217

Environmental Governance and National Preparedness towards
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development :A Tale of Two Countries
M. Monirul AZAM1, 2* and Mahesti OKITASARI2
Department of Law, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh,
and Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology
2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
2
United Nations University-Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan*email: azam@unu.edu
1

Abstract
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been adopted under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and act as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is therefore importantto build on the MDGs’ achievements and address gaps and weakness that remain unresolved, thereby
preparing properly for the 2030 Agenda. Despite the remarkable progress of Bangladesh and Indonesia
towards many of the MDGs, there is inherent tension regarding the securing of a successful sustainable
trajectory. Gaining environmental sustainability while aiming for inter-linkages and synergies between
environmental, social and economic dimensions has remained an unresolved issue as both countries havemore or less implemented development efforts in isolation, with inadequate consideration of the potential
impacts on the environment. This paper, therefore, seeks to address gaps in environmental governance inboth countries for gaining environmental sustainability and for ensuring national preparedness towards the
SDG implementation. With that in mind, this article presents a diagnostic status of the current progress onenvironmental governance in Bangladesh and Indonesia using development indicators of progress towards
the MDGs and their determinants in relation to environmental sustainability. The comparison of these twocases provides fruitful insights for drawing lessons on how environmental governance needs to be addressedat the level of individual low- and middle-income countries for their preparedness and transition to the SDGs.
Key words: environmental governance, Millennium Development Goals(MDGs), Sustainable Development
Goals(SDGs), sustainability

1. Background
The MDGs are a set of numerical and time-boundtargets for the period of 2000-2015, taking 1990 as thebase year to reduce extreme poverty, disease anddeprivation of the world’s poorest people. The firstseven goals intended to be pursued by developing
countries to deal with poverty, disease and environmental
degradation, while the eighth goal was essentially acommitment to a global partnership between rich andpoor countries to achieve the first seven goals (UN,
2000). Based on the outcome of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development, the OpenWorking Group (OWG) was established on 22 January
2013 by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)
comprising 30 UN Member States to ensure an inclusive
and transparent intergovernmental process (UN,2012). Based on extensive negotiations, the OWG
Global Environmental Research
19/2015: 217−224
printed in Japanproposed, 17 goals and 169 targets (UN, 2014a). The
HLPF was established to succeed the Commission on
Sustainable Development as per the outcome of Rio+20
in order to follow up and review the progress in
implementing sustainable development commitments(UN, 2013a). Further, the UN Secretary-Generalappointed a HLP as an initiative to provide
recommendations for the new SDG framework (UNPress Release, 2012). The HLP report emphasized five
“key transformations”: “(a) leave no one behind; (b) put
sustainable development at the core; (c) transform
economies for jobs and inclusive growth; (d) build peaceand effective, open and accountable public institutions;and (e) forge a new global partnership” (UN, 2013b).
After extensive negotiations and receipt of stakeholders’submissions and recommendations from several UN andnon-UN bodies, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development was finally adopted with a set of 17 goals©2015 AIRIES218

M. M. AZAM and M. OKITASARI

and 169 targets during the UNGA summit held on
September 25 – 27, 2015.
Despite good progress on several MDGs, mostdeveloping countries are still lagging in terms ofsustainability and governance. Therefore, it is importantto review MDGs achievements and address gaps andweakness that remain unresolved, thereby ensuring
proper preparedness towards the 2030 Agenda. This study
analyses the performance of Indonesia and Bangladesh,considering that both countries have made remarkableprogress towards many of the MDGs. Lessons learnt
from their methods and struggle for development while
trying to secure a successful sustainable trajectory could
become an example to many developing countries andthe Least Developed Countries (LDCs) for transformation
towards attaining the SDGs. Among the LDCs, theexperiences of Bangladesh are remarkable, as despite
having serious climate change and other environmental
vulnerabilities along with a huge poor population andinfrastructural limitations, the country has fared well inachieving most of the MDGs and is considered one ofthe pioneers in integrating climate change policies innational development planning (Bhattacharya, 2013). On
the other hand, Indonesia’s experience with the MDGs
and challenges in dealing with disparities between local
governments, nurturing synergies between national andsub-national efforts and specifically institutional cooperation and issues of governance could also help otherdeveloping countries be better prepared for the SDGs
(UN, 2014b).
Gaining environmental sustainability while aiming
for inter-linkages and synergies between environmental,social and economic dimensions has remained anunresolved issue, as Bangladesh and Indonesia more orless implemented development efforts in isolation, withinadequate consideration of the potential impacts on theenvironment. This article, therefore, seeks to address
gaps in environmental governance in both countries for
gaining environmental sustainability and ensuring
national preparedness towards the 2030 Agenda. With
this in mind, this article presents a diagnostic status of
the current progress on environmental governance in
Bangladesh and Indonesia using development indicators
towards achieving the MDGs and their determinants inrelation to environmental sustainability. Table 1 reflects
the progress towards several targets under the MDGs by
Bangladesh and Indonesia. The comparison of these twocases provides fruitful insights for drawing lessons on
how environmental governance needs to be addressed at
the level of individual low- and middle-income countries
for their preparedness for and transition to the 2030
Agenda.

