SUMMARY OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP ON THE
ASIA-PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION STRATEGY PROJECT AND MILLENNIUM
ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT: TOWARD INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES FOR
The Joint Workshop on the Asia-Pacific Environmental Innovation Strategy Project and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Toward Innovative Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Development took place from 6-7 September 2001 at the United Nations University Centre in Tokyo, Japan. The workshop was organized by the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), the Ministry of the Environment of Japan, and the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU/IAS), and involved approximately 80 experts from governments, the academic and scientific communities, and intergovernmental, regional and non-governmental organizations. The meeting explored opportunities for partnership between two initiatives currently in development: the Asia-Pacific Environmental Innovation Strategy Project (APEIS) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).
The workshop’s objective was to raise awareness about APEIS and the MA, explore areas for convergence, and coordinate crosscutting themes. It also sought to assist the development of an analytical framework and other processes for monitoring and assessment of ecosystems and policy options. Within this context, the workshop focused on identifying synergies and methodologies, specifically to address the critical issues unique to ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific region. During the workshop participants met in four sessions on: programme design and synergy; integrated monitoring and assessment; interaction with policymakers; and a general discussion. The output of the workshop included a Chair’s Summary incorporating the issues, proposals and recommendations made during the session, which will be submitted to the Second Technical Design Workshop of the MA taking place from 8-11 October in Cape Town, South Africa, and to the next Environment Congress for Asia and the Pacific (ECO ASIA) scheduled for 13-14 October in Tokyo, Japan.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF APEIS AND THE MA
Since the early 1990s, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment has supported ECO ASIA as a forum to exchange views on sustainable development within the Asia-Pacific region. In 1993, a Long-Term Perspective Project (LTPP) was established to provide decision-makers in the region with a scientific basis for policy formulation. At the beginning of 2001, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment proposed to launch APEIS to extend and substantiate the outcomes of the LTPP and to assist countries in the region to develop innovative environmental strategies for sustainable development.
In June 2001, the United Nations, supported by a number of other intergovernmental, nongovernmental, governmental and scientific organizations, endorsed the launch of the MA as the first collaborative effort to assess the overall state of the world’s environment and its ability to provide a sustainable supply of goods and services for human welfare and development. The MA is a four-year initiative that will attempt to provide decision-makers with a better understanding of the consequences of ecosystem change, and to review the policy and technology options to address them.
The Joint Workshop on APEIS and the MA was designed to identify and promote synergies between the two processes, most specifically in the areas of developing analytical frameworks, monitoring, assessment and the formulation of policy options.
REPORT OF THE MEETING
On Thursday, 6 September, participants convened in a Plenary session to hear opening remarks and to appoint the meeting’s Co-Chairs, Hamid Zakri, Director of UNU/IAS, and Ryutaro Yatsu, Secretary General of APN. Participants also heard presentations and engaged in discussions during sessions on programme design and synergy, and integrated monitoring and assessment. On Friday, 7 September, experts participated in two additional sessions on interaction with policymakers, and a general discussion addressing the design of APEIS, collaboration between APEIS and the MA, and relevant issues for their implementation. During a closing Plenary convened in the afternoon, the Co-Chairs presented their summary of the workshop, addressing the issues and proposals raised during the presentations and discussions. The following is a summary of the meeting’s proceedings, including the recommendations and proposals resulting from the four workshop sessions.
Sombo Yamamura, UNU/IAS, introduced the workshop organizers and, on behalf of the workshop’s Secretariat, welcomed the participants. He presented two Co-Chair candidates for the workshop, Hamid Zakri and Ryutaro Yatsu, which the meeting approved.
Shigeru Sumitani, Director General, Global Environment Bureau, Japanese Ministry of the Environment, delivered the opening remarks. He welcomed participants and noted the recent "Bonn Agreement" on the Kyoto Protocol as a major achievement. Highlighting environmental problems in the Asia-Pacific region, he said the APEIS project aims to create the scientific basis for sustainable development policies, and to strengthen regional environmental cooperation. He noted the MA’s global scope as well as its regional and local dimensions, and encouraged participants to identify ways to maximize cooperation between the two initiatives.
Co-Chairs’ Remarks: Highlighting the launch of the MA on World Environment Day, Co-Chair Zakri said the initiative is the most extensive study to date of the world’s ecosystems. He stressed that the MA is user-driven and engages stakeholders and approximately 180 governments. He said it should not remain on the shelves of academics, as was the case with the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and urged its use for policy and natural resource management.
Co-Chair Yatsu said APEIS and the MA had been launched at the right time. He highlighted the pressures on ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific region, which houses more than half of the world’s population. He said the Earth’s systems are now being studied in a more integrated manner, and called attention to relevant research efforts in this regard. He called for synchronization of APEIS and the MA through this workshop, and for discussions leading to a common understanding of the current state of research on global change and the role of both initiatives.
