第 3 セッション
ア ジ アに お ける 環 境協 力 とサ ス テイ ナ ビリ テ ィEnvironmental Cooperation andSustainability in Asia

Papers & PPT
Discussions
Q&A

263

第 3 セッション
アジアにおける環境協力とサステイナビリティ
Environmental Cooperation and Sustainability in Asia
セッションチェア
松岡 俊二(拠点サブリーダー・早稲田大学大学院アジア太平洋研究科教授)

時間がまいりましたのでそろそろ最後の、第 3 セッション「アジアにおける環境協力とサスティナビリティ」というテーマで再開をさせていただきたいと思います。朝からお越しの方々には非常に長時間でお疲れのところでしょうけれども、大変重要なテーマを扱うセッシ
ョンですので、もう少し我慢をしていただいて積極的に参加していただければというふうに思います。
第 3 セッションは今までのセッションとは方式を変えまして、最初に 3 本の報告をいただ
きまして、京都大学の植田先生、第 2 報告が Mushtaq（ムシュタク）さんがコペンハーゲンの COP15 に行く必要がございまして、産業技術総合研究所、産総研の小寺さんのほうに第2 報告をしていただき、それから第 3 報告がインドネシアのバーゼル条約の ASEAN センタ
ーの Aboejoewono Aboeprajitno（アブ）さんのほうからしていただきます。
3 つの報告をまずしていただいて、それから 3 人の方、一橋大学の寺西先生、それから早稲田大学の太田先生、それから滋賀大学の田中先生 3 人にコメントをしていただいて、それからパネリスト、それからコメンテーター、フロアも含めた全体の討論を残り 30 分程度で行いたいと思いますのでよろしくお願いします。

265

【報告】

Rapid Economic Growth and Sustainability in Asia: Making
Effective Regional Environmental Governance「アジアにおける経済成長と持続性:効率的環境ガバナンスの形成」

Kazuhiro Ueta
(Professor at Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University)

The environmental problems in Asia in the 21st century are emerging with a new
quality while the economy and technology are undergoing evolution. This trend is led
by regional economic integration through international movement of capital, that is,globalization of the world economy. The global environmental problems since thesecond half of the 1980s emerged partly due to the globalization. Environmental
problems have also changed qualitatively in that they cause adverse effects on aregional scale. Thus we cannot understand the economic mechanism correctly andclarify policy and institutions to manage global and regional environmental problems
unless the complex interdependence between the regional and global economies isanalyzed. Sustainable development cannot be achieved globally without realizing
sustainable society that is endorsed by regional environmental economic policies. To
realize sustainable society, it is precondition that environmental right rule should beincorporated into market and global economic system on a global scale. This raises
re-examination of the current network between economic activities and environmental
policies at a local, regional, national and global economic level.
Asia has suffered from a variety of environmental degradation. At least several
problems can be viewed as an emergence of global environmental problems caused by
the global economic system. It has been taken up nine phenomena as global
environmental problems, namely, (a) depletion of the ozone layer, (b) global warming,(c) acid rain, (d) decreases in tropical forests, (e) desertification, (f) pollution problemsof developing countries, (g) decreases of biodiversity, (h) ocean pollution and (i)trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. This classification is useful inunderstanding scientific nature of these issues and finding out technical measures totackle with them. However, it provides little knowledge on how to manage the266environment amid globalization. Economic mechanisms should be clarified tounderstand root cause of the environmental degradation.
Concerted international action is indispensable for overcoming environmental
problems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to create sustainable
societies. The key to doing that is pioneering a vision for sustainable development
throughout the world, particularly in Asia.
Asia has turned into the world’s production base, and its relative importance in theworld will become increasingly larger in terms of population, as well as in terms ofresource consumption and industrial output. Environmental cooperation is needed toestablish a sustainable development pattern in this region.
Our working on solutions for environmental problems in Asian countries andregions will meet and talk with the aim of making their experiences and lessons into theworld’s common awareness. We must transcend the interests of individual countries andthe interests of business, and develop global environmental policy for global
environmental conservation. Accomplishing this requires that we identify theconservation-related shared interests of people in the developing and developed
countries, and then specify the path leading to the realization of those interests. It isessential that we share environmental and economic information, and achievecommunication based on that sharing.
We look for a development model based on sustainability. In various parts of Asia
there are cutting-edge initiatives for endogenous development models which, based on
local historical and cultural strengths, incorporate environmental conservation into theirrules, in other words, sustainable development models that use unique local assets toadvantage. Models cultivated in Asia for communities which give people fulfilling lives
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions could serve as great encouragement to people
around the world.
More comprehensive public policy including so-called Green New Deal policy isnecessary to revitalize the economy suffered from financial crisis for sustainable
development This implies theoretical and empirical research should be developed on
multi-level environmental governance to discuss how to realize sustainable
development.

267

【Power Point】"Rapid Economic Growth and Sustainability in Asia: Making Effective Regional
Environmental Governance"
Kazuhiro Ueta
(Professor at Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University)

268

269

270

271

【報告】

Regional Environmental Cooperation and Environmental
Technology in Asia
「アジアにおける環境協力と環境技術」

Mushtaq Ahmed Memon(Programme Officer, UNEP-DITE-IETC at Osaka)

Yoichi KODERA(Senior Research Scientist, AIST at Tsukuba)Contents
1. Outline
2. Framework of ESTs Transfer
3. Process of technology selection for developing countries
3-1 Preparation of a compendium of technologies
3-2 Preparation of the reports on the local conditions of developing countries
3-3 Expert workshops
3-4 Local training workshops
3-5 Decision-making and B-to-B processes
4. Sustainability assessment of technology: a key tool for technology selection

1. Outline

Integrated solid waste management is one of the important infrastructures ofsocieties in any countries. Integrated solid waste is a mixture of various types ofwastes, which generate in waste sources of households, shops, restaurants, factories,
agricultural facilities and other places where human activities are in progress. With
economic growth in developing countries, the local governments and communities are
required to establish waste management systems, which would lead the heavier duty andcost to them.
Waste treatment traditionally aims public sanitation. Putrefactive wastes such as
kitchen wastes are to be thermally treated to prevent harmful creatures and diseases.
Suitable treatments of hazardous wastes are also required for public safety and humanhealth. On the other hands, wastes of metal and glass are often separated from mixed
wastes either by licensed waste management sectors or informal individuals in streets272and waste collection yards. In both case, separation of some types of wastes brings
them economic benefits. Recovery and utilization of resources from wastes generatingin the local communities are of importance with respect to the cost reduction of waste
management and the reduction of the environmental impacts by improper manners oreven conventional methods of waste treatment.
UNEP Governing Council (GC 25/8) acknowledges the role of UNEP-DTIE-IETC
and requests the Executive Director of UNEP to provide further assistance todeveloping countries in their efforts to strengthen national implementation of an
Integrated Waste Management approach. Furthermore, the Bali Declaration on Waste
Management for Human Health and Livelihood (Annex 2) reconfirms this decision.
Moreover, UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) has also agreed toundertake waste as one of the focus areas for CSD18. Among various schemes for thepartnerships with developing countries, one of the key issues is the transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologies (ESTs) to suitable area. The UNEP activities ontechnology transfer and technical guidelines are in progress in the fields of integrated
solid wastes, E-waste management, biomass utilization and waste plastics conversion
across the fifteen countries in the Asia Pacific region.
2. Framework of ESTs transfer

For ESTs transfer to be effective under limited resources, knowledge oftechnologies, methodologies of technology selection and surveys on the social
conditions of developing countries are integrated on human networks of practitioners,
technology providers, scholars, citizens and decision makers in developing anddeveloped countries. Figure 1 shows an example of the ESTs transfer mechanism.
Some are currently implemented and some are planned for the next stages.
In the conventional technology transfer to developing countries, a technology
provide often with a business consultant promote their business in developing countries.
The technology provider would carry a certain technology, which helps enterprises or
public organizations in their communities and countries. However, they are always
with some risks in the selection of appropriate technologies due to the limited
opportunities to compare the other technologies and limited technical knowledge.
Even in developed countries, any business has risks in the right selection and effective
operation of technologies in a suitable system and business model under the given
business environments such as business partners, local laws and regulations, economic
conditions, human resources and the other factors at present and in the future.
There are many types of human resources in developed countries. Generally, theywork for their own purposes – for example, economic benefits for their companies, his273

academic interests, and development of his nation. Based on a noble policy, clear
visions and firm will are required to plan and implement a sustainable or practical waste
management program for developing countries. International organizations shouldplay a role in showing the current conditions of developing countries to the people in
the rest of the world and stimulating public opinions to form effective networks ofinternational partnerships across each participating countries.
Additionally,
international organizations of governments and non-governments can demonstratemutual benefits of the people in developing and developed countries more clearly in theviews of an international trade of environmental technology – economic benefits ofindividual technology providers and clean development mechanism – greenhouse gas
reduction of a nation.
Global Platform on Waste Management (GPWM)
Supported by organizations such as international organizations and governments(Partially effective, planed for the future)
International Partnerships

Domestic Partnerships
Civil society, practitioners, specialist,
decision makers, and the other stakeholders
Information Clearing House

Policy and Strategies

Data base, workshop, referencematerials

Implementation
Social awareness, social systems,
laws and technology transfer
Fig. 1

International Partnerships

ESTs transfer mechanism: International integration of human and knowledge

As a part of the Global Platform on Waste Management (GPWM),
UNEP-DTIE-IETC organizes scholars, researchers, technology providers andpractitioners in the fields of E-wastes, biomass and waste plastics. Some scholars andresearchers especially in the field of technology have limited knowledge in the local
conditions of developing countries. Different from industrial products like cars andelectric appliances, the most types of technologies and systems for waste management
can be sustainable under the limited conditions from the social or economic views.
Thus, various participants of developing countries are also needed to report on the local
conditions to technology providers and specialists for discussing guidelines to select274technologies with considering scope and limitations of the technologies. Scholars andresearchers in social studies and economics, officials of local governments, andpractitioners from developing countries are the important part of GPWM.
3.

Process of technology selection for developing countries

3-1

Preparation of a compendium of technologies

A primary step of technology transfer is to review current technologies for the
purposes, targeted wastes or planning methods. There are many conventional
equipment and systems, which are already out of date, currently available, or underdevelopment. For the case of a current project on waste plastics conversion into
resources, fuel production technologies are gathered based on a proposal by
UNEP-DTIE-IETC.
An author or authors are chosen by surveys of literatures, books and interviews at
the points of active, cooperative attitude, the wider view of technology and thesocioeconomic backgrounds for sustainable technologies. The author gathers a wide
range of technical information under the cooperation with technology providers. The
technologies can be commercial or under development.
The technology compendium should include target materials, products, scientificfundamentals of processing, engineering of equipment, specifications (energy
consumption, size, treatment capacity or performance) and utilities. Cost-related
issues such as plant price and maintenance cost will be estimated in detailed discussion
between technology providers and an operation sector at a stage of screening technology
or examining a demonstration plant.
3-2

Preparation of the reports on the local conditions of developing countries

Some types of wastes of metal, glass, biomass and plastics can be considered as
potential resources. The following data are required to plan possible schemes ofwastes treatment projects including recycling; the properties and amounts of wastes,
types and locations of waste sources, conventional treatment methods, and waste
management companies, if possible, involving informal waste collection. A type ofwaste conversion technology is determined by waste composition, and a facility scale isdetermined by collection amounts of target wastes in a designated area. When the
profits by sales of recycling products and waste disposal charges can cover the cost for
producing recycling products, waste recycling business can be established to give theeconomic benefits with reduction of waste disposal amounts.
3-3

Expert workshops

Expert workshops are held to know scope and limitations of technologies and tounderstand the social conditions of developing countries, especially, waste management275system of generation, collection and treatment. In a technical session, balanced
participants from academic, technology providers and practitioners of waste
management are required. It is important to clear the target waste of the current
technology and the governing factors of economic feasibilities of the commercial
system for the wastes. For waste conversion to produce a recycling product, e.g., fuelfrom biomass or plastics, quality of the product and expected users are to be presented.
There are many elements to form individual technology, facility, business models andbusiness environments for feasible waste managements. The participants in theworkshops share their research results, experience and opinions on those elements forselecting suitable technology or system in order to improve the environments andeconomics of the wide varieties of local societies in developing countries.
3-4

Local training workshops

There are various stakeholders in management and recycling of wastes – waste
generators, management sectors, recyclers, local residents, local governments andtaxpayers. The members and the contents of workshops would be varied depending on
the nature of wastes, products and business; waste sources, hazardous/non-hazardous,
material types, public service or private business. Local training workshops can beheld for any stakeholders on a specific project, or general themes on the related issues oftechnical, economic and social topics.
For waste plastics conversion into resources, typical themes in the local training
workshops are demands of recycling products in local societies, technical and economic
feasibility of waste plastics recycling, and the necessity of recycling comparing withconventional treatments. The opinions in the workshops would be valuable for any
participants. Decision makers and project planners could obtain human networks ofknowledge and experience, which lead to selection of suitable technologies andreasonable decision.
3-5

Decision-making and B-to-B processes

Decision-making in launching a project and selection of technology is made by theauthority in a local company, community or government in its own risks. Prior tolaunching a commercial project, a pilot project using a bench plant and demonstration
plant should be considered. The results of the pilot project is carefully evaluated inboth technical and economical viewpoints, and the equipment and system will be
modified if necessity under the intensive discussion between project participants andtechnology providers.
Assessment of technology and a whole project is required for the final selection ofsuitable equipment and system and for implementing the operation of waste276

management.
Sustainable assessment of technology (SAT) is proposed by
UNEP-DITE-IETC and the Global Environment Centre Foundation (GEC). It
provides a strong tool for assessing ESTs at the points of soundness and feasibility oftechnology, environment and business in the local societies of various countries.
Appropriate selection of ESTs and sufficient financial investments are followed bybusiness-to-business partnerships to initiate a commercial (and sustainable) operation of
the environmental technology by the people in developing countries.
4.

Sustainability assessment of technology: Key tool for technology selection:

Proposed Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Technologies
A.

Objectives

The objective of the methodology is to encourage customization, expression of
local interests, and also to take into consideration technological, economic, social andenvironmental perspectives. Thus, the methodology may be viewed as a multi-criteria
approach to facilitate informed decision-making. The eventual goal is an EnTA
framework that will facilitate an objective, unambiguous and transparent
decision-making in EST selection.
However, the methodology is not expected to serve as a black box or an automatedsystem that will provide a technology choice as a ready-made output. Instead, thefocus here is on the process, which is viewed to be as important as the outcome.
B.

Target users

The new methodological framework for SAT is proposed with the premise that it
will be used by a varied group of stakeholders in different scenarios and at different
levels of decision-making.
At the policy / government level it can be used for strategic decision-making. These
strategic level decisions are made by planners, civic body officials and mayors /elected
representatives, who might use the SAT framework and methodology for this purpose.
Once decisions at the strategic level are finalized, the next step involves a rigorous SAT
at the operational level primarily by the technical / engineering staff, designers, andconsultants to assess individual technology options.
Secondly, communities and industrial clusters can use the SAT framework andmethodology as well - for instance, when they are building centralized water orwastewater treatment system, or a recycling facility. The managers and members of
the industrial cluster need to understand the techno-economic and environmental aspectsof the technology choices in order to arrive at a decision in a multi-stakeholder setting.
The SAT framework and methodology (including the participatory decision making

277

process) facilitates such a decision-making.
Thirdly, individual hamlets/villages and enterprises can also use the SAT
framework for objective and informed decision making by comparing a number ofavailable options for sanitation, water supply or manufacturing.
Finally, target users could also include financing institutions, which play a role infunding technology interventions.
C.