2. The Case of Indonesia
MDG-7 for ensuring environmental sustainability isrecognised as one of the most challenging goals to reachin developing countries, Indonesia in particular, due tothe intensity of its environmental issues and its strategic

importance to the environmental sustainability of theregion (UN CCA, 2004). As a vast archipelago withgreat geographical variety, Indonesia owes its past
decades of macro-economic growth to its natural resources.
With two thirds of the Indonesian population dependingon natural resources for their livelihoods (UN CCA,
2004), continuing degradation of the natural environment
poses a threat to their socioeconomic situation. Indonesia
was one of the first countries to issue a national strategy
for sustainable development following the Earth Summit
1992 (BAPPENAS, 1993). However, regardless of thecentral government’s efforts to promote environmental
sustainability and various support measures frominternational donors for policy and capacity
development, Indonesia’s administrative and regulatory
frameworks are often criticized for failing to meet thedemands of sustainable development (World Bank,
2008). Practices on the ground are often contradictory,
as the country sets to expand its economic development,e.g., plans to integrate the principles of environmental
sustainability into policies, including protecting natural
resources, are contradicted by plans to increaseindustry’s ability to access and utilize the same
resources.

2.1 Progress towards the MDGs and Environmental
Sustainability Targets
Regarding MDG attainments, overall, Indonesia has
made significant progress towards goals related topoverty, education, communicable diseases, and genderequality. On MDG-1, Indonesia successfully reduced the
proportion of people living under the national poverty
line from 15.10 percent (1990) to 11.25 percent (2014).
Its efforts to achieve universal primary education have also
been in step with the MDGs through the implementationof basic nine-year education and increasing the Net
Enrolment Ratio in primary education to 96.0 percent(2013). On the other hand, reduction of child mortality(MDG-4) and improvement of maternal mortality(MDG-5) are unlikely to be achieved in Indonesia. Childmortality has been reduced from 97 (1991) to 40 per
thousand live births (2012), yet reduction of maternalmortality by three-quarters will still require more efforts.
As far as MDG-7 is concerned, Indonesia has
attained mixed results in meeting the targets onenvironmental sustainability. It is not on track to reachthe target for reversing the loss of environmental
resources, despite making good progress on phasing out
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). No significant
progress has been made towards reducing and halting
deforestation, with recent statistics showing thatIndonesia has emitted more carbon dioxide in 2014
compared to 2000 (BAPPENAS, 2014). The proportionof the population living in slums and in need of proper
housing is progressing slowly at 9.12 percent (2014),
down from 20.75 percent (1993), but still above thegiven target of 6.0 percent.
While some of the MDG-7 targets have beenachieved and many programs have been established,Environmental Governance and National Preparedness towards 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

219

Table 1 MDGs: Bangladesh (BD) and Indonesia (IDN) progress at a glance (2015).
Goals, Targets and Indicators

Base year
BD

Current status

Target by 2015

IDN

BD

IDN

BD

IDN

Remarks

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
1.1: Proportion of population below$1 (PPP) per day, %70.2(1992)

20.6(1990)

43.3
WB 2010

5.9
BPS 2008

35.1

10.3

Needs attn.*
Target met**

1.1a: Proportion of population below
national upper poverty line, %56.7(1992)

15.10(1990)

31.5
HIES 2010
24.8
GED, est.

11.25
BPS 2014

29.0

7.55

Target met*
Needs attn.**

1.8: Prevalence of underweightchildren under -five years of age, %

66.0

31.0
(1989)

32.6
BDHS 2014

19.6
MoH 2013

33.0

15.5

Target met*
On track**

60.5

88.7
(1992)

97.7
APSC2014

96.0
BPS 2013

100

100

On track*,**Goal 2: Universal education for all
2.1: Net enrollment ratio in primaryeducation, %Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
0.83

0.98
(1993)

1.03
APSC 2014

1.01
BPS 2014

1.0

1.0

Target met*,**4.1: Under-five mortality rate (per1000 live births)

