balance.

The process for selecting government representatives should begin with a request from MPE to the

Ministry of Environment (MoE) to nominate two candidates. MoE will request the Ministry of

Economy and Finance/Council for the Development of Cambodia to nominate a focal point, using

existing mechanisms.

The selection process for CSO representatives should begin with the NGO Forum on Cambodia,

which will draft bullet points of selection for CSO members of the working group. MPE would take

part in the final selection and decision.

Academics from the following institutions should be invited to apply for membership: Royal

University of Phnom Penh; the Royal University of Agriculture; Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia;

Institute of Technology of Cambodia; and the Cambodia Development Resource Institute. MPE

should facilitate a call for applications and inform prospective candidates of the selection process.

What are three actions that you can take to follow up at the national level?

The participants proposed the following actions:

1. Hold meetings every three months at MoE;

2. Conduct consultations, reviews and workshops;

12

3. Conduct and publish research;

4. Collect and share data;

5. Monitor and evaluate;

6. Pilot guidelines; and

7. Support national guideline development.

Presentation on EIA in Cambodia

Laws on environmental protection in Cambodia were included in the 1993 Constitution, and

additional laws were enacted in 1996, 1999, and 2008 on Protected Area Management and bio-

safety. During the process of drafting the new EIA law, input was requested from different

stakeholders through workshops in partnership with Vishnu Law Group. The law was revised in an

iterative process based on consultations, which encouraged participation in the decision-making

process. The new draft EIA law includes requirements for social and environmental assessment and

health impact assessment, climate change risk assessment, and an assessment of the cumulative

impact and trans-boundary impact. It also provides penalties and fines for non-compliance. MoE is

empowered to close projects if implementation is unsatisfactory.

The structure of MoE has changed over time. The new structure includes departments for

knowledge and information, EIA, conservation, administration and the National Council of

Sustainable Development.

Going forward, there is an initiative to develop an environmental code for Cambodia. The initiative

has three pillars: (i) environmental protection; (ii) biodiversity conservation and protection; and (iii)

management of cultural heritage. The code would include general principles and objectives (polluter

pays, precautionary principle, etc.), environmental management systems (new EIA law: framework

for all sectors and government-wide institutions), sector by sector analysis (to identify key issues for

revising) and implementation and unifying provisions.

Lao PDR

What is the process to select or nominate the members of the working group?

The process for selecting government representatives should begin with MPE sending the TOR and

membership criteria to MONRE. MONRE will nominate representatives of relevant departments.

Pact will work directly with the departments and the Ministry.

MPE will facilitate a separate process for CSO and NGO representatives. A direct selection process is

envisioned, including informing MOHA of the selection decision if required.

What are three actions that you can take to follow up at the national level?

1. Government members of the technical working group will write reports to the Government

according to the action plan; and

2. CSO/NGO members of the technical working group will report to MOHA and Pact/MPE.

13

Presentation on EIA in Lao PDR

Under the current system, ministerial instructions guide Initial Environmental

Examination/Evaluation (IEE) and Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) processes. The

instructions pertain to companies investing in Lao and outline duties and responsibilities. The

company must avoid negative environmental and social impacts, minimize, mitigate, compensate,

and provide restoration when impacts are unavoidable. At the screening stage, investment projects

are differentiated by their impact. The IEE process is undertaken by provincial Departments of

Natural Resources and Environment in consultation with MONRE. The more intensive ESIA process is

guided by ministerial instructions and applies to large projects. The process is carried out by an

environmental consultant.

The Government is taking steps to encourage participation in ESIA processes, including CSOs and

affected persons. Affected communities have access to grievance mechanisms, and the

Resettlement Decree is being revised. Public involvement guidelines will be issued in 2015 and a new

law is being drafted.

Vietnam

What is the process to select or nominate the members of the working group?

The process for selecting government representatives should begin with MPE sending a letter to

MONRE, the EIA Department, and the Legal Department requesting those entities to assign specific

experts to the working group and to give a full commitment to participate and fulfill the duty of

membership.

The process for selecting NGO representatives should be based on the criteria used to select experts.

Experts interested in working in TWG should apply on their own behalf.

What are three actions that you can take to follow up at the national level?