Key elements of the proposed SAT framework

C-1. Application on a system scale

The existing EnTA methodology has been designed for the application at theenterprise level and can be used for the assessment of individual technologies, i.e. for aparticular unit operation. However, the methodology proposed here is structured toassess a system of technologies, where a system may comprise of a number ofindividual technologies. This is a very important consideration in real life situations,where in most instances it is a technology system consisting of a number of individual
technologies - as against the lone technology solution - that is adopted.
For instance, a wastewater treatment technology in reality comprises of a numberof technologies / unit operations each of which is dependent on the other for thetreatment process to be effective. While individual technologies can be assessed
objectively, in most situations, they behave differently in conjunction with the othertechnologies when they are part of a system. The proposed methodology recognizes theinterdependencies within technology units by putting an emphasis on the system rather
than the individual technology.
C-2. Consideration of strategic as well as operational level assessments

Since the EnTA approach is restricted to the operational level by and large,
strategic level considerations were not included explicitly in the methodology. However,strategic considerations are important as these encourage a focus on situation analyses,
thus discussing broader issues such as institutional, financial, policy/planning related
aspects, rather than the technology alone.
As an outcome of this exercise, a plethora of relevant technologies/systems could
be considered for subsequent operational level SAT. The proposed new methodology
has thus incorporated the step of strategic level assessment as the important precursor
for the actual SAT.
C-3. Restructuring criteria and indicators

The criteria and indicators are probably the most important elements of the SAT
process. As such, the structure of the EST criteria proposed by UNEP and GEC havebeen extensively reviewed and suitably adapted to overcome the current shortcomings.

278

Thus, in order to develop more robust sets of criteria and indicators, the following
aspects have been taken into consideration:- Criteria and indicators proposed under the SAT methodology by UNEP and GEC- Parallel approaches like the World Bank s Input-Output-Outcome-Impact (IOOI)
systems, as well as aspects such as indicators for Risks and Restrictions followed by theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)- Life cycle perspective
In order to develop the specific criteria and indicators for a particular scenario or
application, a methodology as depicted in Figure 2 could be deployed.
Figure2: Developing Criteria and Indicators for a Scenario
Literature Review on Scenario

Apply EST and EnTA framework
Develop generic criteria
Conduct Sector Research
Organize Workshop with experts
Consolidate Criteria and Indicators
Organizing stakeholder / expert workshops for brainstorming on the generic andspecific criteria is a critical step and should be carried out to seek opinions and debate
on possibilities to arrive at a set of criteria and indicators on the basis of a consensus.
Refer to annex * for the list of participants of a workshop conducted
C-3.1 Categories used

Considering the above-mentioned aspects, criteria and indicators were developed
for the new methodology under key categories such as:- Technological suitability- Environment (in terms of resources and emissions, risks etc.)- Economic / financial considerations- Socio-cultural aspects
Specific criteria and indicators have been developed under each key aspect. The
proposed new methodology thus includes new sets of generic criteria and indicators,
supplemented by sector-specific1 criteria and indicators. The generic criteria and279

indicators have been developed keeping in mind situations most likely to arise whileassessing EST systems.
However, it should also be noted that these generic criteria are indicative and that it isalso possible (and indeed even recommended) to develop customized criteria andindicators depending on specific situations. The list of generic criteria and indicators
has been presented in Table 2.
C-3.2 Participatory stakeholder component

It is further recommended that developing new criteria and indicators for specificsituations of SAT should be done by a team representing the various affectedstakeholder groups, preferably under the guidance of neutrally placed or unbiased
subject experts. This can ensure that the views and interests of all stakeholder groups
are incorporated in the SAT exercise.
With a group of stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and expectations, it isentirely possible that the discussions may not always remain focused and consequently
may miss out on some of the most important considerations and criteria. It is therefore
essential to systematically steer this criteria development exercise within a given
framework and scope. A good moderator/facilitator may organize a brainstorming
discussion within the framework of above-mentioned aspects to seek the participationand diverse inputs from all stakeholders, and steer the thought process in the right
direction to ensure the desired outcomes.
C-3.3 Framework for developing new criteria

While developing new criteria and indicators, considerations about (1) IOOI and(2) additional considerations can greatly facilitate a focused discussion process while
ensuring that no important issues are missed out.
IOOI framework

Includes inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts of a technology. An illustration isprovided below. Let us consider, for example, a technology to control air emissions
from diesel buses. The needs assessment will specify the following input indicators(technology-specific resources to be provided), output indicators (to measure goods
and services produced), outcome indicators (to measure the immediate results of the
project), and impact indicators (to monitor the longer term results);- Inputs: Costs, technical inputs such as diesel, water, oil, manpower etc.
- Outputs: emissions from the engine, mileage derived using the technology- Outcome: reduced PM-10 emissions from buses- Impact: reductions in ambient concentrations of PM-10 in the central city, or
reduced health problems from respiratory diseases. Life cycle considerations are280

important while considering impacts of a technology choice, that address phasesof a technology other than its useful life (such as procurement of resources,
closure / abandonment)
Additional Considerations

Further, in any decision-making process, special attention needs to be given to
the risks and restrictions associated with each choice, since these become crucial
deciding factors in many instances. Typically, risks and restrictions that need to beconsidered in making the technology choice include:- Stability- Flexibility- Hazard- Size/scale of operation- Adaptability- Skill levels needed- Any other pre-requisites (such as availability of space, etc.).
Outcomes of the strategic assessment exercise

Last but not the least, it is important to note that the outcomes of the strategic
assessment exercise - viz. the objectives and targets of the technology systemintervention must also be considered while developing new criteria and indicators, as
they can serve as excellent pointers for the same
To sum up, in order to systematically devise a set of criteria and indicators for theassessment of a set of technologies, it is essential to understand the entire life cycle oftechnological intervention by looking at the inputs (quality, quantity of raw
wastewater, energy, manpower, space requirements, financial inputs etc.); the processitself (energy, manpower, operational expenses etc.) as well as the outputs (quality oftreated wastewater, quantify of sludge etc.). In addition to inputs and outputs, one also
needs to consider the broader objectives of technology interventions by scrutinizing
the outcomes and impacts at the strategic level. Other considerations (including
societal considerations) can also provide some important pointers in developing new
situation-specific criteria and indicators.
C-4. Setting out a tiered process

A tiered approach is efficient, as it does not require exhaustive data collection for
all the technology or system options. Users can eliminate the obviously non-feasible
options at an early stage, and then focus on select qualified options. In this way, detailed
information collection becomes essential only for short-listed options, thus saving
substantial time and effort.

281

Arriving at the final choice from a number of available options can be done in twoways:- Eliminate the unwanted n options to arrive at the best option A.
- Supersede / rank the available options in the order of priority to arrive at the best
option A.
The proposed methodology uses both the techniques. Firstly, with the logical(Yes/No type) EST criteria, the available technology options are screened. Only
qualified ESTs are subjected to further assessment, while others are eliminated.
The ESTs that pass through the screening stage are then subjected to a second roundof elimination with the help of some select criteria. These criteria could use more ofqualitative or readily available quantitative information in order to rate the indicators. In
doing so, a number of unqualified options are likely to be superseded, thus leaving theusers with a limited number of candidates EST options. These are then subjected tovery rigorous evaluation using additional criteria requiring a greater extent of
quantitative information. As explained earlier, the criteria to be used at this level must
be chosen/ developed by the stakeholders from the generic list and governed by the
local context.
C-5.

Decision-making tools

The current EnTA methodology relies on a number of tools and techniques while
arriving at the decision. These tools include:- Information driven benchmarking- Expert opinions- Participatory assessment by stakeholders
The new SAT methodology uses the same tools - albeit with a difference, which isnoted below in the explanation for computational methods.
C-6. Computational methods

In the proposed methodology, tools and methods have been chosen to facilitate
objective decision-making while overcoming the limitations of qualitative assessment.
The key elements here are:
- Weights to be assigned to criteria- Scores that will need to be assigned to indicators
Depending on the complexity and sensitivity of the decision to be made, as well as
the competence and the capability of the user groups, a range of assessment techniques
can be applied. These range from a simple Weighted Sum Method to more complex
rational approaches such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and can be used
selectively depending on the specific needs and situations.

282

D. Proposed generic methodology/decision making process for SAT

Based on the preceding discussion, the following methodology for SAT is proposed(Figure 2). A brief explanation to the various steps follows.
Figure 2: Proposed SAT Methodology assisted by Public Information /Consultation

Issues to be addressed / Problems to be → Carry out Situation Analysis
solved↑↓Monitoring / Performance Evaluation
Define Targets↑↓
Implementation
Strategic Level Assessment↑↓
Anticipatory Scenario Building
Operational Level Assessment↑↓
Detailed Engineering Design & Costing
Screening*↑↓
Preferred Technology Options
Scoping*↑↓
Detailed Assessment**Customized criteria and indicators considering Environmental, Social and Economic
considerations
D-1. Problem definition / situation analysis

The purpose of technological intervention is to address some problem, such as
solid waste management in a city or establishing a centralized wastewater treatment
plant in an industrial cluster. Once the problem is thus defined, it is essential toundertake a detailed situation analysis. This will include additional data collection,
public consultation process and other socio-economic surveys and studies as necessary.
A situation analysis becomes a foundation to the strategic level assessment. It also helps
in setting the targets that should be addressed by the proposed technology intervention.
D-2. Strategic level assessment

In the first tier of assessment, macro-level planners, decision-makers, ministers/mayors, elected representatives should brainstorm and study various options at thestrategic level. Strategic level assessment should lead to a customized list of criteria and283

indicators (possibly with weights across criteria) from a generic list (see Table 2). This
adaptation should reflect the situation analysis, sector characteristics (e.g. water,
sanitation, solid waste, wastewater etc.) and important scenarios (e.g. future population
growth, changing waste composition, etc.). Box 1 summarizes some important pointerswith regard to the strategic level assessment. In this level the involvement of key
stakeholders is the maximum, where as expert opinion and technology information areimportant in that order.
Box 1: Strategic Level Assessment of EST Options
As a precursor to SAT, it is essential to conduct the evaluation of available technology options
and associated requirements at the strategic level based on a situation analysis.

This can bebetter explained with the help of an example.
Let us consider a scenario where a city administration is making significant infrastructure
investments to address the problem of wastewater management.

For this purpose, a thoroughsituation analysis is carried out based on master plans, additional data collection, public
hearings, etc.
Based on this study, there could be a number of choices at the strategic level in line with theobjectives.

For example, the objective of the technological intervention in this case could

depend on matters such as the possible recycling of treated wastewater in view of severe water
shortage, space constraints, etc.

The key decision at the strategic level is likely to include achoice between centralized treatment systems versus decentralized treatment systems, eachcategory possessing some number of technology systems for consideration.
The decisions could be governed by the available budget, the level of service required to beprovided (based on the paying capacity of the users), receiving body considerations and aplethora of other factors. In addition, socio-political considerations are also bound to influencesuch a decision. Such decisions at the strategic level are generally made by planners, civic bodyofficials, mayors or elected representatives.
Note that it is not possible to prescribe any standard methodology for such a strategic
assessment as it will indeed depend on the local context which differs from case-to-case.
However, to facilitate such decision making, in addition to expert opinions and technoeconomic feasibility studies, one may also use planning tools such as Participatory Project
Planning (PPP) using vision mapping, logical framework analysis, etc.

284

It is important to note that the decision at the strategic level is the critical factor in thesubsequent identification of candidate technology system options.

These system

options will then undergo assessment at the operational level.
Figure 3: Tools used in Strategic and Operational Level of SAT
Stakeholder Consultation
Expert Opinion
Information

Strategic Level Assessment

Operational Level Assessment

As shown in the figure above, the tools used in SAT (stakeholder consultation,
expert opinion and information) at the strategic and operational levels vary in terms of
their sequence and extent of application.
D-3. Operational level assessment

Once the macro-level or strategic level options are finalized, the SAT moves on toa more operational level where engineers, technical staff etc. take over to assess theavailable EST systems. In case the SAT is to be carried out only at a community orenterprise level, the earlier stage of strategic assessment may be skipped andstakeholders can start with the operational level SAT as the first step. The levels of
expert opinion and technology information are the highest in this level.
D-3.1 Participatory process

Like in the case of strategic assessment, it is recommended that this stage of SAT
should also be conducted by a stakeholder group. While this participatory process canensure that due consideration is given to the concern of each stakeholder, the entire
process can be moderated and facilitated by technical experts, which will also bring in
the element of expert opinion. Moreover, the expert should share the available technicalinformation so that the entire discussion is information driven to the extent possible,
thus minimizing subjectivity and ambiguity.
D-3.2 Identifying technology system options

Based on the problem definition, situation analysis and the outcomes of strategiclevel assessment, a basket of potential technology systems should be identified, which
will be subjected to further rigorous three-tiered assessment. This initial exercise too,must be done with the help of expert opinion. Reference can be made to available285

technology fact-sheets, case studies and other available information resources such as
UNEP’s ESTIS or other environmental technology databases.
D-3.3 Selecting the criteria

Depending upon the specific situation and needs, the stakeholder group may like toadopt the proposed set of generic and/or sector specific criteria without any changes. As
noted earlier, in some situation-specific cases, it may be essential to revisit the genericset of criteria, and modify or add some specific criteria. The criteria are selected throughstakeholder consultation and agreement.
D-3.4 Screening tier (tier 1)

At this stage, the short-listed system options first undergo screening using criteria
in tier 1. The tier 1 criteria yield only an objective Yes/No type answer and hence, those
options that do not qualify one or all the conditions, then get automatically eliminated.
For example, one of the criteria in tier 1 relates to a very basic requirement - legal
compliance. In case a technology system can not ensure legal compliance, then it would
get eliminated at this point itself. This assessment can be done by a suitable stakeholder
group with / without the help of expert opinion.
D-3.5 Scoping tier (tier 2)

Short-listed system options from the tier 1 then go through the comprehensive
scoping assessment (tier 2) that is more of qualitative in nature (low / medium / high).
During this stage of SAT, the stakeholders are required to assess the various technology
system options vis-à-vis the generic and customized criteria and indicators using any ofthe listed computational methods (preferably the simple weighted sum method) byfollowing the steps as described below:
It is important to note here, that the scoping exercise lends an advantage in narrowing
the decision range of scores, for a particular criterion in the detailed assessment level.
For instance if low / medium / high scores are assigned on a basis of a scale of 0-10,
then a selection of medium score would scope the scores between 4 and 6. This
allows a better sensitivity analysis to be carried out.
D-3.5.1 Weighted sum method