146

97(1991)

46
BDGS 201440
BPS 2012

48

32

Target met*
Needs attn.**

4.2: Infant mortality rate (per 1000
live births)

92

68(1991)32
SVRS 201332
BPS 201231

23

On track*
Needs attn.**

574

390
(1991)

170
MMEIG 2013359
BPS 2012

143

102

Needs attn.*,**

3.1a: Ratio of girls to boys in primaryeducation (Gender Parity Index = Girls/
Boys)
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Goal 5: Improve maternal health5.1: Maternal mortality rate (per100,000 live births)

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
6.1: HIV prevalence among
population, %

0.005

−

<0.1
UNAIDS 2013

0.46
MoH 2014

Halting

ReduceOn track*
Needs attn.**

6.6b: Deaths from malaria per 100,000
population

1.4(2008)

4.68(1990)

0.34
MISNMCP 20140.99
MoH 2014

0.6

ReduceTarget met*,**59.97(1990)

13.40
DoF 2014

66.0
MoF 2014

20.0

-

Needs
attn.*,**

1,377,983(2000)

Data notavailable

1,791,372
MoE 2005

Reduce by
26%

Needs attn.**

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
7.1: Proportion of land area coveredby forest, % (tree coverage)

9.0

7.2: CO2 emissions, total, per capita
and per $1 GDP (PPP)
7.3: Consumption of ozone-depleting
substances in ODP tonnes

202.1

8,332.7(1992)

64.88
DoE 2013

6,689
MoE 2010

65.39

ReduceTarget met*
On track**

7.6: Proportion of terrestrial andmarine areas protected, %

0.91

0.14
(1990)

T : 1.81
M: 1.34
BFD 2013

5.1
MoF 2012

5.0

Increase

Needs attn.*
On track**

7.8: Proportion of population using an
improved drinking water sources

68

37.78
(1993)

97.9
MICS 2013

68.36
BPS 2014

100

68.87

On track*,**1,732

Data notavailable

3,084
ERD 2014

Data isnot available

4,175

Data notavailable

Needs attn.*-

Data notavailable

0.002
ERD 2014

Data isnot available

0.003

Data notavailable

Needs attn.*

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
8.1a: Net ODA received (million US$)
8.1b: Net ODA received, as apercentage of OECD/DAC donors’
GNI, %
Note: *Bangladesh, **Indonesia.

Indonesia is still facing growing challenges in steering
its environment towards the desired sustainable future.
Most of all, its key environmental governance problems
and opportunities center around weak institutions and apolicy framework for environmental protection createdwith a lack of clear mandates between levels ofgovernments, weak enforcement and inadequate technicalcapacity to govern the environment. Compared to its
progress towards the welfare-related MDGs, Indonesia
has a long way to go to attain MDG-7. Aside fromstructural, institutional and political challenges, a lack ofgovernment priority contributes to the slow progress
towards achieving MDG-7. Provision of drinking waterand basic sanitation is not a development priority for the220

M. M. AZAM and M. OKITASARI

provincial and local governments.

2.2 The National Development Plan and Mainstreaming
Environmental Sustainability
Understanding the government’s priorities and theimplications of delegating program delivery to sub-national
governments is needed for successful integration ofenvironmental sustainability in a country undergoing
decentralization like Indonesia. The comprehensive
framework to streamline the MDGs in Indonesia’splanning system allows the central government tostrengthen MDGs target-setting down to the local level,
yet it has been less successful in mainstreaming
sustainability issues. Critics have pointed out the lack ofintegration of environmental consideration at theplanning levels, with only verbal expressions ofagreement, and the lack of a financing scheme (UNEP,
2003; World Bank, 2008). Specifically on the financing
issue, regardless of the central government’s improvementon the allocation of the MDG fund at the central andsub-national levels, it has been largely ignoring theenvironmental sector. For example, in the 2013 Specific
Allocation Fund, forestry and environmental funding
accounted for only 3.6 percent (Ministry of FinanceRegulation 201/ PMK.07/ 2012). In comparison, thebudget for education was mandated by Law 20/2003 andaccounts for 20 percent of the national budget.
Environmental consideration will remain merely
rhetorical as long as it is not the government’s mainconcern, resulting in a lack of initiatives to set the proper
institutional structure for delegating programs. The
Indonesian government’s five-year strategic policy
frameworks stress the importance of the MDGs throughthe government’s commitment to enhancing the people’s
welfare (BAPPENAS, 2004; 2010). Consequently, theMDGs in Indonesia are overwhelmingly seen as a social
improvement program as they focus more on social andhuman-welfare-related goals rather than environmental
issues. Indonesian MDGs programs on environmental
sustainability, therefore, focus on delivering public
infrastructure rather than developing programs to protect
and improve the environment. Regarding theimplementation and investment processes, the central
government has failed to integrate environmental
consideration at the programmatic levels as it leaves out
the relevant sectoral ministries, e.g., Agriculture, Marine
and Fisheries, and Forestry, in collaborative processes.
2.3 Governance: Enforcement, Capacity Constraints
and Synergy
The shortcomings of Indonesian MDG environmental
policies also lie in their enforcement mechanism. Prior to
the MDGs, there was no comprehensive environmental
assessment. The Indonesian government imposed
environmental protection on industrialization in 1986
through the enactment of an EIA law. In 1991, the central
government made EIA compulsory prior to obtaining abusiness permit, effectively applying EIA as Indonesia’s
first environmental policy instrument. Regarding its

