FINAL
Chairperson’s Summary
The 7th Annual Water Environment Partnership in Asia Meeting
Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Makati, Manila, the Philippines
23 September 2011

1.

The Seventh Annual Meeting of the Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) wasorganised on 23 September 2011 at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Manila, the Philippines.
The Ministry of the Environment, Japan co-organised the meeting with the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) - River Basin Control Office and theEnvironmental Management Bureau. Thirty six participants attended, including
representatives from 13 Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) partner countries(Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal,Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam, and Japan).

2.

The meeting was chaired by Dr. Mitsumasa Okada, Professor of the Open University ofJapan and the WEPA Advisor. There were three main agenda items for the meeting: 1)
Framework analysis of water environmental management status in WEPA partner countries,
2) WEPA Outlook and WEPA message, and 3) Plan of Activities for the 2nd APWS and for
FY 2012.

3.

At the beginning of the annual meeting, Mr. Nobuo Yoshida, Director of the Water
Environment Division, Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment ofJapan delivered the opening remarks. Mr. Yoshida expressed sincere gratitude andappreciation for the active participation through extensive discussion during the two day
international workshop. The workshop satisfied the meeting objective which was to enhance
the knowledge of WEPA partners through sharing experiences on water policy to attainwater quality targets, and improve water quality management in the context of river basinand domestic wastewater treatment facility installation to address water pollution issues.

4.

Mr. Takatoshi Wako, Deputy Director of the Water Environment Division of the Ministry ofthe Environment, Japan explained the main agenda of the meeting. He explained that one of
the expected outcomes is to generate basic agreement on the framework analysis approachand also identify common management issues to further promote WEPA discussion andmutual learning. He proposed to diversify WEPA’s knowledge sharing scheme to make it
more solution-oriented. Twinning projects and meetings among the countries which have
similar problems was suggested as an example of the new scheme of knowledge sharing.

Agenda 1. Water Environmental Management Status in WEPA countries
5.

Ms. Yatsuka Kataoka, Director of the Freshwater Sub-group of the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES), serving as the WEPA Secretariat, explained the outline of
the framework analysis to assess the status of water environmental management of eachpartner country as an entry point for identification of intensive partnership programmes interms of experience and data sharing. The draft framework was presented to WEPA partners
for comments specifically in four stages, namely planning, implementation (doing),monitoring (to check progress periodically) and action. She also presented the examples ofthe framework analysis for each country based on the results of the questionnaire which theWEPA Secretariat collected from partner countries. For those that did not reply to thequestionnaire, the information contained in the WEPA database was the basis for theanalysis. Additional criteria can be incorporated into the draft framework analysis based on
the discussion of the annual meeting.
6.

The participating countries expressed their views and comments on the draft framework
analysis. The attempt to analyse water environmental management status is welcomed ingeneral, but some WEPA countries need more time for review to agree the contents of theanalysis. Main points of comments raised from each participating country during thediscussions were summarised in annex 1. Some of the key comments are as follows:- The framework should be considered as a general framework to see commonalities anddifferences.
- Since the situation of the water environment and water environmental management
differs from region to region, analysis should be conducted on a regional basis. For
example, different frameworks should be applied for urban and rural settings. Analysis atbasin level is also worth considering.
- For some elements in the framework analysis, it is difficult to get information – such as
information on human resources.
- Elements to be included in the framework analysis should be considered by each country
for improvement.
- There was a suggestion to rank countries based on the proposed analysis, but theframework is not designed for ranking and therefore it is not appropriate to use for that
purpose.
- It is suggested that it would be useful to quantify accomplishments to determine howmuch has been achieved based on the established framework analysis.

7.

The conference chairperson acknowledged all the suggestions, and promised that thesecretariat will integrate the comments upon evaluation and further study. The framework
analysis is a working document for further consideration. Additional comments from partnercountries are welcomed to brush up the framework analysis.

Agenda 2. WEPA Outlook and WEPA Messages8.

Ms. Yatsuka Kataoka, the WEPA Secretariat, explained the outline of the WEPA Outlook
on Water Environmental Management Strategies, 2nd version. The outlook will be launchedduring the February 2012 Asia Pacific Water Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, and will also be
distributed in March 2012 at the 6th World Water Forum in Marseille, France. Participants
discussed the contents of the outlook, key messages to be attached to the outlook andproduction schedule.

9.