As one of the simplest methodologies for assessing alternatives, the weighted sum
technique has been widely and effectively used in various applications.
The Weighted Sum Method is a quantitative method for screening and ranking
available technology options against the recommended criteria. This method provides ameans of quantifying and emphasizing the important criteria over the others. Thismethodology is described in detail in subsequent sections, with relevant examples.
In situations where alternatives cannot be objectively assessed with ease and need a286

subjective or expert opinion based approach, weighted sum technique could pose somehurdles in decision-making. In such cases one can resort to other and more complex
techniques under what is collectively known as ‘Multi Criteria Decision Making’Approaches.
One such technique, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), is explained in thenext section.
D-3.5.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is often a challenging process anddifferent techniques have been tried out till date.
While making decisions involving a variety of tangible and intangible strategic
goals, managing conflicting stakeholders, or selecting from among dozens of alternativetechnology options, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) can help managers anddevelopers combine all of this information and make informed decisions.
One of the reasons for AHP s popularity is that it derives (presents) preference
information from (to) the decision-makers in a manner that they find easy to understand.
AHP is a systematic and structured procedure to construct and represent theelements of a problem in a hierarchy format. The basic rationale of AHP is organized bybreaking down of the problem into smaller constituent parts at different levels.
Decision-makers are guided through a series of pair wise comparison judgments toreveal the relative impact, or priority of the elements (e.g., criteria, alternatives) in thehierarchy. These judgments in turn are transformed to ratio-scale numbers representing
relative weights of the elements at a certain level of the hierarchy, as well as globally.
The hierarchy in AHP is often constructed from the top (goals from the
management standpoint, e.g., environmentally-sound development), throughintermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent levels depend, e.g., physical, chemical,
biological, and socioeconomic criteria) to the lowest level (usually a set of alternatives,
possible actions). AHP allows the combination of group judgments by taking thegeometric mean of single judgments.
One of the software applications that uses the AHP technique to carry out MCDM
is Expert Choice (available at http://www.expertchoice.com).
Expert Choice provides an interface that guides the stakeholder group through theprocess of:- Structuring decision into objectives and alternatives- Measuring objectives and alternatives using pair-wise comparisons- Synthesizing objective and subjective inputs to arrive at a prioritized list ofalternatives thus eliminating the need for complicated mathematical / numerical287

calculations- Incorporating sensitivity analysis and expert opinions to overcome subjectivity- Reporting decisions with a documentation mechanism- Allowing participatory assessment by stakeholders
Assigning weights against each criterion

While a basket of generic as well as sector specific SAT criteria has been
proposed in the new methodology, not all may be of equal importance in theprocess of decision making. Depending on the specific situation, conditions andpriorities some criteria become more important than others for that particular case.
Weighted sum method captures such a scenario by assigning weights to different
criteria in accordance with their relative importance in the given context.
Let us consider a simplified example of a solid waste management project
where technology system options are being assessed against the criteria such as
costs (capital plus operating and maintenance costs), space requirement, energy
consumption (and hence greenhouse gas or GHG emissions), and acceptance byaffected communities. Different stakeholder groups may have different opinions
about the relative importance of each of the criteria. For the concerned
government agency overseeing the project, costs and space requirement may be ofprime importance, while neighboring communities may place emphasis on theacceptance of the technology system. Environment groups / NGOs may be moreconcerned about aspects such as energy consumption and GHG/pollutant emissions.
How does one assign the weights to different criteria in such a case?
Firstly, the moderator can go round the table and try to build consensus forarrange the set of criteria in order of priority (rather than straight away assigning
the weights). Once the relative importance of the criteria is established, the group
can then move to assigning weights for each criterion.
There is no standard formula for assigning weights to criteria rather, it is to bedone within a group setting with a participatory flavour. The group may decide
weights on a scale of 0-10 or 0-100; there is no hard and fast rule concerning this.
In such situations however, groupthink can occur. For example, the eccentric
views of charismatic or even outspoken speakers can get undue prominence as thegroup seeks to make a decision by consensus, thus leading to poor decision making.
Techniques like the Delphi Method can be applied in such situations to reach aproperly thought-through consensus among stakeholders. Box 2 describes theDelphi method for consensus building, which may be used in this exercise.

288

Box 2: Delphi Method for Consensus Building
The Delphi Method works through a number of cycles of discussion and argument, managed
by a facilitator who controls the process, and manages the flow and consolidation of
information. Following are the steps for consensus building using Delphi:
1. Clearly define the problem to be solved (in our case, assign weights to the criteria)
2. Appoint a facilitator or chairperson with the skills and integrity needed to manage theprocess properly and impartially (the rest of this process assumes you are this person)
3. Select a panel of stakeholder with the depth and breadth of knowledge, and proven good
judgment needed for effective analysis of the problem
4. Get individual panel members to brainstorm about the problem from their point of view
and provide feedback to the facilitator, anonymously
5. Facilitator consolidates the individual responses, and resubmits these to the panel.

6.

Now resubmit this summary information to the group and get new responses. Some
individuals may change their mind and may decide to go with the majority. In other cases,
those who are not with the group decision may provide some new information which may
influence the group decision in the next round.
7. This process continues until a consensus on alternatives has been reached. (For instance,
70% participants may agree that social acceptability is the most important criteria andshould be assigned a weight of 7 on a scale of 0-10).
Preparing the weighted sum matrix for the selected options using the relevant criteria

Once the weights have been assigned for each criteria, each available technology
option is to be rated against each criterion using a scale (say) of 0 to 10 (0 for low and
10 for high). Again, there is no golden rule in this regard.
In the criteria table provided in Table 2, the responses (scores) for tier 2 criteria
are in the form of the “High / Medium / Low”. It is essential to change this qualitative
information to numbers. For this, the group may agree to some guidelines such as
for “low” assign a score between 0-4, while for “medium” it could be between 4-7
and 8-10 for “high”. This also has to be decided through a group consensus.
Finally, the rating of each option for a particular criterion is multiplied by theweight of the criterion. An option's overall rating is the sum of the products ofrating times the weight of the criterion.
A matrix of criteria vis-à-vis available technology options using the weighted
sum method as described above can be prepared. A template for developing such amatrix is shown below in Table 1.

289

Table 1: Template for computation using the weighted sum matrix method
Criteria

WeightTech System A
Score

Weight×Score

W1

A1

W1×A1

Criteria 2

W2

A2

W2×A2

Criteria 3

W3

A3

W3×A3

Criteria 1

Tech System B
Score

Weight×Score

Tech System C
Score

Weight×Score

Criteria 4
・
・
・
TOTAL

Scores can be assigned on the basis of a predecided scale. Actual information
on a particular criterion could be qualitative or quantitative and will have to beconverted to a score on the basis of the sale assumed.
Note: It is critical here to decide consistent descriptor definition for the scores.
That is, whether a higher or a lower score is better and desirable for qualification.
In most cases, the weighted sum method can provide satisfactory results.
It isrecommended that Expert Choice be used for more complicated and/or high value
decisions. Expertise in the use of the software is also a prerequisite, in addition to thelicensing fees.
D-3.6 Detailed Assessment Tier (tier 3)

As an outcome of the scoping exercise, a number of non-feasible or unqualified
EST options would be eliminated and the options with the best overall ratings are thus
selected for further detailed (tier 3) technical and economic feasibility. This level ofassessment is rather situation-specific and the suggested criteria at this stage demand a
lot more detailed and quantitative information to facilitate decision-making. Using theinformation, the stakeholder group should once again prepare a new weighted sum
matrix or revise the existing one. In some instances, it is possible that the rating of thetechnology systems may change due to the new scoring based on available information.
As an outcome of this exercise, the group will get a number of technology system
options ranked in the order of their scores or in other words their performance vis-à-vis
the principles of sustainability.
D-3.7 Sensitivity analysis

In the process of developing the weighted sum matrix, it can be seen that at times
the difference between the total scores for some options may be very marginal. In other290words, if the group decides to change the weights or scores for some of the criteria or
technology options, then the ranking of the technologies can change accordingly.
During the group discussion therefore, it is essential to try various iterations to checkthe sensitivity of the matrix to such changes. This can actually provide important
insights as to how different criteria contribute in the final decision and thus help thegroup in making a rational and robust decision.
For conducting such sensitivity analysis, it is possible to develop a simple spreadsheet
model, and try out various weights and scores to see how they influence the final scoresand thus, the decisions.
D-3.8 Star diagram for presentation of outcomes

Another limitation of weighted sum matrix is that at the end of the process, users
get an aggregated score for each technology option and it is not possible to see as towhich were the dominating criteria amongst all. To overcome such a situation, it isrecommended that the total scores for each technology options may be represented
using a star diagram as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Star diagram for the presentation of outcomes

Such a diagram can illustrate the influence of various factors in the final scores. In
some cases, for instance, the total score earned by a technology system may be thehighest, but this could be due to the contribution of non-priority criteria This will
require revisiting the weights and scores to ensure that the total scores are in accordancewith the priorities defined by the stakeholder groups, and thus lead to a more rational
and acceptable decision.
D-4. Anticipatory Scenario building

When a stakeholder group undertakes a systematic SAT, it starts with a set of291

technology systems based on the current situation analysis. However, it may so happen
that the selected best technology system choice made with the current set of
information may be found to be inadequate or inappropriate in the future. This may
happen due to changes in the situation, local requirements, legislations or even the newdevelopments on technology front.
It is therefore recommended that once the group has completed one cycle of the SAT,
before making a final decision, the same methodology be used to simulate certain futurescenarios and ensure that the outcome of the current exercise is robust enough and can
the suggested technology system can stand the test of time.
D-5. Implementation / monitoringOnce the decision is made, it would then form the basis for further steps such asdetailed engineering design, tendering, actual construction and commissioning. It is also
important to monitor and evaluate the technology system during its operational phase toensure that it is meeting the desired objective vis-à-vis various criteria consideredduring the SAT process.
D-6. Feedback loop

The outcomes of the monitoring and evaluation should be reported to thestakeholder groupespecially government agencies, planners and other decision
makers. Such important information from implementation forms the basis for situational
analysis for similar future projects, and hence can help in making better-informed
decisions.

292

Table 2: Proposed Generic Criteria and Indicator System
Group Heading

Criteria

Indicators

Tier 1: Screening Criteria
Compliance

Compliance with Local Environmental

Yes / No

Laws
Compliance with National

Yes / No

Environmental Laws

Other Requirements

Compliance with ultilateral

Yes / No / Not

Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

Applicable

Meeting the objectives (e.g. 3R,

Yes / No

Remediation, Rehabilitation etc.)
Tier 2: Scoping Criteria
Technical Suitability

Compatibility with local Natural

Low / Medium / High / Not

Conditions (Geographical, Climate)

Applicable

Extent of local materials usage

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Availability of local expertise

Low / Medium / High/ Not
Applicable

Track record on performance

Low / Medium / High / Notavailable

Compatibility with existing situation

Low / Medium / High / Not(technology, management systems)

Applicable

Adaptability to future situations

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Environment, Health

Process Stability

Low / Medium / HighLevel of Automation / Sophistication

Low / Medium / High

Risk levels for workers

Low / Medium / High

Risk levels for communities /Low / Medium / Highand Safety Risks
beneficiaries
Risk to the environment e.g. tobiodiversity
Environment:

Resource Usage

Resources andEmissions

293

Low / Medium / HighSpace Requirement

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Energy Consumption per unit

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Extent of use of renewable energy

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Extent of use of waste materials as input

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Water Consumption

Low / Medium / High / Not
ApplicableRaw Material Consumption

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Resource Augmentation Capabilities

Low / Medium / High / Not
Applicable

Emissions

Low /Medium / High/ Not
Applicable

Economic / Financial

Odour

Low / Medium / High

Extent of use of Hazardous Materials

Low / Medium / High

Capital Investment

Low / Medium / HighOperation and Maintenance Costs

Low / Medium / High

Benefits (Energy, fertilizer, reclaimed

Low / Medium / High / Not

land, enhanced biodiversity)

Applicable

Acceptability

Low / Medium / High

Extent of necessary resettlement and

Low / Medium / High / Not

rehabilitation of people

Applicable

Income Generation Potential

Low / Medium / High

Aspects

Social / Cultural
Aspects

Tier 3: Detailed Assessment Criteria
Environment:

Land/Space Requirement

Area of land occupied by

Resources andinstallation of the technology

Emissions(including surrounding buffer
margins) vis-à-vis availability
Energy Consumption
FuelType of Fuel Quantity per unit294

operating hours or unit output
Electricity

Quantity per unit operating
hours or unit output

Steam

Quantity per unit operating
hours or unit output

Raw Materials Consumption

Quantity per unit output or
production

Water Consumption

Quantity per unit output or
production

Emissions

Quantity per unit output or
production

Noise & Vibrations: Noise levels near

Intensity in Decibels

installation during operation
Economic / Financial
Aspects
Capital Costs
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Benefits (Energy, fertilizer, reclaimed

Economic returns

land, enhanced biodiversity, Carbon
credits)
Economic Viability

NPV, IRR, C/B Ratio, Payback
PeriodEnd of Document295

【Power Point】
Regional Environmental Cooperation and Environmental Technology in Asia
Mushtaq Ahmed MEMON(Programme Officer, UNEP-DITE-IETC at Osaka)

Yoichi Kodera(Senior Research Scientist, AIST at Tsukuba)

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

【報告】

Environmental Cooperation and Implementation of Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam
Convention) in South-East Asia
「アジアにおける環境協力と多国間環境協定」

Aboejoewono Aboeprajitno(Director at Basel Convention Regional Centre for South-East Asia, Indonesia)

ABSTRACTThe rapid economic and increased population growth in South-East Asia region has led to highrates of production and consumption, which cause environmental degradation such as air, waterand land pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction of agricultural and coastal areas, smokehaze from land and forest fires and other problems, which increase pressure on the natural
resources of the region. These and other various common issues have become transboundary
environmental issues in the region, which become a threat at the regional level.
The 10 (ten) countries in South-East Asia, namely Brunei Darussalaam, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam are members of
the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). Since 1977, environmental cooperation
among its member states for sustainable development and regional integration has started
with the 1st ASEAN Environmental Program (ASEP). In November 2002, ASEAN Ministers
responsible for Environment agreed to focus on 10 (ten) priority areas of regional importance,
among others, is addressing global environmental issues. In order to address this issue,
particularly on the atmospheric and chemicals related cluster of conventions, the member
countries established the ASEAN Working Group on Multilateral Environmental Agreements(AWGMEAs). Currently, The focus of the AWGMEAs on the international chemicals related
cluster of conventions are the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movemet ofHazardous Wastes and Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, and the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Member countries of ASEAN are Parties to all or some of the above MEAs. The
implementation of the MEAs in the region varies in accordance with the obligations of each of
the MEAs. Under Article 13 of the Basel Convention, Parties are obliged to transmit to theConference of the Parties (COP ) annually, a set of information which is specified under Article303

13(3)(a) to 13(3)(i). The information is transmitted through the Secretariat under the National
Reporting.
The Stockholm Convention requires Parties under Article 7 to develop and endeavour toimplement a plan for implementing its obligations under the Convention, and transmit it to theConference of the Parties within two years of the entry into force of the Convention for the
Party.
Under the Rotterdam Convention, Parties are required to transmit to the Secretariat informationon their Designated National Authorities (DNAs), final regulatory actions of banned or severely
restricted chemicals, and import response. The Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention has
also gathered information on status of implementation of the Parties comprising ratification
date, DNAs, number and details of import country responses, number of notifications of non
Annex III and Annex III chemicals, and participation in technical activities.
The Decision for synergy among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention are adopted
by the COP of the 3 Conventions, which are Decision IX/10 of the COP to the Basel Convention,
Decision RC-4/11 of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention andDecision SC-4/34 of the COP

to the Stockholm Convention. The 3 decisions are substantially identical which called for agreater cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.
Currently, BCRC-SEA is in the process of nominating itself to also become the Stockholm
Convention Regional Centre according to the selection process set forth by the Secretariat of
the Stockholm Convention.