implementation, however, EIA has been criticized for lackof legal enforcement due to a high number of violations(Susilo & Rhiti, 2001). A development paradigm whichprioritizes industrial growth, resource utilization andincreased consumption over environmental protection is
also pointed out as an important cause of its failure(Young, 1999). In response to these shortfalls, the mostrecent development in safeguarding the environment
was the 2009 EPMA, which aimed to provide a stronger
legal basis for the EIA system in the decentralized
framework. Nonetheless, to improve enforcement, thegovernment still needs to identify gaps between the
EPMA framework and subnational administrative
procedures and integrate the EPMA further into local
planning and permitting processes.
Decentralization poses major challenges for
coordination among various levels of government. Mostof Indonesia’s governance issues are rooted in the
distribution of revenue powers and spending responsibilities
among the central and subnational governments. Manyof the MDG-7 targets are accounted under the jurisdictionof local governments. The central government mightdraft various environmental sustainability programs, but
most of those programs fail to be implemented due to
conflicting financing priorities and capacities at the local
level.
Incoherent policies also serve as a major obstacle in
implementing MDG environmental policies, largely due
to the administrative decentralization. There are gaps
between policy and implementation, conflicting nationaland subnational priorities, and weak vertical andhorizontal integration (World Bank, 2008). Local
governments often suffer from poorly developed vertical
relationships with weak anchorage in national politics.
As a consequence, economically driven decisions fromthe central government overshadow local environmental
policies or vice versa (Fredriksson & de Kam, 1999).
Weak relations with other local stakeholders, such as thelegislative and private sectors, create problems for local
governments in implementing and monitoring theirenvironmental programs and seeking financial support.

3. The Context of Bangladesh
Bangladesh has achieved several MDGs targets, forexample, reducing the poverty headcount and poverty
gap ratio, attaining gender parity in primary andsecondary education, reducing the under-five mortality
rate, containing HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)
infections with access to antiretroviral drugs, having
children under five sleep under insecticide-treated
bed-nets, and achieving the detection and cure rates of
TB (Tuberculosis) stipulated under DOTS (Directly
Observed Treatment, Short-Course) (GOB, 2014). It has
also made good progress in reducing the prevalence ofunderweight children, increasing enrollment in primaryschools, lowering the infant mortality rate and maternalmortality ratio, improving immunization coverage andreducing the incidence of communicable diseases (GOB,

Environmental Governance and National Preparedness towards 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development2014). Due to several ongoing environmental governanceproblems, however, the country failed to make good
progress in the field of environmental sustainability,
which could frustrate progress in other sectors as well.
That is why it is important for Bangladesh to review
carefully progress towards the MDGs in general and
MDG-7 in particular, on environmental sustainability
through mainstreaming and integrating sustainable
development in the sectors of vital importance in
Bangladesh to make a smooth transition towards the2030 Agenda.