1. Organize a meeting among national stakeholders to discuss and brainstorm about the

technical working group at the regional level;

2. Set up national technical working group including government and CSOs; and

3. Raise funds to support the functions of the technical working group.

Presentation on EIA in Vietnam

The plenary was briefed on EIA in Vietnam on the first day of the workshop. A summary of the

presentation is available on page 5 of this report.

14

Myanmar

What is the process to select or nominate the members of the working group?

The process for selecting government representatives should begin with MPE formally requesting

the Environmental Conservation Department (ECD) of the Ministry of Environmental Conservation

and Forestry (MOECAF) to nominate representatives to serve on the technical working group. ECD

should consult with line ministries on the nomination.

The process for selecting NGO/CSO representatives should begin by informing CSO through existing

networks in Myanmar to request self-nomination of representatives of appropriate organizations

(i.e. MATA, Food Security Working Group, Land Core Group, Mining Association, etc.). MPE could

hold CSO meetings to solicit nominations and should seek comments from CSOs on early

nominations. Joint meetings could be held between CSOs and MOECAF/ECD, line ministries and

academics.

What are three actions that you can take to follow up at the national level?

1. Introduce the technical working group concept to existing national body (Environment

Sector Working Group);

2. Hold a national level joint meeting and develop the national level working plan/schedule;

and

3. Nominate the representatives from the government, CSOs and academia.

Presentation on EIA in Myanmar

In 2012 and 2014 laws were passed to improve EIA systems and Myanmar will soon release the final

draft of a new EIA procedure. Technical support was provided by the Asian Development Bank. The

proponent is obliged to arrange “appropriate” public consultations. Disclosure of information is

required and must be timely, and can be made available through the internet, libraries, and so on.

The process must consider the views of stakeholders and affected people, and results should be

used to design mitigation measures. During the review and approval process, the proponent should

collect and review all comments and recommendations including those of the EIA report review

body.

The monitoring report must be provided in a digital format. Myanmar is also engaged in regional

collaboration on EIA in the Mekong and with ASEAN through meetings and other consultations.

15

Ms. Christy Owen, Chief of Party, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, reviewed the

achievements of the two-day workshop, including defining a scope of work for the months ahead

and the following objectives:

1. Develop regional guidelines for public participation in EIA;

2. Promote information sharing on best practices in EIA; and

3. Develop a monitoring framework/mechanism for implementation.

The participants in the workshop demonstrated their commitment to the process of establishing the

technical working group. When finalizing the TOR, and drafting letters to government bodies, MPE

will ensure that communications conform to the requirements of each country.

The anticipated process toward achieving those objectives is summarized in the table below.

Task Timeframe

Finalize draft TOR and membership criteria with workshop inputs Early-June

Circulate for comment Mid-June

Finalize TOR and membership criteria End of June

Send letters to countries/ministries; Establish application process for NGOs; Government and NGOs respond to MPE

July

Convene first meeting of technical working group September

If the first formal TWG meeting takes place in September as anticipated, the working group will have

at least a year and a half to develop and finalize the guidelines and potentially pilot them in different

sites. MPE will aim to meet the proposed illustrative timeline as outlined in Figure 2. Some national

meetings have already been named by participants in this meeting as steps they can take to follow

up on this workshop.

Figure 2. Illustrative Timeline

16

MPE will support formal TWG meetings listed on the illustrative timeline. Some resources may also

support country meetings. Furthermore, MPE will provide a minimum of 2-3 technical advisors to

guide to the group. A website, “Mekong Citizen”, will be launched to facilitate conversation and

information exchange, and to serve as a platform to share and build towards the common goal of

creating a public participation guideline.

It might be a challenge for some organizations to be ready for the first meeting in September, but all

participants were encouraged to help make this happen quickly, both for governments and CSOs.

Clear guidelines on participation can reduce confusion and lead to concrete action. The working

group can help to achieve results and improve conservation and environmental protection. If they

are not designed with great care, laws and guidelines can distract from that purpose. They must be

focused on the impact of proposed projects. Stakeholders in the process must maintain a clear

understanding of the purpose of participation and should resist viewing participation as just another

administrative burden. Ms. Owen expressed the hope that the process ahead would retain a clear

emphasis on the desired result and would not be lost amid the focus on establishing guidelines.