304

Environmental Cooperation and Implementation of Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm
Convention) in Southeast Asia
(Aboejoewono Aboeprajitno and Cynthia Indriani)

I. Environmental Cooperation in Southeast Asia
The rapid economic and increased population growth in South-East Asia region
has led to high rates of production and consumption, which cause environmental
degradation such as air, water and land pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction ofagricultural and coastal areas, smoke haze from land and forest fires and other problems,
which increase pressure on the natural resources of the region. These and other various
common issues have become transboundary environmental issues in the region, whichbecome a threat at the regional level.
The 10 countries in Southeast Asia are members to ASEAN, namely Brunei
Darussalaam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.
The environmental cooperation in ASEAN has begun since 1977 by developing
a series of ASEAN Sub-regional Environmental Programmes (ASEP I, II, and III).
In 1995, the ASEAN Cooperation Plan on Transboundary Pollution was adopted. It
consisted of three programme areas, which were transboundary atmospheric pollution,transboundary ship-borne pollution and transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.
In each programme area, the objectives, strategies, activities and institutionalarrangements were further elaborated.
The ASEAN Vision 2020 was also adopted at the Second ASEAN Informal
Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 15 December 1997. It set out a broad
vision for ASEAN in the year 2020. In order to implement and realise the long-term
vision, action plans are being drawn up, and the first on is The Hanoi Plan of Action(HPA). It covered the period of 1999 – 2004.
The ASEAN Environment Ministers then adopted the ASEAN Strategic Plan of
Action on the Environment (SPAE) for 1999 – 2004, in order to move towards the
future goals and directions as expressed in ASEAN Vision 2020 and the Hanoi Plan of
Action (HPA). The Plan consisted of the key activities to be implemented by ASOEN
and its subsidiary bodies over the next 5 years, including the areas of coastal and marine
environment, nature conservation and biodiversity, multilateral environmental
agreements, management of land and forest fires and haze, and other environmental
activities.

305

The successor of the Hanoi Plan of Action is The Vientiane Action Programme(VAP), a six-year plan for period 2004 – 2010, which was endorsed at the 10th
ASEAN Summit in Vientiane, Lao PDR on 29 November 2004.
The ASEAN Vision 2020 and the Vientiane Action Programme has further
elaborated 12 strategies and 55 programme areas and measures to achieve the objectivesof promoting environmental sustainability and sustainable natural resource
management.
Currently, ASEAN environmental cooperation focuses on 10 priority areas ofregional importance as reflected in the Blueprint for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural
Community (ASCC Blueprint) 2009-2015:
1. Addressing global environmental issues
2. Managing & preventing transboundary environmental pollution
3. Promoting sustainable development through environmental education and public
participation
4. Promoting environmentally sound technology (EST)5. Promoting quality living standards in ASEAN cities/urban areas
6. Harmonising environmental policies and databases
7. Promoting the sustaiable use of coastal marine environment
8. Promoting sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity
9. Promoting the sustainability of freshwater resources
10. Responding to climate change and addressing its impacts
Addressing the global environmental issues is one of the key programme areas,
which, principally aims at addressing the issues related to atmospheric and chemical
related conventions, such as climate change and hazardous and toxic wastes / chemicals.
ASEAN's cooperation focuses on sharing of experiences and information, developing
common understanding / positions and capacity building to meet the obligations of therelevant conventions.
This particular key programme area is under the purview the ASEAN Working
Group on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (AWGMEAs), which is establishedby the ASEAN member countries as the subsidiary body of ASEAN Senior Officials on
the Environment (ASOEN). The AWGMEAs aims to :‐Strengthen cooperation among member countries in the implementation of306

existing international instruments or agreements in the field of environment,
taking into account, in particular, the needs of ASEAN‐

Identify and address and problems that constraint the member countries,
from participating in or duly implementing international environmental
agreements or instruments and, where appropriate, to review or revise themfor the purpose of further integrating environmental concerns into thedevelopment process‐

Promote and support the effective participation of ASEAN countries in thenegotiation, implementation, review and governance of international
environmental agreements or instruments, including appropriate provision oftechnical and financial assistance and other available mechanisms for thispurpose‐Exchange views and information on new or revised Multilateral
Environmental Agreements‐

Upgrade ASEAN capacity for negotiations in Multilateral Environmental
Agreements

Currently, the focuses of the AWGMEAs are the following international
chemicals related cluster of conventions :‐The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and Disposal‐

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade‐

The Stockholm Convention(www.aseansec.org)

on

Persistent

Organic

Pollutants

The 13 Meeting of AWGMEAs was held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar on 23 – 25 July2009.
II. Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (The Basel,
Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention) in Southeast Asia
2.1 The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and Disposal
The Basel Convention is the most comprehensive global environmental

307

agreement on hazardous and other wastes. It was adopted on 22 March 1989 andentered into force on 5 May 1992. As of November 2009, it has 172 Parties. Eightmembers of ASEAN are Parties to the Basel Convention, namely Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
The main goal of the Convention is to protect, by strict control, human healthand the environment against the adverse effects which may result from the generationand management of hazardous wastes and other wastes. The mechanisms used forachieving the goal is by the control of the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes
and other wastes and environmentally sound management (ESM) of those wastes. The
full text of the Basel Convention can be downloaded from http://www.basel.int/
text/documents.html.
Under Article 13 paragraph 3 of the Convention, Parties are obliged to transmit areport on the previous calendar year through the Secretariat of the Basel Convention,
before the end of each calendar year containing the following information:(a) Competent authorities and focal points that have been designated by them pursuant
to Article 5;(b) Information regarding transboundary movements of hazardous wastes or otherwastes in which they have been involved, including:(i) The amount of hazardous wastes and other wastes exported, their category,characteristics,
destination, any transit country and disposal method as statedon the response to notification;(ii) The amount of hazardous wastes and other wastes imported, their category,characteristics, origin, and disposal methods;(iii) Disposals which did not proceed as intended;(iv) Efforts to achieve a reduction of the amount of hazardous wastes or other wastes
subject to transboundary movement;(c) Information on the measures adopted by them in implementation of this Convention;(d) Information on available qualified statistics which have been compiled by them on
the effects on human health and the environment of the generation, transportationand disposal of hazardous wastes or other wastes;(e) Information concerning bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements andarrangements entered into pursuant to Article 11 of this Convention;(f) Information on accidents occurring during the transboundary movement and disposalof hazardous wastes and other wastes and on the measures undertaken to deal withthem;(g) Information on disposal options operated within the area of their national308

jurisdiction;(h) Information on measures undertaken for development of technologies for the
reduction and/or elimination of production of hazardous wastes and other wastes;and(i) Such other matters as the Conference of the Parties shall deem relevant
The online reporting database of the Basel Convention contains data andinformation on hazardous wastes and other wastes, as transmitted by Parties,
annually, pursuant to Article 13 (3) of the Convention, and can be seen at
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/questables/frsetmain.html.
Also Pursuant to Article 13 (3), the compilations of the information contained in
the national reports as transmitted by Parties, can be seen at
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/index.html.
The Country Fact Sheets contains the latest information available as at
September/October 2009 and published by the Secretariat in October 2009 as in
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/cfs.html.
In North-East and South-east Asian countries, there is an increasing concern
about international trade of hazardous wastes. The transboundary movements ofhazardous wastes under the Basel Convention are internationally traded for material
recovery, such as precious metals. However, illegal transboundary movements ofhazardous wastes occur, which are treated in the environmentally unsound manner andcause the adverse effects to human health and the environment. In view of gaining
appropriate control on such illegal shipments, the Government of Japan proposed theestablishment of the "Asian Network for Prevention of Illegal Transboundary Movementof Wastes" and a project including preparatory work for establishing the Asian Network
has been reported to and acknowledged by Parties at the 1st Session of the Open-ended
Working Group of the Basel Convention (OEWG1) in Geneva, 28 April – 2 May 2003.
The Network aims at facilitating the exchange and dissemination of
information on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and selected usedproducts among North-east and South-east Asian countries, and assisting participating
countries in formulating appropriate legislative response to such movements under eachcountry's system taking into consideration necessary procedures required by the Basel
Convention. This system also provides useful information that can contribute tocapacity building for the implementation of the Basel Convention(http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/).
Under the framework of the Asian Network, activities have been carried out
since 2003 with the 1st work year activities until 6th work year activities. BCRC-SEA

309

has co-organized one of the activities which was the Workshop 2009 of the Asian
Network for Prevention of Illegal Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes heldon 20 -22 January 2009 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Workshop was hosted by the
Department of Environment (DOE) Malaysia and funded by the Ministry of theEnvironment,
GovernmentofJapan.
(http://www.env.go.jp/en/
recycle/asian_net/activitiesreport.¥html
During the workshop, member countries shared updates on enforcement
activities of the Basel Convention, including the Southeast Asian Countries which are
Parties to the Basel Convention. Information shared includes :Brunei Darussalaam‐‐‐

Definition for hazardous wastes
Regulations for hazardous wastes management
Generations of hazardous wastes‐‐‐

Disposal Practises
Recommendation
Current Activities (hazardous substance and waste control, control of toxic
chemicals, import and export statistics, illegal import and export cases, activities
in 2007)‐ Future Activities‐ Challenges and Difficulties
Indonesia‐ Indonesia in brief‐ Regulations of Waste Management‐ Regulations on Import – Export of Hazardous Waste‐ Export of Hazardous Waste Year 2008
‐ Indonesia’s Experience on Illegal Imports of Waste Year 2004 - 2008
‐ Constrains‐ Activities‐ Need Assessment In enforcement on illegal import of hazardous waste
Malaysia‐‐

Legal and Institutional Measures
Quantity and Type Of Scheduled
2003-2007‐‐

Illegal Import of Scheduled Wastes
Guidelines For The Classification of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment
in Malaysia

Wastes Exported and Imported (tonnes),310

‐ Activities Conducted in 2008/2009
Philippines‐ Legislation, Implementing Rules and Regulation‐ Classification of Hazardous Waste‐ Summary of Notifications (Received / Consented)
Singapore‐ Introduction‐ Control of Hazardous Waste‐ New Initiative on Control of E-Waste‐ Enforcement Activity‐ Conclusion
Thailand‐Control of E-Waste‐ Control of used Electronics Equipment‐ Cooperation with custom
A report was also prepared by Department of Industrial Works, competent authority of theBasel Convention in Thailand, on the measures and implementation to the Basel
Convention in Thailand and can be downloaded from the website of Department ofIndustrial Works, Thailand, as well as the website of the Asian Network Secretariat at thefollowing link :http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/reports/fifthyearwork/Handout/12_Thailand-han
dout.pdf
Vietnam‐ Changing of Competent Authority/Focal Point‐ Updates on newly rules and regulations/legislation under discussion‐ Hazardous Waste (HW) Import and Export Statistics‐ Illegal import and export cases‐ Other activities‐ Challenges and Difficulties
The complete country presentations on the above information can be downloaded
from the link below : http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/activitiesreport.html
2.2. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
The Rotterdam Convention is a global international agreement aimed at
protecting human health and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of311

certain hazardous chemicals, including some pesticides and industrial chemicals.
The text of the Convention was adopted on 10 September 1998 by a Conferenceof Plenipotentiaries in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and entered into force on 24 February
2004. The full text of the Rotterdam Convention can be downloaded from :http://www.pic.int/ home.php?type=t&id=49&sid=16.
The Convention creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of thePrior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. It was built on the voluntary PIC procedure,
which was initiated by UNEP and FAO in 1989 and ceased on 24 February 2006.
The objective of the Convention is to promote shared responsibility andcooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous
chemicals, in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harmand to contribute to their environmentally sound use by facilitating informationexchange about their characteristics, providing for a national decision-making process
on their import and export and disseminating these decisions to Parties.
The scope of the Convention are pesticide and industrial chemicals banned orseverely restricted for health or environmental reason by Parties and severely
hazardous pesticide formulations (SHPF) which present hazard under conditions ofuse in developing countries or countries with economies in transition.
As of November 2009, it has 130 Parties. Five members of ASEAN are Parties
to the Rotterdam Convention, namely Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Vietnam.
Under the Rotterdam Convention, Parties are required to transmit to theSecretariat information on their Designated National Authorities (DNAs), final
regulatory actions of banned or severely restricted chemicals, and import response. The
Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention has also gathered information on status of
implementation of the Parties comprising ratification date,Designated National
Authorities (DNAs) and Official Contact Points (OCPs), number and details of importcountry responses, number of notifications of non Annex III and Annex III chemicals,
and participation in technical activities.
The status of implementation of Parties is as in the country profiles transmitted
to the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention and can be found on
http://www.pic.int/reports /countryprofiles.asp. The information contained is related to :•Ratification date•DNAs and OCPs details
Number and details of Import Country responses•

312Number of Notifications on NON Annex III chemicals• Number of Notifications on Annex III chemicals• Participation on technical assistance activities
A report on a regional approach to the implementation of the Rotterdam
Convention (2007-2008) was also prepared by the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection
Commission and Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations (FAO)
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific in 2008. It contains, among others,
information on experiences on implementation of the Rotterdam Convention from 6
countries in Asia, including Malaysia and Thailand, and also development of national
action plan for Rotterdam Convention implementation in Pakistan and Thailand. The
complete
reportcanbedownloadedfrom:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ai426e/ai426e00.pdf.
•

2.3 The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is a global
treaty to protect human health and the environment from highly dangerous, long-lastingchemicals by restricting and ultimately eliminating their production, use, trade, releaseand storage. It entered into force on 17 May 2004 and as of November 2009, there are
165 Parties to the Convention. In ASEAN, 7 members are Parties to the Stockholm
Convention. They are Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
and Vietnam. The full text of the Stockholm Convention can be downloaded from:http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/language/en-US/Default.aspx#convtext.
POPs are chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods,
become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of livingorganisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife. POPs circulate globally and can cause
damage wherever they travel. The Convention seeks the elimination or restriction of
production and use of all intentionally produced POPs (i.e. industrial chemicals andpesticides). It also seeks the continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate
elimination of the releases of unintentionally produced POPs. The mechanisms toachieve the objections are through :‐‐‐‐Eliminating production and use of intentionally produced POPs
Targeted for immediate elimination with very few exception e.g PCB
Restricting production and use of certain POPs
Very limited and carefully controlled use of certain POPs while also seeking
alternatives e.g DDT to control disease vectors like mosquitos‐