3.1 Lessons Learnt from the MDGs with specialreference to MDG-7 on Environmental Sustainability
Bangladesh has made commendable progress withrespect to MDG-1 for eradication of poverty and hunger.
It has sustained a GDP growth rate of 6 percent or above
in recent years, and that has played a positive role ineradicating poverty. In terms of MDG-1, otherremarkable progress has been bringing down the poverty
gap ratio to 6.5 against the 2015 target of 8.0, andhalving the population living below the poverty line(from 56.7 percent to 29.0 percent), already achieved by2012 (GOB, 2014). Regarding MDG-2, significant
progress has been made in increasing equitable access to
education, reducing dropouts and improving completion of
the educational cycle. Bangladesh has already achieved
gender parity in primary and secondary enrollment as
per the targets of MDG-3. There has been steady
improvement in the social and political empowerment
scenario of women in Bangladesh.
In terms of MDG-4, Bangladesh is on track towards
meeting the targets measured by three different indicators,i.e., under-five mortality rate, infant mortality rate andimmunization against measles. Bangladesh has also met
remarkable progress on most of the targets under MDG-5
on improving maternal health and has also maintained
significant progress in combating HIV/AIDS (Acquired
Immune-Deficiency Syndrome), malaria and otherdiseases under MDG-6 (GOB, 2014). The average rate ofmaternal death declined about 3.3 percent per year,
compared with the average annual rate of reduction of
3.0 percent required for achieving the MDG in 2015. On
the other hand, the prevalence of HIV/ AIDS in
Bangladesh is currently less than 0.1 percent and thus isstill below an epidemic level. The proportion of children
under five with fever who are treated with appropriate
anti-malarial drugs was recorded at 89.50 percent in2013 and the target to achieve 90 percent by 2015 has
almost been met (GOB, 2014).
Despite good progress towards most of the MDGs,
Bangladesh is facing considerable sustainable
development challenges, which have also resulted inslow progress on MDG-7. For example, only 13.40
percent of land in Bangladesh has tree cover with adensity of 30 percent or above and the area with tree
cover is much lower than the target set for 2015. Since
1991, there has been a steady increase in CO2 emissions
in Bangladesh because of increasing development

221

interventions and activities (GOB, 2014). Again, climatechange is the major challenge to attaining sustainable
development in Bangladesh. It is widely recognized thatclimate change will affect many sectors, including water
resources, agriculture and food security, ecosystems andbiodiversity, human health and coastal zones in
Bangladesh (Afrin, 2012; BCAS, 2012). Even though
the government has tried to achieve the MDG targets by
the deadline, climate change has acted as a big
developmental and environmental threat to Bangladeshthat has jeopardized attainment of many MDGs andcould also become a major barrier to attaining SDGs in
the future (BCAS, 2012).
Despite reports by the Bangladesh government, local
UN based organizations and local media reports
frequently highlight MDG success stories in Bangladesh(GOB, 2012), very few reports address the difficulties orchallenges of achieving other unmet MDG targets, forexample environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, it isimportant to learn from present developmental challenges
and weakness and use these experiences to avoid future
failures in the relevant sectors.
One of the leading environmental experts in
Bangladesh, Dr. Atiq Rahman, stated, “Independent
assessment, however, casts doubt about the prospect ofachieving the MDGs in their totality in the country. At
least two impediments are obvious. One is the country’s
institutional inability to effectively implement policies
and programs, given the abysmal record of poor
governance in terms of inefficiency and corruption, lackof transparency and accountability, and, above all, poorlaw and order conditions. The other constraint is that oflimited domestic resources that will fall far short of therequirement to implement programs to achieve theMDGs” (Rahman, 2015). He further added, “Thecountry will need a lot more resources to achieve somenon-MDG targets such as the development of infrastructure,
improved management of power and ports, andachievement of a better investment climate, without
which economic growth and consequently, poverty
alleviation efforts will suffer” (Rahman, 2015).
Therefore, while making the transition to the SDGs, itwill be important for Bangladesh to review its state ofgovernance to streamline sustainable development innational development planning and to improvegovernance by addressing issues of capacity constraint,
weak enforcement and lack of synergy.

3.2 Mainstreaming Sustainability in national
developmental planning, laws and policies
Despite having a good number of environmental
laws, policies, rules and regulations in Bangladesh suchas National Environmental Policy, 1992, National
Environmental Action Plan, 1992, Environmental
Conservation Act, 1995 (amended in 2000 and 2002),
Environmental Conservation Rules, 1997, National
Conservation Strategy 1997, Environmental Court Act
2000 (amended in 2002) and the existence of MOEF witha number of related organizations under its jurisdiction,