The proposed structure of the outlook was agreed by participants. The secretariat asked forfurther assistance from partner countries in providing information to update the countryprofiles and other thematic chapters to incorporate all necessary information in the outlook.
A participant suggested that best practices should be included, which would be useful
information to improve the water environmental management.
10. For the WEPA message, there were some comments as follows. Participants are requested toprovide further comments on the message.
 The whole ecosystem should also be considered, not only water quality.
 Include the development sector as a threat in terms of water environmental destruction.
 In the key message please highlight challenges and experiences in water environment
management.
 It is better to define the “sound water environment” mentioned in the draft message.
 It is suggested the following elements should be included in the key areas in water
environmental management.
- The importance of technology transfer, since it is key to improving the water
environment of new developing countries- The importance of strengthening enforcement in addition to strengthening laws andregulations- Stress the employment of market-based instruments as an incentive system, and the“polluter pays” principle
 The importance of on-site domestic wastewater treatment should be mentioned more
explicitly.
11. The chairperson requested the WEPA Secretariat to consider the comments raised by thepartner countries in elaboration of the draft outlook and WEPA messages. He also requested
all partner countries to assist in the production of the outlook according to the schedulesuggested by the WEPA Secretariat. In addition, there was a statement from the partner fromthe Philippines that the focal points of all partner countries should check the draft outlook
carefully since the publication could come to the attention of policy makers of each country
who will attend the Asia-Pacific Water Summit. The schedule suggested by the WEPA
Secretariat is described as follows.



15 October 2011 – WEPA message (additional comments), comments and further
information for the country profiles
First Week of November – Send thematic drafts
15 November 2011 – Complete draft of all country profiles
End of November 2011 – Send draft of Executive Summary. Finalization of country
profiles
15 December 2011 –Review by WEPA advisors
End of December 2011 – Finalization (editing for printing)January – February 2012 – Editing and printing (for distribution at the 2nd APWS)

Agenda 3. Plan of Activities at the 2nd Asia Pacific Water Summit in FY 2012

12. The WEPA Secretariat introduced the plan of activities for the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water
Summit to be held during February in Thailand, such as organisation of a technical session
on WEPA scheduled on 3 February 2012. The plan of activities for the 6th World Water
Forum to be held during March in France was also introduced. The secretariat will continue
to communicate with partner countries and shall accept constructive comments andsuggestions regarding the WEPA partners’ participation.
13. The secretariat also explained that knowledge sharing for solutions should be further
promoted under WEPA through a new scheme such as twinning project and issue-based
group meetings. The secretariat would like to hear the issues about which WEPA countries
would like to share knowledge via WEPA through needs-matching practices. The secretariat
asked WEPA countries to provide further comments on the needs-matching matrix that theWEPA Secretariat will prepare for further discussion.
14. In conclusion, the chairperson expressed appreciation for the partner countries’ active
participation in the discussion. He is expecting their continuous cooperation in thesubmission of their WEPA Outlook comments per their agreement as scheduled.

ANNEX: Comments on the Framework Analysis (Agenda 1)
Philippines:
The overall content of the framework analysis is acceptable to all. The point of discussion may
be considered as a cycle which will start at the conceptualisation and planning stage and identify
gaps for decision making. Each participant country must look at the framework as a generalframework (focusing on commonality among countries) but they may vary on how to implement
policies and identify remedial strategy/define work programmes considering the economicobjectives. Thirteen WEPA countries may still need further discussion on the harmonisation ofexisting regulations involving some parameters, then they will make possible resolutions. Thereis a need to check the system to provide more detailed information, to understand more. But it
will serve as a good entry point for the WEPA countries.
China:
There is difficulty in the implementation of the framework analysis because it has both structuraland non-structural issues, particularly data on human resources and ambient quality. Also inChina, urban settings and rural settings are very different, and therefore it is better to consider
different frameworks for each.
Indonesia:
It is confusing to know how to implement the projects/activities as specified by the framework
analysis since the barriers to implementation are budget constraints. However, the framework isa good entry point and a good implementation strategy. It is necessary to have a discussion withthe supervisor and therefore immediate approval cannot be made.
Cambodia:
The framework analysis can be supported in principle. But they need more time to review andanalyse the results of the country’s situation. More consideration and review are necessary before
such analytical results are open to the public through the WEPA website and the outlook.
Japan:The general criteria must be discussed and evaluated for further improvement. A comparison
with other countries’ experiences is important.
Korea:
The framework is acceptable but they also have problems with funding. They still have toprovide some additional information.
Laos:
There is a need for more time to analyse the framework. Considering the situation of Laos where
the situation is changing a lot recently, it is difficult to explain some criteria.
Malaysia : The framework analysis is basically acceptable but it is necessary to have more clear
definition of terms like: human resources and/or staff qualification, water quality and eachparameter. Also it is recommended to apply the framework analysis at the basin level, not at
national level.

Myanmar:More time is necessary to review and validate their country profile data.
Nepal:
It is necessary to consult their policy and planning staff regarding the results of analysis on Nepal,
because it is a delicate matter putting information into the website without validating data
information.
Sri Lanka:
The framework analysis is generally approved, but there is still room for improvement, such as
implementation plans and law enforcement strategies, which are key for improvement of water
environmental management.
Thailand: Not only law enforcement is important, but recreation or ecotourism must also be considered An economic instrument (incentives) must be developed for the water quality management
 Installation of wastewater treatment facilities is important for all WEPA countries
 An institutional arrangement in the form of a committee created for each water agency isnecessary Human resources or capacity building of staff must be included in the plan
 A coalition of agencies regarding water quality and quantity is needed
Viet Nam:
The idea of the framework analysis is basically agreeable and it is a good entry point inevaluating the water environment quality management of each country. A more important issue
is what comes next after the framework analysis.