Reducing unintentional production with the aim of elimination

313

‐

Ensuring wastes containing POPs are managed safely and in an environmentallysound manner

Targeting additional POPs
The Stockholm Convention initially targeted 12 of the most persistent and toxic
chemicals, which are: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor,hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mirex, and toxaphene. Two industrial chemicals weretargeted by the Convention, they are hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated byphenils(PCBs). Unintentional chemical by-products, including dioxins and furans, are also
addressed by the Convention.
At the 4th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Geneva on 4 – 8 May 2009, there
are 9 new additional chemicals to Part I Annex A of the Convention, as follow :- alpha hexachlorocyclohexane,- beta hexachlorocyclohexane,- chlordecone,- hexabromobiphenyl,- hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether,- lindane,- pentachlorobenzene- perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride- tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether
Under Article 15, Parties are required to report to the COP on the measures it
has taken to implement the provisions of the Convention and on the effectiveness of‐such measures in meeting the objectives of the Convention (Art 15).
At its 1st meeting the COP adopted a format for reporting and decided that thefirst report should be submitted by 31 December 2006, and that subsequent reports
should be submitted by Parties every 4 years thereafter. Information contained inelectronic reporting sistem and submitted by Parties pursuant to the Article 15 is asfollow :Part A‐ Contracting party‐ National focal point‐ Contact officer submitting the national report‐ Period reported

314

Part B
Information on the measures taken by the party to implement the provisions of theStockholm Convention and on the Effectiveness of such mesures in meeting theobjectives of the Convention.
Section I. Art 7:
Implementation Plans
Section II. Art 3:
Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from
Intentional Production and Use
Section III. Art 4:
Register of Specific Exemptions
Section IV. Art 5 : Measures to reduce or eliminate releases fromunintentional production Section V. Art 6: Measures to reduce or
eliminate releases fromstockpiles and wastes
Section VI. Art 15 (2) : Production of chemicals listed in Annex A & B
Section VII. Art 9: Information Exchange
Section VIII. Art 10: Public Information, Awareness and Education
Section IX. Art 11: Research, Development & Monitoring
Section X. Art 12: Technical Assistance
Section XI. Art 13.
: Financial Resources & Mechanisms
Section XII.
: Other Information
Part C
Report on progress in eliminating Polychlorinated Bipenyls Pursuant to Annex A, PartII Subparagraph (G)Section I. Art 6: Measures to reduce or eliminate releases from stockpiles
and wastes
Section II.
: PCBs Inventory
Section III.
: Information on production, import, export and disposalof PCBs
Section IV.
: Other information
Under Article 7 of the Convention, Parties are obliged to develop and endeavour
to implement a plan for implementing its obligations under the Convention, andtransmit it to the Conference of the Parties within two years of the entry into force of theConvention for the Party.
The National Implementation Plan (NIP) of the Parties transmitted can be
downloaded from the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention website.
The overview of NIP of ASEAN member countries which are Parties to theConvention are as follow :315

Cambodia
To achieve the national objectives related to all means of POPs management, theinitiative priority activity projects that have been proposed are:
1. POPs-pesticides Reduction and Elimination Area
• Undertake assessment on the existing laws and other technical standards foramendment and promotion of effective law enforcement• Strengthen capacity of relevant institutions in prevention of the import, trafficking anduse of illegal pesticides• Strengthen capacity on pesticides analysis focusing on POPs-pesticides• Raise public awareness on pesticides issues including POPs-pesticides and other
obsolete pesticides• Raise awareness of policy and decision makers on pesticides issues including obsolete
pesticides and POPs pesticides• Conduct full inventory on obsolete pesticides including POPs-pesticides• Undertake monitoring process on the trafficking of illegal pesticides includingPOPs-pesticides• Prepare a collection campaign for temporarily storage of the obsolete pesticides(including POPs-pesticides) in regional storage depots prior to disposal• Execute a Pilot Project for the disposal of a limited amount of obsolete pesticides• Execute a nation wide project for the disposal of all obsolete pesticides (includingPOPs-pesticides)
2. PCBs Management Area
• Develop legal instruments and/or technical guidelines for managing PCBs release,• Comprehensive Inventory of PCBs contaminated equipment and articles forenvironmentally soundmanagement (ESM)• ESM Management for “in use” equipment• Comprehensive assessment of socio-economic aspect project• ESM compliance of the maintenance and repairing activities of electrical equipment• Strengthen Lab capacities for PCBs analysis• ESM Management for “out of use” equipment• Provide and strengthen capacity and enhance public awareness on PCBs issue• PCBs database management
3. Unintentionally Produced POPs Management Area
• Revise or develop the legislations related to sound management of unintentionallyproduced POPs

316

• Institutional strengthening and capacity building for sound management of
unintentionally produced POPs
• Develop programs for public awareness raising on unintended POPs by-products• Introduce and encourage sound waste management practices• Promote controlling landfills and prevention of uncontrolled burning of waste• Introduce and promote Best Available Techniques (BAT) & Best Environmental
Practice (BEP) in existing waste incineration plants• Implement guidelines on BAT & BEP in existing unintentionally produced POPs
release sources• Improve medical waste management practices• Inventory of unintentionally produced POPs releases• Evaluate the possibility of hazardous waste co-incineration in newly constructed
cement kiln under BAT and BEP conditions
4. Management of NIP Implementation• Improve mandate of the existing national coordinating unit for continuing the NIP
coordination and implementation• Establish and design the National Chemicals Database including POPs and persistenttoxic substances (PTS) for centralization and exchanging of information• Develop draft law on chemicals management.
The implementation of the above activities would be carried out by line
ministries, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF),
Ministry of Environment (MoE), and Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME),
under coordination support provided by the National Coordination Unit of the National
Focal Point for the convention.
The implementation of the Stockholm Convention will be carried out within four
years based on the identified priority activities/projects. The successful implementationof the above mentioned projects is based on the support provided by the government as
an in kind contribution and international assistance.
Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar
Transmission pending
Philippines
The baseline information on the issue on POPs in the Philippines have been identified
by the preceding study “Capacity and Needs Assessment for the Implementation of theConvention on POPs”. The said study has identified the following issues on POPs in the
country:• Incomplete inventories of POPs (import, transport, use, and disposal)317

• Identification and management of POPs-contaminated sites• Monitoring and surveillance of population health status relevant to potential impactsof POPs• Screening, enforcement, and monitoring of present and future POPs control and use• Management and disposal of POPs-contaminated equipment (PCBs)• Insufficient legislation for dioxins and furans• Lack of understanding and knowledge on unintentional POPs, and options for
reductions
Specific strategies and action plans for a 5-year implementation period were drafted foreach POPs category as follow :Action Plans Addressing Pesticides
Goal:
Ensure that all current and future uses of POPs pesticides (legal or otherwise) areaccurately identified, properly controlled, and ultimately eliminated; including theenvironmentally sound disposal of any unwanted and obsolete stocks and thecontinuous monitoring of the impacts to health and environment
Action Plans Addressing PCBs
Goal:
Achieve an effective and environmentally sound strategy to manage the totalelimination and destruction of PCB-containing products, equipment, and wastes.
Action Plan Addressing Unintentional POPs
Goal:
Progressive reductions and continuous monitoring in the releases of dioxins and furans
and other
unintentional POPs in the Philippines, based on scientific knowledge
Action Plans Addressing POPs Contaminated Sites
Goal:
Complete identification of all contaminated sites and hotspots with corresponding
appropriate
management strategies to protect public health and the environment
Action Plans Addressing Public Awareness, Information and Education
Goal:
Full awareness and high level of knowledge across all sectors on POPs and whole
support to theimplementation of the National Implementation Plan

318

Singapore
The Singapore’s National Implementation Plan (NIP) serves to inform the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) and the public on the steps, methods and approaches to be taken by
Singapore in meeting her obligations under the Stockholm Convention.
Having implemented all these measures, the NIP focuses on the development andimplementation of POPs monitoring in Singapore, and includes activities related toresearch and development, awareness-raising and information dissemination.
In developing the NIP, the views and inputs of various stakeholders have been sought
and included, where relevant, so as to maintain a balanced approach in theimplementation of the various programmes under the Stockholm Convention
ThailandThe Thailand’s NIP provides policy and strategy frameworks as well as action plans andactivities to meet objectives specific to Thailand. Based on the current situation andpreliminary priority assessment on POPs in Thailand, the national objectives for the NIP
are :To establish a formalized approach to the protection of human health and theenvironment from the harmful impacts of persistent organic pollutants- To comply with the implementation of Thailand’s
obligations under the
Stockholm Convention on POPs
- To develop strategies and action plans to reduce or eliminate releases fromproduction and stockpiles of POPs
To prioritize and identify possible options for the management of POPs to meetcountry priorities, and international obligations under the Convention- To develop a plan for improving the information base, and therefore improving thequality of POPs inventories.
To develop a national plan for information exchange, public awareness, andeducation in the field of POPs management.
- To develop and implement a central database containing data and information on
costs and benefits of POPs management options
Vietnam
The objective of Vietnam’s NIP is to safely manage, reduce and finally eliminate POPsin Vietnam, thus fulfilling the obligations to the Stockholm Convention and towardsustainable development in Vietnam. It consists of a synchronous system of actions andsolutions, including those dealing with policies, institutions, management, technology,
finance, awareness raising and international integration, aiming at fulfilling theobligations of Stockholm Convention step by step. A roadmap is proposed, identifying

319

clear priorities to be pursued in achieving the final goal of the NIP, namely to protect theenvironment and human health against POPs, consistent with the Convention's objective
2.4. Synergy among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention
The Decision for synergy among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm
Convention are adopted by the COP of the 3 Conventions. The decisions are as follow :‐ Decision IX/10 of the COP to the Basel Convention‐ Decision RC-4/11 of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention‐ Decision SC-4/34 of the COP to the Stockholm Convention
The 3 decisions are substantially identical which called for a greater cooperation andcoordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. In those synergies
decisions, the conferences agreed "to convene simultaneous extraordinary meetings ofthe conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions".
The simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the COPs to the Basel, Rotterdam
and Stockholm Conventions will be held in Bali, Indonesia, from 22 to 24 February 2010,
in coordination with the eleventh special session of the Governing Council/Global
Ministerial Environment Forum (GC/GMEF) of the United Nations Environment
Programme which will be held at the same venue from 24 to 26 February 2010.
Also, By decision SC-2/15 adopted by the 2nd Meeting of COP of theStockholm Convention, decision RC-3/8 adopted by 3rd Meeting of COP of theRotterdam Convention and decision VIII/8 adopted by 8th Meeting of COP of the Basel
Convention, the COP established the ad hoc joint working group(http://ahjwg.chem.unep.ch/) on enhancing cooperation and coordination among theBasel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions and mandated it to prepare joint
recommendations on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the three
conventions at the administrative and programmatic levels.
2.5. The role of the Basel Convention Regional Centre for South-East Asia
(BCRC-SEA)
Basel Convention Regional Centre for Southeast Asia (BCRC-SEA) is aregional centre established to assist Parties to the Basel Convention in the region /Southeast Asia countries to achieve the fulfillment of the objectives of the Basel
Convention. It is established according to Article 14 of the Basel Convention on theControl of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal which
requires the establishment of Regional Centers for Training and Technology Transfer(BCRC). Furthermore, according to the Decision III/19 at Conference of the Parties(COP) III in 1995, Indonesia is selected to host one of BCRCs. The Government of the320Republic of Indonesia then signed the Framework Agreement on BCRC for Southeast
Asia (BCRC-SEA) with the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) on 29 October
2004 in Geneve. The Framework Agreement was later endorsed by Presidential
Regulation No. 60/2005 on 12 October 2005. The BCRC-SEA is supported by 10
countries : Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia,
Singapore, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
The core functions of BCRC-SEA is to provide training, technology transfer,information, consulting, and awareness raising for Parties to the Basel Convention in theregion / Southeast Asia countries.
Currently, there are 14 BCRCs in the world as shown in the map below:

Fig. 1. Location of BCRCs in the world
Source : Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2009

The synergy decisions among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention
as adopted by the COP of the 3 Conventions above also called for coordinated use ofregional offices and centres. According to the synergy decisions, the COPs among
others :Invites Parties and other stakeholders to promote the full and coordinated use ofregional centres to strengthen the regional delivery of technical assistance under all
three conventions and to promote coherent chemicals and waste management, bearing in

321

mind the existing and ongoing work of other multilateral environmental agreements andinstitutions. This work should promote the sound management of chemicals throughout
their lifecycles and of hazardous wastes for sustainable development as well as for theprotection of human health and the environment; andRecommends that a limited number of regional focal centres, with the
responsibility to facilitate coordinated activities in the regions covering both chemicals
and waste management, be selected from among the existing regional centres of theBasel and Stockholm conventions. These focal centres will be designated following
regional agreement and in accordance with the relevant procedural provisions of therespective conventions.
According to Annex to decision SC-3/12 of the COP of the Stockholm
Convention on the Terms of reference for the selection of regional and subregional
centres for capacity-building and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies
under the Stockholm Convention, the Basel Convention regional centres, as well asother existing institutions within the chemicals and waste cluster, may be encouraged toserve as regional and subregional centres for capacity-building and the transfer oftechnology under the Stockholm Convention.
BCRC-SEA is now in the process of nominating itself to also become theStockholm Convention Regional Centre according to the selection process set forth by
the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention. The selection process can be seen at thefollowing link :http://chm.pops.int/Programmes/RegionalCentres/SelectionofCentres/tabid/231/languag
e/en-US/Default.aspx

REFERENCES:
Websiteof
ASEAN
Secretariat(2009):
http:///www.aseansec.org,
http:///environment.asean.org.
1.
Website of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (2009) : http://www.basel.int,
http://www.basel.int/text/documents.html,
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/questables/ frsetmain.html,
http://www.basel.int/natreporting/index.html, http://www.basel.int/
natreporting/cfs.html.
2.

Website of the Secretariat of the Asian Network for Prevention of Illegal
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes (2009) :http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/,322

http://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/activitiesreport.¥html.
3.

Country presentations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Vietnam) at Session I (Updates on Enforcement Activities of the Basel
Convention) at the Workshop of the Asian Network for Prevention of Illegal
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes on January 20-22th, 2009 in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Available at : http://www.env.go.jp/en/
recycle/asian_net/activitiesreport.¥html.

4.

Thangtongtawi, Piyanee (2007). “Measures and Implementation to the Basel
Convention in Thailand.” Industrial Waste Management Bureau, Department ofIndustrial Works, Ministry of Industry. Available at : http://www.env.go.jp/en/
recycle/ asian_net/reports/ fifthyearwork/ Handout/12_Thailand-handout.pdf.

5.

Website of the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention (2009) : www.pic.int,
http://www.pic.int/home.php?type=t&id=49&sid=16,
http://www.pic.int/reports/countryprofiles.asp.

6.

The Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission and Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (2008).
“A Regional Approach to the Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention.”
Available at : ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/fao/ 011/ai426e/ai426e00.pdf.

7.

Website of the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention (2009) :http://www.pops.int,
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/language/en-US/Default.aspx#convtext,
http://chm.pops.int/Programmes/RegionalCentres/SelectionofCentres/tabid/231/lan
guage/en-US/Default.aspx

8.