222

M. M. AZAM and M. OKITASARI

the institutional base of environmental governance in
Bangladesh continues to remain weak, fragmented andinsufficient to meet the enormous environmental
challenges the country faces in the future (World Bank,
2006). The reason behind the failure of the enormous
amount of laws and policies is the lack of coherence
among the different rules and institutions and also a lackof priority for sustainable development and climatechange issues until the last few years.
Without climate resilience and mainstreaming ofsustainability across different laws and policies, nodevelopment efforts will have lasting positive impacts in
Bangladesh. The implementation of 2030 Agenda in
Bangladesh, therefore, should have robust climate
resilience components and mainstream sustainability innational developmental planning, laws and policies alongwith providing effective governance and synergy
between institutions and policy coherence between
global, regional, national and local actions (Azam, 2011).
The formulation and adoption of the National
Sustainable Development Strategy (2011 – 2021) is a stepin the right direction (GOB, 2013a). It is also remarkablethat the Government of Bangladesh has also decided toestablish a sustainable development monitoring council
and sustainable development board to ensure mainstreamingof sustainable development across different ministries
and also in broader national economic planning anddevelopment activities (GOB, 2013a). Furthermore, theestablishment of the CCU to deal with climate change
adaptation and mitigation also provides a focal point forinter-ministry cooperation on environmental actions(GOB, 2013a). The CCU launched its activities in January2010 under the MOEF. In addition, the BCCT was
established on 24 January 2013 as per the direction of
the Climate Change Trust Act, 2010, under the MOEF
(GOB, 2013a).
It is worth noting that MOEF in close cooperation
with a wide range of NGOs and international agencies,
such as UNDP, formulated NEMAP in the early 1990s.
NEMAP has the distinction as one of the world's largest
participatory plans. The Government of Bangladesh has
also adopted the BCCSAP and NAPA to address climatechange impacts in the country. These have beenrecognized internationally as major contributions to the
response strategies to climate change. Regardless of thisachievement, there have been weaknesses ininstitutionalization and implementation of the rules andregulations of Bangladesh.

3.3 Governance: Capacity Constraints, Enforcement
and Synergy
In general, there has been an increased awarenessabout sound environment and conservation of natural
resources among the general people, both in cities andrural areas in Bangladesh. The government of Bangladesh
has revised their relevant policies and enacted rules andregulation in these areas. In some cases, NGOs and civilsociety organizations are working as close partners andsometimes as pressure groups for better management of

natural resources, conservation of environment andpollution control. Due to a lack of proper enforcement
and required technical, financial and human resourcebased capacity constraints, environmental problems havebeen aggravated in Bangladesh and environmental
sustainability still remains an unattainable goal there.
Environmental governance is vital to making
government institutions, private sectors and individuals
act within the limits of conservation of natural resources
and the environment and avoiding unnecessary pollutionof land, water, air and ecosystems. In Bangladesh,however, the private sector (industries, trade andbusinesses) often fails to follow environmental rules andregulations. The protection of environmental resources(forests, hills, wetlands, rivers and biodiversity) andurban environments remains the greatest challenge due
to lack of political commitment, skilled human resources
and institutional capacity for ensuring proper enforcementof rules and regulations (Rahman, 2015). It will be
impossible for Bangladesh to meet the SDGs in the
future, however, without strict adherence to environmental
acts, by-laws and environmental impact assessment
guidelines or in the absence of implementation by allagencies, including the government, private sector, civilsociety and all citizens.
There is an urgent need for improving internal
governance within government institutions, for example,
in the Department of Environment, Forest Department,
Bangladesh Water Development Board, Local Government
Division, Rural Development Board, city corporationsand various ministries. The MOEF is supposed to be theregulatory body and focal point with its agencies forenvironmental and sustainability issues. There have been
instances, however, where political influences have forced
governmental institutions to work against laws related tothe protection of the environment (Rahman, 2015).
All governmental agencies in Bangladesh need todemonstrate fairness, responsibility, responsiveness andtransparency as key pillars of governance (Azam, 2006).
As stated in one study, “powerful groups should not be
privileged to destroy the environment. Those who are
grabbing land, wetlands and forest resources illegallyand polluting the environment must be punished inaccordance with the law. The ministries, departments
and administration must work under the cover ofexisting laws, independently and boldly. The politicalprocess must demonstrate support to the institutions;only then environmental governance will be enhanced”(Rahman, 2015). Civil society groups and NGOs should
mobilize public opinion and put pressure on thegovernment and the political process to ensure effective
monitoring and implementation of relevant environmental
laws and policies (Rahman, 2015). The private sector in
Bangladesh should not be allowed to harm theenvironment and disturb social equilibrium while
performing economic activities.
Thus, the current status of environmental governance in
Bangladesh indicates that to attain significant outcomesfrom the SDGs, priority needs to be given to several criticalEnvironmental Governance and National Preparedness towards 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Developmentareas, such as increasing productive capacity; enhancing
access to knowledge and technology; strengthening trade,human and social development; improving governance andinstitutional capacities; increasing resilience to economic
and natural shocks; mitigating climate change impacts; andenhancing the volume and quality of resource support(Azam, 2011; Rahman, 2015).

