Inmagic DB/Text WebPublisher PRO: 3 records

Your search found 3 records

1 Han, X.; Gill, M. J.; Hamilton, H.; Vergara, S. G.; Young, B. E. 2020. Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 5:100017. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2019.100017]

Biodiversity conservation ; Indicators ; Monitoring ; ASEAN ; Ecosystems ; Species ; Policies ; Agriculture ; Government ; Climate change / South East Asia

(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049756)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972719300170/pdfft?md5=9c5d5258051179f771c2a5de7f4501de&pid=1-s2.0-S2665972719300170-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H049756.pdf

(1.27 MB) (1.27 MB)

With tremendous biodiversity but increasing threats, Southeast Asia faces challenges in meeting its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2020 Aichi Targets. The use of indicators to monitor, evaluate and guide conservation progress is increasingly urgent. We quantified indicator use by 10 Southeast Asian governments in the 4th and 5th national reports submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 and 2015. We found indicator use variable among nations but increasing. Use of quantitative trend indicators doubled from an average of 6–12. There was no change in the number of non-quantitative (mean of 2) or quantitative baseline indicators (those measured once; mean of 9). Indicators most frequently addressed habitat condition and extent, species diversity, protected areas, and agriculture (means of 2–6 indicators each). They were rarely used (mean < 1) to indicate trends in wildlife exploitation, information sharing, climate change, and invasive species. Species diversity indicators increased from the 4th to 5th reports, and there were marginal increases in indicators used for aquatic ecosystems. The results highlight a slow but noticeable increase in the use and quality of indicators in national biodiversity reporting in the region. However, for the region to accelerate progress towards agreed-upon targets of multilateral environmental agreements, a more relevant and diverse set of indicators will need to be employed. Paths to doing so include the use of disaggregated global indicators, increased regional coordination to improve the efficiency and quality of indicator generation, and increased efforts at growing national-level monitoring capacity.

2 Hirsch, P. 2020. Scaling the environmental commons: broadening our frame of reference for transboundary governance in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 61(2):190-202. (Special issue: Governing the Transboundary Commons of Southeast Asia) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12253]

International waters ; Water governance ; International agreements ; International cooperation ; Environmental Impact Assessment ; Commons ; Hydropower ; Fisheries ; Political aspects ; Institutions ; ASEAN ; Living standards / South East Asia / Thailand / Lao People's Democratic Republic / Cambodia / Vietnam / Mekong River

(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049949)

https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H049949.pdf

(0.19 MB)

The transboundary environmental commons in Southeast Asia are normally conceived in terms of shared resources and environmental impacts that transcend national borders. The Mekong's ‘fugitive resources’ of water, fish and sediment and the issue of Indonesia's smoke haze drift into Malaysia and Singapore dominate discussion. Assumed national interests shape actors and institutional arrangements for transboundary commons governance. Failure to address the governance challenges is explained in terms of their politico-cultural failings (e.g. the ‘ASEAN Way’ of non-interference), the weak regulatory remit of agencies with a specific transboundary governance role (Mekong River Commission), the dominant developmental agenda of subregional cooperative arrangements (Greater Mekong Subregion) or the geopolitical dominance of China (Lancang–Mekong Cooperation). This article builds on these critiques by considering the relationship between the local commons impacted by transboundary projects and the framing of the commons at an inter-governmental level. It shows that neglect of the local commons and the impacts on them of projects with transboundary effects is partly to be explained by the institutional scaling of the transboundary commons at a country-to-country level. It also argues for an expanded notion of transboundary, including investment and governance flows as well as the material environmental footprint of large-scale investments.

3 Miller, M. A.; Astuti, R.; Hirsch, P.; Marschke, M.; Rigg, J.; Saksena-Taylor, P.; Suhardiman, Diana; Tan, Z. D.; Taylor, D. M.; Varkkey, H. 2022. Selective border permeability: governing complex environmental issues through and beyond COVID-19. Political Geography, 97:102646. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102646]

COVID-19 ; Pandemics ; Border closures ; Permeability ; Environmental impact ; Environmental management ; Economic recovery ; Political aspects ; Livelihoods ; Health care ; Social inequalities ; Sustainability ; Non-governmental organizations ; ASEAN / South East Asia

(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051037)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629822000609/pdfft?md5=f16009d9a5ec7d101041dcb87bb5c81e&pid=1-s2.0-S0962629822000609-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051037.pdf

(1.46 MB) (1.46 MB)

COVID-19 has changed the permeability of borders in transboundary environmental governance regimes. While borders have always been selectively permeable, the pandemic has reconfigured the nature of cross-border flows of people, natural resources, finances and technologies. This has altered the availability of spaces for enacting sustainability initiatives within and between countries. In Southeast Asia, national governments and businesses seeking to expedite economic recovery from the pandemic-induced recession have selectively re-opened borders by accelerating production and revitalizing agro-export growth. Widening regional inequities have also contributed to increased cross-border flows of illicit commodities, such as trafficked wildlife. At the same time, border restrictions under the exigencies of controlling the pandemic have led to a rolling back and scaling down of transboundary environmental agreements, regulations and programs, with important implications for environmental democracy, socio-ecological justice and sustainability. Drawing on evidence from Southeast Asia, the article assesses the policy challenges and opportunities posed by the shifting permeability of borders for organising and operationalising environmental activities at different scales of transboundary governance.