Ministry of Environment of Cambodia (2006). “National Implementation Plan for
the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in Cambodia”,
Availableat:
http://
chm.pops.int/Countries/NationalImplementation/tabid/253/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

9.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2006). “Final-National
Implementation Plan for Stockholm Convention on POPs”, Available at:
http://chm.pops.int/Countries/
NationalImplementation/tabid/253/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

323

10. Republic of Singapore (2007). “National Implementation Plan under the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, Available at:
http://chm.pops.int/Countries/
NationalImplementation/tabid/253/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
11. The Kingdom of Thailand (2007). “Plan for the Implementation of Its Obligation
under the Stockholm Convention on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in
Thailand”,
Availableat
http://chm.pops.int/Countries/NationalImplementation/tabid/253/language/en-US/D
efault. aspx.
12. Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2006). “Vietnam National Implementation Plan for
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, Available at :http://chm.pops.int/
Countries/
NationalImplementation/tabid/253/language/en-US/Default. aspx.
Website of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on the Simultaneous
Extraordinary Meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam andStockholm Conventions (2009) : http://excops.unep.ch
13. Website of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on Cooperation (AHJWG)(2009) : http://ahjwg.chem.unep.ch/
14. Website of Basel Convention Regional Centre for South-East Asia (2009) :www.bcrc-sea.org
15. Decision IX/10 of the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel
Convention: Cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam andStockholm conventions (2008). Available at :http://excops.unep.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemi
d=144&lang=en
16. Decision RC-4/11 of the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to theRotterdam Convention: Enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel,
Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Available at :http://excops.unep.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemi
d=144&lang=en324

17. Decision SC-4/34 of the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Stockholm Convention: Enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel,
Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Available at :http://excops.unep.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemi
d=144&lang=en

325

【Power Point】
Environmental Cooperation and Implementation of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Convention) in South-East Asia

Aboejoewono Aboeprajitno(Director at Basel Convention Regional Centre for South-East Asia, Indonesia)

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

【討論】
討論者：寺西俊一(一橋大学大学院経済学研究科教授)
一橋大学の寺西でございます。10 分間ということで私の方から今の御三方のご報告に対してコメントをさせていただきたいと思います。といっても 1 対 1 のコメントはちょっと時間的に無理でございますので、全体を包括してこの第 3 セッションの「アジアの環境協力とサスティナビリティ」あるいはサステイナブルなアジアに向けた環境協力のあり方論についてのテーマに即して私の経験をふまえて 3 点ほど申し上げたいと思います。
1 点目は、
私は 90 年代の初めからアジアで環境の問題が大変深刻化してきたというのが、非常に明確になって参りましたので、私自身は日本の公害や日本の環境の問題をそれまでは必死になって追っかけていたのですけれども、それを追っかけて行く先にいつの間にかアジ
アの庭に出てしまう。つまり、公害とか環境の問題が 90 年代以降は明らかにアジアワイドの問題に広がったということであります。日本でかつて起こった問題がアジアで繰り返され、
しかも日本と共通性なり類似性があるというところもありますけれども、それぞれのアジアの各国地域の独自性も加わって、非常に複合的で深刻な日本の経験をはるかに上まわるような大きな環境を巡る問題が 90 年代以降、アジアワイドで広がった。これは国家を越え、地域を越え、アジア的共通の課題として取り組まざるを得ない問題として、クローズアップしてきたということが 90 年代から私がアジアに足を踏み入れざるを得なくなった背景にありました。
その中で私どもはアジア・太平洋 NGO 環境会議、APNEC（アプネック）と言っているんですが、これは APEC というアジア・太平洋経済協力機構をもじってですね、この E を
Environment に変えて、しかも APEC は国家間協力機構ですが、我々は環境問題のガバナン
スは国家を軸とした枠組みでは解けない。国家と国家は利害対立するだけで、問題を複雑化させるだけだ、というのが環境問題のリアリティでございますので、NGO 的に、つまり国家の論理を越えた論理で問題に対処していくネットワークを作らなくてはいけない。こういう観点からアジア・太平洋 NGO 環境会議、APNEC ネットワークというのを第 1 回 90 年の12 月に万国からスタートし、つい先日第 9 回を京都で行いました。
そういう取り組みの中で最も重要なことは何かということで考えてきたときに、アジアの環境の問題とそれに対する取り組みでどうしても不可欠なのは、アジアが協力せざるを得な
いということです。バラバラであってはアジアの環境は悪くなるだけ。どうやって各国、あるいは各地域、あるいは各主体の利害を越えて、アジア共通課題としてアジアの共通の基盤
である環境を守るための共同的枠組みを作るか。これしか解決の方向は無い、という認識をますます強めてきたわけであります。そのための協力ネットワーク作りが、私の以来 20 年近くの取り組みの中心テーマでございました。

341

植田報告の中で、環境ガバナンス論の観点から非常に重要なキー概念が出ました。それは、ある種の環境は、あるいはアジアの資源は、ナチュラル・エンバイアメンタル・リソース（Natural Environmental Resource）というとらえ方をして、そのリソースの上に我々のアジ
アの経済活動が行われている、アジアの国家が成り立っている、アジアの我々の暮しが成り立っているとすれば、一番基礎にある究極の基盤であるアジアの自然環境資源というものをアジア共通のコモンズと考える考え方。そういう考え方を基本理念で共有しなければアジア
環境協力の枠組み作りは成功しない。そういう意味で私はアジア環境共同体の理念を打ち出して、それを支える考え方のキーワードでアジアの環境はみんなにとって大事な宝、コモン
ズなんだ、アジア環境コモンズ論の考え方を共有しようではないかという呼びかけでいろい
ろな取り組みを進めてきたということでございます。
そういうことで言いますと、その各論の経緯で、廃棄物がアジアで動き回っている。日本の廃棄物は日本のリサイクル法が 90 年代に個別法で 6 つくらいできて、その上に循環型社
会基本法ができて。一応法体系上は、資源リサイクルは確立した形になっているんですけれども。これは私は最初から批判していましたが、実はこれは国内で閉じた立法体系を作っているだけで、リアリティはアジアへ抜けている。つまり、資源は国際的に循環しているのでありまして、廃棄物もまた国際的に外へ抜け出しちゃっているわけですね。国内のリサイク
ルはそれを捕らえることができない。インフロー、フローの中でインビジブルであり、ある
いはアウトローで廃棄物がアジアへ越境移動し、有害廃棄物を含めてアジア中漂流している。
これがとりわけ中国に集中的に吸収されていくようなメカニズムがリアリティとして進んでいる。どうするんだということになりますと、バーゼル条約をアジアのレベルでもう一歩具体化してアジア版バーゼル条約のアジア的強化ということをどうするかということを共同で議論せざるを得ないわけです。その中で、資源リサイクルに関する技術協力や様々な資源化に対する技術の共有、こういうこともまた各論の経緯で小寺さんがおっしゃられたような取り組みが必要なわけであります。それらをさらに包括的に国全体で ASEAN なり、ある
いは東アジアなり、あるいはアジア全体でアジア環境共同体的な機構を制度化して作ろうとなれば、当然その制度的ビジョン、制度設計、植田報告で言えば、インスティチューショナ
ルな 枠組みとい うものをど うデザイン していくか 、 Institutional Design for Sustainable
Development あるいは Sustainability、こういうふうにおっしゃられましたけれども、アジアのサスティナビリティのための新しい制度デザイン、新しい制度設計、これに関する基本的なビジョンが必要なわけですね。それをどう考えていくのかということをやはり今から議論を始めていかなければいけない、こういうことであります。
総括的に言いますとアジアは今、国を越え、地域を越え、各主体を越えて、まさに共通して環境の問題に共同で協力して取り組まなくてはならない、これはもう事実として突きつけられている課題であって、避けられない課題です。とすれば、2 番目、これに向けてどういう協力のビジョンを打ち出すか。このときのキー概念を共有しなくてはいけない。私は、これはアジアの環境問題は、環境コモンズとしてみんなの共有物であると、この共有物をどこ

342

で汚そうが、どこで破壊しようが、これは全ての国々に影響が出てくる。それが環境の問題の本質である。とすれば、中国の奥地で問題が起こっているが他人のことだと言っているわ
けにはいかないわけですね。中国の西部で水が足りない。それはかわいそうだ、大変なこと
だね、西部開発は間違っているね、ということを言っているだけではダメなんですね。
日本も含めてアジア全体で食糧資源をどうするか、土壌資源をどうするか、あるいは大気
資源をどう管理するか、というような各論にまで踏み込んだ協力のビジョンと制度作り、これに向けた取り組みをどう進めるか。これが非常に重要で、植田報告はその基本概念を出されたんだと私は理解しました。私は基本的に植田さんの提起されたキー概念には賛同いたします。私も同じ事を考えてきました。それで、今後、それに向けて一歩進めていこうとした
場合、実はその認識はかなり私の見るところこの 20 年、各国関係者、とりわけ研究者、それから政策当局の中で先が見えている人たちの先見的な政策担当者、行政官、あるいは技術者、こういった方、ほとんどの方が同じ事を同じように語ります。ほとんどそういう意味では、そういう問題に取り組んで来られた先端の方々はほぼ同じ認識をすでに共有していると思います。そしてそれを今後どう具体化するかというときの各論が今問われている。あるいは制度化が問われている。
このときに、実は大きくネックになる問題があるんです。これは何かと言いますと、私の実感で申し上げます。国民国家の枠組みなんです。ナショナリズムなんです。これが邪魔するんです。だから ASEAN 機構とか、いろんなものを国家、政府間関係でいろいろアジア環境協力を作っています。環境省だってエコアジア会議なんべんもやっています。しかしほとんど前に行きません。なぜか。国と国が利害をつきあわせて、利害争いしているだけなんですね。国家間の利害を調整するだけで、アジアの環境問題のリアリティは解けないんです。
だから私は Beyond Nation States、国家の論理をどう越えた枠組みを作るか、あるいは国家の枠組みに縛られた古いナショナリズムの狭さをアジアでどう打ち破っていくか、
これはヨー
ロッパと比較しますと、ヨーロッパはすでに国民国家の、国民国家概念というのはかなり空洞化していると私は見ています。国民主権、国家主権を EU といったより上の概念とより下のリージョナルのガバメントの方へ、両方とも国民国家主権をいわば分権化し、そして主権の共有化を制度化しているのではないのかと思います。
そういう意味で言えば、アジアでそういうことが本当にできるんだろうか。片方でアジアではまだ治安秩序その他が国民国家の枠組みさえガタガタで、うまくできない、治安を確保するためにはまず国民国家で、強い国家を作らなくてはいけないという地域的なリアリティのあるところもあります。
こういうアジアの複合的なリアリティの中で環境から突きつけられている最先端の時代の課題にどう答えるための取り組みをするか。このときに国家とはなん
ぞやという根本問題に議論は行かざるを得ないんではないかと思っております。
とりわけ中国との問題を考えたときに、これからのビジョンは中国の国家が中心になって、中国がヘゲ
モニー国家としてアジアを統一していくようなアジア共同体は、僕はリアリティを持っていると思うんですが、それでは環境問題は解決しないと思うんですね。アジアは各国間が平等

343

な国家間関係を維持しつつ、国家の論理を越えた、リージョナルな、あるいはリージョナル
コモンズの論理で地域間協力がどうできるのかという議論にきちんと踏み込んでいくことなしに、どう考えてもこれからのアジア共同環境協力の具体的な制度化はかなり大きな壁を持たざるを得ないと、私は一方でも厳しさを認識しております。ここをどう乗り越えたらい
いのか、御議論いただければと思います。以上です。

344

討論者: Hiroshi Ohta
(Professor at School of International Liberal Studies, Waseda University)

The basic title is “Global Environmental Governance and Institutionalization ofRegional Environmental Cooperation in East Asia.” The debates about the necessity of
establishing a world environmental organization (WEO) or global environmentalorganization (GEO) have subsided today compared with the early 1990s, when the Rio
Summit was convened.
One of the strong reasons that support the establishment of such global
environmental organizations is to counter the ever-expanding global market, backed by
the principles and rules of free trade. The World Trade Organization stands tall andappears dominant, even to regulate environmental issues in favor of free trade.
However, others take a more cautious position, pointing out that the global
environmental problems, such as stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, and lossof biological diversity, as well as many other environmental problems, are too complex
and diverse for one global institution to manage.
My position is similar to that of the institutionalists. I do not totally reject theidea of establishing a WEO or GEO but consider it both unrealistic and unfeasible,
judging from the current situation of the United Nations Environmental Program andalso conditions of unsustainable development in global environmental governance. At
present, however, a more pragmatic approach of strengthening the existing international
environmental regime by streamlining some overlaps among them is a valid option forconsolidating environmental governance.
Therefore, in order to seek effective global environmental governance, we firstneed to understand complex institutional interlinkages among various international
environmental regimes. Then we may be able to identify the sources of success andfailure of environmental regimes.
The problems of the environment and natural resources (ENR) in East Asianare something like a double-edged sword. They can offer an opportunity for regional
cooperation or can bring about conflict. Environmental problems such as acid rain andyellow sand transcend national borders, as many people have mentioned. Nations on the
downwind side must depend on preventive action by nations on the windward side. In
this ecologically interdependent world interstate cooperation is imperative for solving
any kind of international environmental problems. But Dr. Teranishi emphasized theimportance of people-to-people cooperation, going beyond the nation-states. I reallyagree with that.