2.4 Closing

Mr. Pham Anh Dung, Deputy Director General, Vietnam Environment Administration, expressed his

thanks for inputs and efforts in the sessions, particularly to USAID, US EPA, AECEN, Pact and other

partners for helping to move this initiative forward. This is a critical time, because of MPE’s support

but also integration through AEC. The workshop provided an important step for Mekong countries to

prepare for economic integration. He urged the participants in the workshop to take steps in each

country to implement the tasks identified in group discussions and collaborate as a region on joint

guidelines. The success of the working group and the guidelines it formulates will be based on the

success of implementation.

Mr. Toshizo Maeda, Regional Director, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, observed that a

clear direction for the working group had been formed during the workshop proceedings. He

expressed the hope that the initiative would take root in each participating nation and influence

national policies in neighboring regions. He applauded Pact for its efforts to bring about this

meeting. He invited all the participants to make use of the AECEN Compendium of EIA-related

documents, news and relevant documents, to supplement the information that will be available

through “Mekong Citizen”.

Mr. Iain Watson, Asian Development Bank, commented that the creation of regional guidelines is

very relevant to ADB’s work in the region. ADB supports country-level strengthening of safeguard

requirements. As shown by the presentations on national EIA practice, countries in the region are

strengthening their laws, and although implementation is still difficult, it is improving. Development

banks and other partners are developing best practices in public participation in EIA processes in the

region through a community of practice, which is related to MPE’s effort to establish this technical

working group. He will encourage his colleagues to support the effort as well.

17

Ms. Margaret Jones Williams, Environment Unit Chief, UNDP Lao PDR, expressed thanks for the

meeting and shared relevant updates from UNDP’s Poverty-Environment Initiative, which aims to

ensure robust EIA processes so that investments benefit people and the environment. UNDP is

working closely with Lao’s Department of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment to revise

guidelines and implement and monitor, ensuring enforcement going forward. She will work to be

sure that the guidelines are coherent with the regional standard.

Ms. Christy Owen, Chief of Party, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment, in her final

remarks noted that everyone worked hard and shared her thanks for the participation and

contribution to this effort, and the support for the idea of public participation EIA guidelines and the

formation of a TWG. She recognized that participants took the process seriously and wanted to

make the collaboration effective to establish a benchmark for public participation in EIA in the

region. It is important to show leadership and this group has done this by contributing to this

initiative and set a model of cooperation in this way. Thanks again to Ms. Van of Pact, for her efforts

locally, and the administrative team, and the Vietnamese government for hosting.

18

Annex I.

Workshop Agenda

Day 1: Tuesday, May 12

08.30 Registration

09.00 Welcome / Opening Remarks: -Dr. Mai Thanh Dzung, Deputy Director, Vietnam Environment Administration -Mr. Joakim Parker, Mission Director, USAID Vietnam

09.20 Regional Context and Background: -Ms. Christy Owen, Chief of Party, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment -Mr. Toshizo Maeda, Regional Director, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

10.00 Workshop Objectives: Dr. Vong Sok, Pact/Mekong Partnership for the Environment

10.15 BREAK

10.45 Principles and foundations for a regional EIA standard: Comparative analysis of EIA in the Mekong region -Mr. Matthew Baird, Environmental Counsel

11:30 Vietnam’s new Law on Environmental Protection and EIA procedures: -Mr. Pham Anh Dung, Deputy Director, Department of Environmental Appraisal and Impact Assessment, Vietnam Environment Administration

12.00 LUNCH

12.45 Establishing a Regional Technical Working Group – group discussions

13.45 Sharing and discussion of results – road show

14.45 BREAK

15.00 Developing a Terms of Reference for the TWG – group discussions

16.30 Sharing of initial findings – road show

17.00 End of Day 1

Day 2: Wednesday, May 13

08.45 Sign in

09.00 Best practices of public participation in the EIA process: -Ms. Robin Coursen, US Environmental Protection Agency

09.30 Review progress on developing a Terms of Reference for the TWG

10.30 BREAK

11.00 Developing TWG Membership Criteria - group discussions

12.00 LUNCH

13.00 Finalizing TWG Membership Criteria - plenary discussion

13:45 Country discussions and presentations

15:30 BREAK

16.00 Implementation Plan and Next Steps

16.45 Closing remarks

17.00 End of workshop

19

Annex II.

Draft Terms of Reference for the Mekong Regional Technical Working Group on

Public Participation in Environment Impact Assessment

Included as a separate attachment.