4. Transformation for the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development
The MDGs have raised public awareness and helped,
albeit in a limited way, to mobilize actions to support
environmental protection in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Although the two countries have different levels of
economic, social and environmental challenges, they bothneed better enforcement of regulatory frameworks andprogress in redistribution of wealth and protection ofrights, and the success of future SDGs will rely on
improved policy coherence among all levels. Therefore,both countries need to adopt affirmative policies toaddress inequality in terms of regulatory and budgetary
constraints to improve policy coherence at the local level.
The Government of Bangladesh held the first
National Expert Level Consultation Conference on
November 10, 2012, to identify gaps and challenges thatexist in relation to sustainable development and toformulate preliminary goals, targets and indicators for
the SDGs (UNB, 2013). There were several follow up
meetings with national experts, stakeholders and also
local UN bodies leading to adoption of a national
document on a sustainable development agenda proposing
11 goals, 58 targets and 241 indicators (GOB, 2013b). In
the context of Bangladesh, despite having major
opportunities for intervention to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in power generation, transportation, industrial
production, agriculture, forestry and other sectors, there
is a lack of facilitating technology, institutional supportand dedicated financing (Azam, 2006). Therefore, whilemoving towards the 2030 Agenda, Bangladesh needs toinitiate rapid implementation of sustainable energy
programs and employ technologies that could improve
the quality of the environment and generate developmental
benefits as well (Azam, 2011). The Government of
Bangladesh rightly acknowledges that mainstreaming ofpoverty-environment-climate change in local and national
development planning with dedicated programming,
implementation and financing provisions is vital toachieving sustainable development (GOB, 2013b).
In the SDG preparatory context, Indonesia held its first
National Consultation on the 2030 Agenda on February
20-21, 2013. Prior to the meeting, regional consultations
with the sectorial ministries, local UN bodies and civic
society were conducted through the second half of 2012.
In general, the Government of Indonesia has opposedcreating SDGs outside the MDGs, preferring to strengthen
the existing MDG targets instead. Given the challenges
and constraints to achieving the MDGs, Indonesia has
stressed the importance of more action-oriented indicators

223

and technical and financial assistance to accelerate theimplementation of its sustainable environmental programs.
While we can agree that the success of implementing
the 2030 Agenda will depend on the quality of governance,
the key challenge will be to find an appropriate mode ofgoverning for each country that models the complex
institutional and incentive problems in the implementationand monitoring processes. Decentralization and increasing
local accountability are one pathway towards better
program implementation, yet it would be misleading
without considering the precise financing mechanismsthat accompany decentralization (Bardhan, 2002; Bardhan& Mookherjee, 2006). The existing Indonesian financing
scheme, for example, will require wider local capture inorder for local governments to be able to finance manyof their environmental programs. At the national level,
more space for additional spending and provision ofenvironmentally sensible incentives will be needed (World
Bank, 2014). The recent elimination of fuel subsidies inJanuary 2015 should provide those to some extent.
To conclude, both Bangladesh and Indonesia, need toensure strong vertical and horizontal relations and policy
coherence and cooperation at all levels of government
for effective implementation of the multidimensional
aspects of the 2030 Agenda. As implementation of theSDGs will mostly depend on political will and wisdom,
efforts to increase the commitment of actors in thecentral and subnational governments will be crucial. It
will also be important to improve the knowledge baseabout the SDGs not only among governmental officials,
but also among legislators, officials at the grass- roots
level, the private sector, civil society members,
universities and the media to attain sustainability for all.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express profound gratitude
to the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) for
fellowships and grants during the preparation of thispapar.

References
Azam, M.M. (2006) Establishment of the WTO and challenges
for the legal system of Bangladesh. Macquarie Journal of
Buisiness Low., 3, 23.
Azam, M.M. (2011) Climate change resilience and technology
transfer: The role of intellectual property, Nordic Journal ofInternational Law, 80(4): 485 − 505.
Afrin, D.T. (2012) Climate Change and Bangladesh.
< http: / / www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/ bangladesh_ 1_
affrin.html> (accessed 12 Apr 2015).
Bhattacharya, D. et al. (2013) Attaining the MDGs How Successful
are the LDCs? Centre for policy dialogue.
<http://cpd.org.bd/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Attaining-theMDGs-in-LDCs.pdf> (accessed 30 Oct 2015).
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) (2012) D. Mallick,
A. Amin and A. Rahman, Case Study on Climate Compatible
Development (CCD) in Agriculture for Food Security in
Bangladesh.
Bardhan, P. (2002) Decentralization of governance and development.