345

Lagging far behind the European Union, however, the East Asian region lacks
even a cornerstone for erecting a cooperative apparatus like the European Coal andSteel Community (ECSC). Thus, the institutionalization of natural-resource cooperation
for tackling environmental and natural-resource problems might provide the nations in
the region with unique opportunities for creating various regional environmental andnatural-resource regimes. On the contrary, the absence of a cooperative scheme like the
ECSC for sharing vital natural resources might lead regional powers to collide with one
another over such resources.
However, despite the confrontational image of international relations in East
Asia, preliminary research shows that there are quite extensive regional ENR
cooperative arrangements with regard to a wide range of issues in the region, althoughnone of them has developed into a full-fledged multilateral environmental andnatural-resource regime.
In fact, we can trace some trends of institutionalization for regional cooperationin addressing ENR problems. First, regional ENR problems have now compelledconcerned nations to form new functional institutions. Second, if the nature of ENR
problems allows participation by environment NGOs and raises public awareness, a
nascent regime has a good chance to develop into a regulatory regime. Third, severe
competition over regional natural resources can cause armed conflict. But, at the sametime, a clash in a tense situation can serve as a warning call about escalation of conflict
into major military confrontation so that contending parties may make efforts to findways to defuse the tensions and control escalation. Fourth, more established knowledge,
clear causal relationship of concern, presents problems. So-called epistemic
communities, which again many people have already mentioned, are crucial to building
robust regional cooperation on ENR problems. Finally, an international convention
sometimes has a positive influence on regional ENR cooperation when major regional
parties ratify it.
And then, I turn to the inter-linkages of various international regimes. Both theozone regime, whose objective is to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, and theclimate-change regime consist of conventions, treaties, and protocols. We call them aregime which provides a governance system in a specific issue area. We have now many
international regimes that deal with various international/global environmental problems
but they lack coordination between regimes. We need to pay special attention to theinteraction among various multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), as well as
certain MEAs and other international regimes (such as a free-trade regime governed by
the WTO) can sometimes generate unexpected consequences or serious problems that346

cannot be solved by an individual regime. For example, some interaction may generatesynergistic effects, while other may cause disruptive effects.
Policies to mitigate climate change, for example, may have both positive andnegative impacts on the protection of biological diversity, prevention of desertification,and protection of wetlands. If fast-growing trees, like eucalyptus, are planted bydestroying mixed forests or national woodlands, as a climate-change policy, this kind ofreforestation will destroy the habitat of various wild fauna and flora.
However, reforestation or even afforestation can certainly contribute to holdingback expansion of desert areas and may also create a desirable local climate in which
local hydrological circulation can become established. If, however, tree planting andland-use change are carried out by draining wetlands or filling a pond, such policies will
have very disruptive effects on migratory birds and the regional ecosystem as a whole.
The 1989 the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and Their Disposal may be considered the central MEA to integrateother regimes that regulate industrial hazardous wastes. According to the Web site of theBasel Convention and also Dr. Aboejoewono, during its first decade (from 1989 to1999) the Convention was principally devoted to setting up a framework for controllingtransboundary movement of hazardous wastes. It has also developed certain criteria forenvironmental sound management. A control system based on prior written notifications
was also put into place. During the present decade (2000-2010) the Convention isbuilding on this framework by emphasizing full implementation and enforcement bytreaty commitment.
The area of focus will be minimization of generation of hazardous wastes. The
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticide in International Trade creates legally binding obligations forthe implementation of prior informed consent procedures, which was built on thisvoluntary PIC procedure. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants isto protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in theenvironment for a long period of times and become widely distributed geographicallyand accumulate in the fatty tissue or humans and wildlife. These MEAs also imply somesynergistic effects for the governance of global environmental problems.
In this context, the decision of the three MEAs (the Basel, the Stockholm, andthe Rotterdam conventions) to establish the ad hoc Joint working group on enhancing
cooperation and coordination among the these MEAs is quite significant. These three
conventions now prepare joint recommendations on enhancing cooperation andcoordination among the three conventions at the administrative and programmatic347

levels.
Then, back to East Asia, there are lots of bilateral and multilateral agreements,
even limited to East Asian countries like South Korea, China, and Japan. As Professor
Teranishi mentioned, there are scores of regional ENR agreements. If we categorize
these bilateral and multilateral agreements, they can be divided into five categories.
There are transboundary air-pollution issues, marine ENR issues, concern for wildlife
and migratory birds, urban environmental concerns, and multilateral and regional
environmental conferences and meetings. However, all of them are still at a stage ofeither research, networking, information exchange, policy dialog, or meetings. There isno full-fledged regime emerged from these regional arrangements. It has not evolved. It
is worthwhile noting that there is a unique subnational regional environmental
cooperation initiated by the City of Kitakyushu to help alleviate air pollution of Dalianin China.
Finally, regarding regional cooperation for acid rain, under the leadership of theJapanese government, there is a kind of monitoring network called EANET, which has apotential to develop into a full-fledged regime. However, there is still a big room forpolitical arguments, even regarding the sources and transport model of acidified
substances in this region. It is necessary to overcome scientific and technical differencesby political will, to call for more forceful collective action. We may be able to renderscientific authority to the EANET’s finding so as to promote regional cooperation. But
at the same time, we need to build public awareness to spur political will to reduce acidsubstances in the region backed by solid scientific knowledge..
Public awareness and participation of NGOs are key ingredients of regional
cooperation for problems of dust and sand storms (DSS). Unlike acid rain, thecause-and-effect relationship of the DSS problem is more visible and tangible. Anotherimportant factor is the active participation of China for this DSS problem. The causes ofdust and sand storms are both natural and anthropogenic. So the nations on the
downwind side cannot deal with the problem by just blaming the nations on thewindward side.
When we see the issue of natural resources through the lens of economic
interests or national interests, the confrontational aspects are magnified, and resource
management appears anarchic. According to the conventional view, there are noagreements and no regional forums to discuss the management of shared resources inthis region. Nevertheless, however limited, regarding the issue of stable and migratory
fish, there is a nascent regional cooperative scheme is emerging. My preliminary studies
show that multilateral arrangements or international conventions can provide a region348

with an instrument for cooperation and rational management of natural resources basedon bilateral agreements. A positive impact of the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS) in the form of regional bilateral agreements on fisheries is a casein point.
Under the guidance of the UNCLOS, annual total catch has been imposed forseveral species, for example, sardines, mackerel, jack mackerel, chub mackerel, walleye
pollack, and snow crab, all of which are popular fish for the Japanese. Some otherspecies will be added to the list.
Moreover, local fishery officials are now required to use new computers totabulate data on catches in major fishing ports. And these data are utilized for
determining total allowable catch of dwindling fish stock in this region.
And a final word: As for South Korea and China, similar restrictions went into
effect. In addition, while South Korea and Japan are going to introduce a new fishingquota system in the joint Korea-Japan EEZ, based on fish type, in November 2003
China introduced a plan to reduce the number of fishing boats by 30,000 by 2010, from
222,000 to 192,000.
Needless to say, viable verification and extensive monitoring are crucial todetermine how effective this institution is for managing natural resources.
Thank you very much. I’m sorry for going overtime.

349

【Power Point】

討論者:太田 宏(早稲田大学国際教養学部教授)

350

351

討論者：田中勝也(滋賀大学環境総合研究センター准教授)
滋賀大学の田中です。今日のお三方のご報告どうもありがとうございました。最初の報告と 2 番目の報告については日本語で、それから最後のアブさんの報告については英語でコメントをさせていただきたいと思います。
それで最初の報告が、これタイトルが違っていて申し訳ないです。私少し古い資料をもとにしてコメントを作成しておりますので、実は内容が異なるんです。植田先生の今日のご報告というのが、基本的に地域のコモンズのマネジメントと環境ガバナンス、特に様々なレベ
ルの環境ガバナンス、これを重層的な環境ガバナンスというふうに呼んでおりますけれども、その関係性についてのご報告だったんですね。
私が用意しているものがご覧の通り全く違う
んですけれども、一見したところ違うんですが途上国、特に東アジアの経済発展、持続可能な発展と環境ガバナンスという、そんなに中心としてのテーマは違わないと思うんですね。
まあ少し強引な形ですが、このスライドを若干使ってご説明させていただきたいんですけ
れども、ここで出てくるこの山のような関係性というのは、環境汚染と環境発展がどういう関係を持っているかということなんですね。ご覧になれば分かるように、横軸が経済発展の水準で、右に行けば右に行くほど経済が発展するということです。縦軸というのが環境汚染で、これは上に行けば行くほど環境が悪くなるわけです。ご覧の通り、開発がある程度進むに連れてしばらくは環境が汚染されていくんです。上にどんどん高くなっていく。これをBrown Growth と言っていて、経済と環境が両方とも、経済が発展するに従って環境が悪化してしまう。ただあるターニングポイントを越えると、そこから先は技術革新ですとか産業の高度化に伴って経済発展と共に環境はよくなる。これを EKC、環境クズネッツ曲線と呼んでいるんですね。
これについて植田先生のもともとの論文については強い警鐘を発せられていたんです。というのはこの考え方というのは非常にシンプルなので、人々の耳目を一時非常に集めたんです。これは非常に単純な図式で非常に捕らえやすい。誰でも分かるような内容ですので、一頃非常に流行ったんです。ただし、これについてはいろいろと問題が出ていまして、これはちょっと時間的な関係もありますのではしょりますけれども、基本的に Green Growth と呼ばれる、ある程度の水準を過ぎたら経済発展をするだけで環境がよくなるという、そういう安易な考えを持ってはいかんということで。これは数多くの著名な研究者からも支持されている今では非常なポピュラーな考え方なんですね。
2 つ目の項目なんですけれども、そんなにシンプルに考えてはいけないんだけれども、じゃあ代わりに何が必要なのかっていうことを考えてみると、その重層的な環境ガバナンス。
重層的というのは、これは先ほどのスライドでも紹介されたと思うんですが、グローバルな
ガバナンス、リージョナル、地域のガバナンス、国家のガバナンス、それから地域（ローカル）のガバナンス。これらが別個に動くのではなくて、相互に関係し合っているという、そ352

ういうガバナンスが地域的な持続的な発展に必要であろうと、そういう議論なんですね。
これは単純化したスライドなんですけれども、先ほどの EKC、ある程度発展すれば環境は良くなるという議論も、ガバナンスが弱かったり、あるいはもう非常に弱い、そういうところですと環境が良くなるターニングポイントがかなり後のほうであったり、あるいは全く成立しない、そういうこともある。なので、同じ経済条件でもガバナンスというのを良くとらえて、それを発展させることが、環境あるいは経済発展にとって重要である。そういう話なんですね。
ここからが簡単なコメントというか質問なんですけれども、ただこの環境ガバナンスというのは非常に一般からすると曖昧模糊とした考え方で、特に重層的に考えるというのは非常に素人にはなかなか辛いものがあります。このような東アジアの経済発展、それから持続可
能な成長というコンテクストで考えてみた場合に、どういったガバナンスの中の要素が特に重要なのかというふうな、個人的な御見解で結構ですので、お教えいただければなと思います。
それからこういった地域の持続可能な発展を考えるときに、アフリカですとかヨーロッパ、
アジアというのは政治も文化も違えば、経済発展の度合いも違いますから、やはりガバナン
スで求められる要素も違ってくると思うんです。アジアの場合、特にアジアに注目した場合特に重要なものというのはどういうものなのか。
それから、環境ガバナンスの中には、少し強引な議論になるかもしれませんが、環境条約というのは 1 つのガバナンスのあり方だと思うんですね。環境ガバナンス、例えば今日はせっかくセンターのディレクターがおられますので、バーゼル条約のようなアジアの中での廃棄物の移動ですとか、そういったものを抑える、そういった環境条約というのはガバナンスの中でどういう役割を果たせるのか、その点について教えていただければなと思います。
それから 2 つ目の報告なんですけれども、こちらの報告というのはこれは非常に理系的な報告なんですけれども、文系的な、非常に学際的な内容で、私はプラスティックを燃料にですとか、理系的なところは少々疎くて申し訳ないんですけれども。ただこのご報告はテクニ
カルなところが重要というよりは、UNEP が作っている仕組みですね、その国の状況に応じて適切な技術を提供するという仕組みが重要であって、その中で SAT（Sustainable Assessmentof Technology）というのが 1 つの重要な仕組みとして機能している。最後の方でスターダイ
アグラムという形でそれをご呈示いただいて、それが非常に分かりやすかったんですね。
これは UNEP がアジアでそういった環境技術を普及させる、非常に有効な機能を果たしているんではないかと私は思いました。ただ、最後のところで、SAT というのはこれまた重層的でして、ガバメントレベルからコミュニティのレベルまでいろいろなところで SATが起こっているということをご説明いただきましたが、私この分野少し明るく無いものですから、ちょっとイメージしづらかったんですね。ですので、もしできましたらその辺りの何か具体的なケースですとか、もしご存じでしたらお教えいただけると助かります。
またこれは廃棄物についてかなりいろいろとタッチされていますので、例えばバーゼル条

353

約なんかとどういう関わりがあるかなども教えていただけると有り難いです。
それから 3 つ目の報告なんですけれども。

Thank you very much, Professor Aboe. I asked him how to say his name, andtold him his name was too long for typical Japanese like me, and he said we could justsay Aboe. So I call him Aboe.
This presentation is a very nice summary of three major conventions: Basel,
Rotterdam, and Stockholm. And, for example, if you search for the documentation orPowerPoint file explaining those conventions, you will be screwed up with too many
informative slides or PDF. Before commenting today, I downloaded several PowerPoint
files, and the worst one was about 50 pages of slides, and the font size is 10. So that’s
too much information.
But I think someone made those slides and tried his best. The environmental
treaties include various aspects, and many things are organized in each of those treaties.
But today he presented three very major conventions, with not too muchinformation, but he extracted the most important points: the objective of each treaty,
status of ratification, and expected outcome for the future. So it is a very nice summaryof those three conventions.
And more information, if you are interested in those three conventions, can befound in much more detail in his discussion paper. I think it is included in the brochure,or you can download it.
This presentation is very interesting. It is a very important topic. And also, thisis somewhat related to my research interest. Professor Matsuoka, the chair of thissession, and I are currently doing a kind of quantitative analysis of the effects ofmultilateral environmental agreements like Basel.
Everyone knows the Montreal and Basel are successful environmental treaties.
But in contrast, if you look at the other environmental treaties, some treaties are notreally working well or not at all.
Why is that? That’s the main issue in political science and environmental
economics. So we are making international panel data, including on the ratification of
the environmental treaties and economic environmental indicators. And we do some
regression analysis, using econometrics.
But the pitfall of those studies is this: They tend to treat different treaties
independently. That means that treaty A and treaty B are very independent and do nothave any relationships.
But this is one of the major pitfalls. As Aboe mentioned, he is going to havesynergy meetings. That is a kind of simultaneous extraordinary meeting, so the COPs to354

the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions.
So this kind of synergy of different environmental treaties is important. And it
is getting to be popular, I think. So far it is quite a unique attempt, but this a very
important move for the development of multilateral environmental treaties.
So I think to do some analysis of the effects of environmental treaties we needto consider this kind of synergy or interdependence among the various treaties.
So my question is that it is going to be held in February 2010, but it is quite aunique attempt. So I think it is hard to predict. So Aboe, do you have any idea about the
expected outcome or any other idea about this synergy meeting?
So that’s it for my comments and question. Thank you.

355

【Power Point】

討論者：田中勝也(滋賀大学環境総合研究センター准教授)

356

357

358

359

360

【質疑応答】
松岡：

ありがとうございました。それではちょっと時間が押しまして後 15 分ほ
どになりましたけれども、フロアの方から意見、コメント、質問もおありでしょうから、2 つ、3 つフロアの方から、質問、意見、コメントがありましたら受けまして、それからパネル、コメンテーターの方に最後一巡をしたいと思います。いかがでしょうか。
それではご所属とお名前を言っていただいてからお願いします。

フロア：

オーストラリア国立大学から参りました小林ハッサルやすこと申します。

My question goes to Professor Aboejoewono’s presentation. I was justwondering if you could have any sort of examples, like in how you
struggle to create something like a regional consensus regarding
environmental issues, because as far as I know there are lots ofconflicts of interest among Southeast Asian countries, simply because
this region has got quite a lot of diversity among societies, not justeconomic but political, linguistic, and cultural.
So it seems that, really, all these environmental agreements
and declarations, even on a practical level, seem to be quite smooth.
But environmental issues easily turn nationalistic. This causes
conflicts between Singapore and Indonesia and Singapore andMalaysia.
So could you elaborate a little bit on actual struggles that you
are dealing with on a daily basis?
Thank you.
松岡：

ありがとうございました。続いてどなたかございますでしょうか。いかがでしょうか。せっかくの機会ですので是非何かコメント質問ございま
したらと思いますけれども。よろしいでしょうか。それじゃ。

フロア

それぞれの皆さん方の非常に重要な示唆に富んだご発言をありがとうご（天児）：

ざいました。1 つ、私は寺西先生のご意見について、少しお尋ねしたいんですけれども。つまり基本的な考え方として私は非常に理解できますし、私自身もそういった部分をたくさん持っていると思うんですが、現実に私は中国を専門にしながらアジアの、特に政治分野でいろいろとやって361

おりまして、その場合にぶつかる問題がですね、政治で言えば安全保障の問題と言いますが、国家の安全保障と人間の安全保障とどういう風に兼ね合わせるかということにぶつかるわけですね。そして当然国家の安全保障というと、国家利益の問題というのがおっしゃるようにもう正面からぶつかっていくということがあります。
そうは言いながらも、結局今起こっているアジアの環境、あるいは感染症とか、自然災害とか、様々な問題を解決するときに、1 つは人材の問題ですね。政府の存在というもの、ガバメントの存在を無視できない。
それから資金の問題でも無視できない。それからネットワークの面でもやはり無視できない。こういったことを考えた時に、私はおっしゃられるような意味で環境の問題も国家に任せると利害対立で終わっちゃう、人間というかヒューマンのネットワークが必要なんだという。これは理論的にはおっしゃる通りなんだけど、現実の問題として、そこにじゃあ国家というものをエクスクルードしてそういう議論ができるかといったらやっぱりできない、というのが現実だと思うんですね。
私はむしろそこの中で、何をすべきかというふうに問題を設定すべきであって、国家か、人間、ヒューマンレベルの問題かという設定ではない。一番重要なのは、1 つはやはり国家の役割というのをもう一度見直して見るという必要があると思うんですね。つまり、国益だけが国家の役割なのかという、そこのところをどう捉えるのかということ。
それともう 1 つは、やはり国境を越える、国益を越える議論というのは議論だけではなくて、そういう意識を持つ人を育てていかなくてはい
けない、そういうネットワークを作っていかなくてはいけない、私はこの今回のグローバル COE の一番のポイントとして、意識しているのはやはり人材育成なんですね。この人材育成というのは実はただ専門家を作ればいいということだけではなくて、そういう意識を持った人々のグループを若手の中で育てていくことがいかに大事かということだと思うんです。
ですから、私はこの GIARI という言葉をですね、「義理がある」という「ギアリ」という、あえてそういう言い方をしているんですが、例えば我々のところに今いる若手の Ph.D.の学生とかあるいは助手の人とか、助教の人たちが、我々は GIARI の卒業生なんだと、つまりどこどこの国か
ら来た留学生ではなく、GIARI の卒業生だという意識を持ってくれるよ
うな、そういう人材育成になるといいなと思うんですが、そういう試み、原則論で言えば多分賛同していただけると思うんですが、そこらへんもう少し具体的に何かアイデアがあればちょっと教えていただきたい。そ362

れから植田先生あたりは京都でそういうような試みを是非やっておられ
ればちょっと紹介していただければと思います。どうもありがとうござ
いました。
松岡：

ありがとうございました。今の発言は拠点リーダーをやっている天児教授です。それではどうしましょうか、順番にでもいいですしランダムにでも結構ですけれども、せっかくチャレンジされましたので寺西さんの方からでもどうですか。よろしいですか？

寺西：

どうもオーストラリアの小林さんという方、それから天児先生どうも。
私が最後に申し述べたアジア環境協力は避けられない、これからの共通の課題だと、問題はそれをどう実現していくかなんだけど壁がある。その壁の 1 つの私が破らなくてはいけない最大の壁は国家の論理の壁だということをあえて強調させていただいたのは、私の 20 年のアジアへの環
境協力の取り組みの今の私自身の結論というか、私自身の問題の焦点がそこにあるからです。そのことを、1 つ非常に端的に感じるのは、例えば中国は今北京を中心にものすごく環境重視になりました。第 11 次五カ年計画、胡錦涛政権は環境を第 3 の柱にいれています。第 12 次の五カ年計
画でも環境投資を、日本で言えば数 10 兆円、50 兆円をやって環境ビジネ
スを育てると言っています。そういう意味では、ものすごく国家の指導性が発揮され、まさに政府主導型環境配慮計画が出てきているわけだけだけれども。しかしこれは、私はこの国家の論理で進められている中国の環境保全は本当の環境保全につながるのかといったら、極めて怖い、環境の名において行われる新しい環境破壊が起こる可能性があると思っております。西部開発がその典型の現場です。
ところが、こういうことに関して国家の代表で、国家と国家の間で日中環境協力の公式の議論をやろうとしたときには、こういうことをリア
リティに基づいて詰めて議論することはできないんですね、残念ながら。
制約があります。私は、ヨーロッパの経験の中でライン川がどうして綺麗になったか、というプロセスの中に 1 つのヒントがあるように思います。ライン川はオランダが被害国でドイツ、フランスが加害国です。関
係 9 カ国ぐらいがライン川を共通の資源にしていました。航行権も問題になりました。ライン川は 70 年代まで、もう本当にドブ川になったんですね。これを解決するために被害国であるオランダから何回もボールが投げられました。そのためにライン川の河川を汚染防止をするための国際機構が作られました。60 年代初めに。協定に基づいて。これは国家間

363

協定です。参加したのは全部関係国です。関係国の国家の代表が集まってライン川の防止のための国際委員会が立ち上がったんですが、その委員会は結論的に言えば国家の利害と利害のぶつかり合いの場であって、結局強い国家、フランス、ドイツの利害が貫徹する場所であったにすぎないわけです。
ところが 72 年のストックホルム会議以降のヨーロッパの環境機構の大きな転換があって、このライン川の国際委員会は委員会のあり方の原理
自身を変えました。この委員会に出ているメンバーはドイツから出ているメンバーと言えども、それはドイツの代表ではない。ライン川をキレイにするというミッションに忠実な国際公務員として働くヨーロッパ公
務員なんですね。そういう言う意味では、私は植田さんがおっしゃった
リージョナルなコモンズを担う担い手が、そのコモンズのミッションを担う人材として国家の枠を越えて活躍する場を作る、そういう機構を作る、これが大事だと思います。その具体的な 1 つのあり方は、例えばですね、APEC とかいろいろな機構を作っていますけど、これは全部国家の代表が閣僚会議とか、閣僚代表が行ったり、あるいは事務次官関係が、事務担当会議に行ったりしていますが、全部国家の利害を背負って、国家の方針に基づいて発言し、会議を調整しています。これとは別の機構を作らなきゃいけないという意味です。
もっと別の意味で新しい機構を作り、そして日本の代表、韓国の代表、中国の代表じゃなくて、例えば、廃棄物管理のプロとして、アジアの廃棄物のよりサステイナブルな管理を担う、そのテクノロジーをきちんと専門的に担える人材として、それをマネジメントする機構を作り、そこでその機構が発言力を持ち、そこの提案が具体化されるように国家に提案されていく枠組みを作らなくてはいけないんじゃないか。これは私の勝手な妄想なんですけれども。そして最後に、天児先生がおっしゃられたように、例えばこの G-COE から育った人たちが、ここから育った、ここで学んだことの専門的で、環境に役に立つ知見をそのものとして活かせるような場をどうやって作れるかということだと思うんですね。これが国家へ戻って、国家の官僚になってしまえば、国家の論理の枠内でしかその専門性を活かせないという制約がかかるんですよね。ですから私
は国家の外側に、NGO という言葉で一言言われていますけれども、新しい原理の機構を 21 世紀は作らなくてはいけない。国家の役割を相対化し、国家の役割の問い直し、国家は別の意味での新しい役割を果たす国家論を作らないといけないと思うんです。
ヨーロッパはおそらく、国民国家の位置づけはヨーロッパ全体の様々

364

なガバナンスの中の One of them にだんだんなっているんじゃないかと思います。そういう意味では、従来の国民国家の中央政府がナショナルガ
バメントとして行う、それが必死になって守ろうとしている国家利害、
国民的利害というものの意味がどんどん環境問題の中では相対的に位置が小さくなっていって、より大きなそれを越える共通利益としての環境的利益が最大優先されるような社会作り、機構作り、そしてそれを可能にするルールとか理念というものをどう提起し、それを担う人材と機構を準備していくか。そのための具体的な制度設計と提案が問われているのではないかと思っています。
松岡：

どうもよくしゃべる方にあててしまったようで、ほとんど持ち時間を寺
西先生、使っていただきました。ありがとうございました。

寺西：

すみません。

松岡：

それでは時間が押しておりますので、最後残りの方、一言だけおっしゃっていただいて。

寺西：

申し訳ございません。

植田：

今の寺西さんの続きで、もちろんおっしゃった通りと思いますが、アジアのコモンズ、共通の利益を実現する主体形成という問題があるわけですけれども、私が確実に言えると思うのは、国家以外というときはチャネルを多様化するというのがとても大事なことですね。太田さんもおっしゃいましたけど、自治体間協力とか、いろいろな NGO のチャネルとか、すごく多様になってくるということは 1 つ意味を多分持っているということだと思います。そういうことで、しかしその多様なチャネルに関わっているところが共同の共通認識を持てるような共通体験をするような人材育成をするというのは、価値のある取り組みだと私も理解をしています。
あと実は 2 つのことだけ簡単に申し上げたかったんですが、1 つはこの問題をガバナンスだけで議論するのは僕は十分じゃないという立場です。経済発展のパターンとか経済成長がどういう形で行われていて、どういう分業がなされている、そのことがどういう環境問題を生み出しているかということとの関係で、このガバナンスのあり方を議論する必要がある。それでわざわざ私少しそういうことを申し上げたというのがあ

365

ります。
それからもう 1 点、みなさんの話を聞いていて思いましたのは、やはり制度という呼び方をするか、レジームという呼び方をするか、いろい
ろあるんですけれども、これが条約も含めまして進化するという面があるという点です。そういう制度が作られてきて、発展をしていったり、いろいろな形で変わっていく、そこのところのメカニズムについてもう少し知見を得る必要があるんじゃないか、そういうことを課題として感じました。以上です。
松岡：

ありがとうございます。それではちょっと植田先生は例の 25％の件で、用事があるようですので。あと簡単に小寺さんから。

小寺：

私は経産省傘下の産業技術総合研究所というところで研究をやっています。国連環境計画は国際機関ではあるのですが、私は研究所からの副業許可のもとで、国連環境計画のために動いています。
（これまでの討議で環境政策への国家の意思の影響が強調されていましたが）現在走っている廃プラスチック資源化のためのプラットフォームづくりは、日本の外務省からの資金はもらっているわけですが、日本で比較的自由に動ける
人間を個人の資格で糾合してアジア各国との取組みをしています。そう
いった枠組み（を整備すること）で今後、（開発途上国に導入するに適した）環境技術の持続性評価（SAT）等の取組みを進めていくわけですが、これは（技術提供側の立場で取組みに参加する）技術者や学者、行政官が所属する会社や国家機関のためにではなく、（途上国の現場にいる）地
域住民を含む利害関係者にとっての（最適な）評価基準をつくるために活動しています。そうした議論を行う取組みこそ、教育であって、次の世代に残す環境保護の形をどうするかといった教育、（そして同時に）社
会啓蒙につながっていくものと思っています。

松岡：

ありがとうございます。それではアブさんのほうから。

Aboeprajitno： Thank you. I would like to thank all the discussants, as well as thefloor, for your comments and questions on my presentation.
I would only like to briefly respond to Tanaka-san’scomments on what our expected outcome is from the Bali meeting,since it is now still in the planning stage and not ongoing yet.
I would only be able to comment on human health,366sustainable environment free from the potential damaging effects ofchemicals.
So in that regard, of course, we have to formulate many moremechanisms, as well as figuring out how to interrelate between
parties, as well as forming working groups among the parties such as
ASEAN.
I think can comment on that. One little thing on the question
from the floor, I think from Kobayashi-san, from Australia: Actually, I
do not struggle with the problems like the examples you gave ofproblems between Singapore and Indonesia or Singapore andMalaysia.
Just as an example, if it were happening, they would go to thesecretariat of the Basel Convention, who would listen to both parties,
perhaps on the problems that have arisen, and undertake
problem-solving efforts.
The only thing that I have seen is that we were also involvedin that case, but only taking important notes in our function to further
promote awareness on problems. We only acted as witnesses. So we
did not struggle with it. But the parties who have problems will
struggle. And the problem was solved.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
松岡：

ありがとうございました。太田先生、何かございますでしょうか。

太田：

私もかなり時間を使ってしまったので簡単にいきますけど、自分自身地
球環境という言葉をよく使うんですけど、本当はあまりよくなくて、今
我々の問題になっているのは人類の生存だと思うんですよね。ですから
我々の生存がかかっていることで、ひょっとしたらもう今、いろいろなアルプスとか南太平洋の島々とか、局地に住んでいる人々は本当に気候の変動を肌で感じて、危機的状況だということを認識していると思うんですよ。ところが、一番問題なのは世界人口の 5 割以上を越える我々、都市、都会人で、きっと我々は本当にそうした危機的な状況を全然理解してないと思うし、肌で感じていないと思うんですね。我々はひょっと
したら endangered species、絶滅の危機に瀕する種類、種族じゃないかということを非常に強く思っていまして、制度、制度ときれいなことを言いましたけど、これは地球問題は外にある問題ではなくて、我々の生存367

がかかっている。特に、都会に住む我々が一番絶滅の危機に瀕している
んだと思います。お金があるからちょっとは延命するんでしょうけど、
そういう意味では、我々はもう少し敏感に動植物とか、あるいは、局地に住んでいる人々の感覚を追体験できるようにしなくてはいけないのか
なということを、ここにいて強く感じました。以上です。
松岡：

ありがとうございます。それでは最後に田中先生お願いします。

田中：

ありがとうございます。勤務先と endangered species という意味では、早稲田の方は非常に危険で、私は彦根というところに勤務しているのですが、まあ比較的まだいいかなと、それはさておき、今日の特定のコメントについてというわけではないのですけれども、私も環境条約というガバナンスの一側面からいろいろと環境問題についてアジアの問題を考えておったんですけれども、今日の機会で国家の枠組みをどうするか、あるいは国家では限界があるから国家以外をどうするか。そのときに国家の中でも、国際公務員のように国家の利益を代弁しないような人たちが、
ライン川の問題のように、取り組むですとか。やはり欧州ですとか、アジア以外の地域にもいろいろな成功例もあれば失敗例もあって、そうい
ったものをもう少し丹念に精査した上で新しい枠組みというものを今後真剣に考えていく必要があるのではないかな、と思いました。
また今日のご報告では経済学だけではなくて、理系の方も、また政治学の方ですとか、いろいろな分野からのご報告、コメントをいただいて、
やはりこういう問題は学際的に特定の分野によるものではなくて、学際的に文系、理系、様々な学問から、知見を選りすぐって対処していく、
そういう問題になるんじゃないかなと思います。私も今後そういうことを研究の面では留意したいと思います。どうもありがとうございました。

松岡：

ありがとうございました。それでは最後にちょっとパネリスト、コメン
テーターの方に拍手をしていただきましてこのセッションは終りたいと思います。

368