224

M. M. AZAM and M. OKITASARI

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4): 185 − 205.
Bardhan, P. and D. Mookherjee (2006). Decentralization andaccountability in infrastructure delivery in developing countries.
The Economic Journal, 116(508): 101 − 127.
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (2012) Ministry of Environment
and Forest, “Rio+ 20: Bangladesh Report on Sustainable
Development”.
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (2013a) Ministry of Environment
and Forest National Sustainable Development Strategy 2010-21(NSDS).
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (2013b) Post 2015 Development
Agenda: Bangladesh Proposal to UN, Planning Commission of
Bangladesh.
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) (2014) Ministry of Planning
Millennium Development Goals, Bangladesh Country Report,
2013.
Fredriksson, G.M. and M. de Kam (1999) Strategic Plan for theConservation of the Sungai Wain Protection Forest, East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Ministry of Forestry andEstate Crops: Tropenbos Kalimantan Project. Balikpapan:
Tropenbos Kalimantan Project: 1 − 38.
National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) (1993)
1993 Broad State Guidelines and the 6 th Five Year Development
Plan.
National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) (2004)
The National Government Strategic Plan 2004-2009.
National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) (2010)
The National Government Strategic Plan 2010-2014.
National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) (2014)
Report on the Achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals in Indonesia 2013.
Rahman, D.A. (2015) Environmental Governance and Growth.
The Daily Star (March 12, 2015, Dhaka, Bangladesh).
< http: / / www.thedailystar.net/ supplements/ 24th-anniversarythe-daily-star-part-3> (accessed 13 Mar 2015).
Susilo, FX E. and H. Rhiti (2001) Environmental governance inIndonesia. In: IGES, ed., Report of the First Phase Strategic
Research on Environmental Governance. IGES.
United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration,
Resolution 55/2.
United Nations (2012) The Future We Want, Resolution 66/288.
United Nations in Bangladesh (UNB) (2013) On the Post 2015
Development Agenda for Bangladesh.
< http: / / www.un-bd.org/ docs/ Post% 202015% 20Agenda% 20
UNCT%20Report.pdf> (accessed 12 May 2015).
United Nations (2013a) Format and Organizational Aspects of theHigh-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development,
Resolution 67/290.
United Nations (2013b) A New Global Partnership: Eradicate
Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable
Development. The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent
Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
United Nations (2014a) Report of the Open Working Group of theGeneral Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals,
Resolution 68/970.
United Nations (2014b) Indonesia National Workshop on
Sustainable Development Goals (2014).
<http://www.unorcid.org/upload/doc_lib/Summary%20of%20
Bali%20SDG%20Workshop.pdf> (accessed 29 Oct 2015).
United Nations Common Country Assessment (UN CCA) (2004)
Indonesia. United Nations Development Group.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2003)
Indonesia: Integrated Assessment of the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper: With a Case Study on Sustainable Fishery
Initiatives. UNEP.
United Nations Press Release (2012) UNSG Appoints High-Level
Panel on Post-2015 Development Agenda, 31 July 2012.
World Bank (2006) Bangladesh Country Environment Report.
Dhaka: The World Bank.

World Bank (2008) The Little Green Data Book. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
World Bank (2014) Indonesia Economic Quarterly Delivering
Change. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Young, M.A. (1999) The primacy of development: environmental
impact assessment in Indonesia and Australia. Australian Journalof Asian Law, 1(2): 154 − 93.

M. Monirul AZAM
Dr. Monirul AZAM is a JSPS-UNU post-doctoral
fellow at the United Nations University-Institutefor the Advanced Study of Sustainability(UNU-IAS) along with the Tokyo Institute ofTechnology. He is also an associate professor in
the Department of Law, University of Chittagong,
Bangladesh. He taught at the Department ofLaw, Stockholm University, Sweden as a course director of ‘ IP and
Sustainable Development.’ His area of research includes broader ‘sustainable
development’ policy questions in the areas of international law with afocus on intellectual property and international trade issues, climatechange, public health, technology transfer and governance. He holds a
Ph.D. in International Economic Law from the University of Bern,
Switzerland.

Mahesti OKITASARI
Dr. OKITASARI is a JSPS- UNU post- doctoral
fellow at the United Nations University-Institutefor the Advanced Study of Sustainability(UNU-IAS) and Keio University. Her research
focuses on the theoretical-empirical study of theplanning governance and policy processes,
focusing particularly on institutions, collaboration,
power and actor relations. She holds a Ph.D. in urban planning from the
University of Tokyo, Japan.
(Received 5 July 2015, Accepted 6 November 2015)