SESSION ONE – PROGRAMME DESIGN AND SYNERGY
The session on programme design and synergy was moderated by Ryutaro Yatsu. He introduced the four session speakers, who gave presentations on: the APEIS draft proposal; the MA and its implementation programme; APEIS and APN’s programme; and regional expectations with regard to APEIS and the MA.
Asia-Pacific Environmental Innovation Strategy Project – Draft Proposal: Yuji Kimura, Director of the Research and Information Office, Global Environment Bureau, Japanese Ministry of the Environment, spoke on the APEIS project. On objectives, he said APEIS would build scientific infrastructure to provide information necessary for policy formulation, focusing on the situation in the region, and promoting cooperation and capacity building. He said it would provide a model for other regional initiatives. He stressed that APEIS would involve stakeholders, create a framework for linkages between science and policy, and promote the optimal use of existing regional activities. Kimura said APEIS is innovative in that it: provides scientific infrastructure as a common regional asset, encouraging dynamic interaction between scientists and policymakers; produces outcomes in the form of innovative environmental strategy options; and employs new methodologies.
He explained that APEIS includes three subprojects on integrated environmental monitoring, environmental assessment using integrated environment-economy models, and research on strategy options. On integrated environmental monitoring, he noted it uses both satellite and ground-based data, and that methodologies are developed for this. He explained that observation and monitoring stations have been established in Japan and Western China. On environmental assessment using environment-economy models, Kimura said they are being developed, provide useful information for policymakers, and will include indicators and a strategic database. Regarding research on strategy options, he said this subproject has not yet been launched, but will be carried out by an international collaborative research group. He said the project will focus on innovation in the environmental sector, as well as policy linkages and integration. In the future, a pilot project will be launched, which will propose innovative strategy options to policymakers.
Kimura highlighted links to relevant international bodies, and stressed that the ECO ASIA environment ministers’ meeting will feed into the APEIS project. He said the project is expected to grow in the future, with potential collaboration with UNEP, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). With regard to cooperation between APEIS and the MA, he said both assess the conditions of ecosystems, make use of remote sensing, and provide future scenarios, policy options and information for policymakers. However, APEIS is research-oriented, while the MA is review-oriented. He provided some ideas on cooperation, stressing that new knowledge produced by APEIS can be of direct benefit to the MA, while feedback from the MA can improve APEIS, providing information on global trends and comparative material from other regions.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and its Implementation Programme: Hamid Zakri, UNU/IAS, gave an overview of the MA. He recalled the recent conference on inter-linkages and synergies among multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and said the right options for addressing environmental problems still need to be determined. He said the MA: addresses the current and future ability of ecosystems to meet human needs for goods and services; is undertaken at multiple scales (local to global); is demand-driven and aims to provide information requested by conventions, governments, local communities, civil society and the private sector; and helps build capacity at all scales to undertake such assessments. He said the MA would eventually provide the conduit to the various subsidiary bodies for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention to Combat Desertification and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, pointing out that the Climate Change Convention has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide advice. He said the MA will: examine economic, public health and social consequences; assess how changes to ecosystems will affect their ability to meet human demands for goods and services; and provide information that can be used to better weigh tradeoffs among goods and services.
He said presently there is a unique convergence of growing information available from other assessments, scientific advances related to ecological forecasting, and growing policymaker demand. He noted that the MA is a multi-scale assessment at the global level, with two to four clusters of assessments in "focal regions" and "partner" assessments in other regions.
Zakri noted that the MA will produce: summaries for policymakers responding to the specific needs of the primary users; technical volumes providing supporting documentation; and strengthened human and institutional capacity at national and sub-national scales. He said inputs from the APEIS-MA Workshop would address: user needs, specifically the relevance of the MA to decision-makers in the Asia-Pacific region; technical design; and Asia-Pacific input. He outlined expectations from this meeting, including: identification of unique ecosystem issues in the Asia-Pacific region; whether or not such unique issues are covered in the MA or APEIS projects; how to incorporate missing components; and what institutions and activities in the region could contribute to these projects. He also highlighted issues raised during a recent South Asian regional conference, such as targeting the appropriate national agencies and addressing urbanization in the MA process.
Discussion: During the ensuing discussion, participants raised issues related to, inter alia: method of reporting to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), since the projects were in their initial stages; ensuring joint cooperation among researchers, guaranteeing financial support; and the recent inter-linkages conference. Some participants said the projects concentrate on lowland terrestrial ecosystems, but suggested that they should also give emphasis to coastal zones, cities and mountain regions. Other participants stressed: capacity-building within the region in the ecological sciences; the need for countries to develop their own models; and more focus on small Pacific island countries. One expressed concern that climate was not considered under the MA, and another said South Asia should be considered a focal region. In response, Yuji Kimura said, inter alia, that the APEIS project would be announced at the WSSD, that a research group including all relevant research institutions and researchers in the region was being formulated, and that small Pacific island countries were included in the scope of the project. Regarding the MA, Zakri said: input to the WSSD would be in the form of an interim report; climate would be taken into account; ecosystems addressed include mountain regions; and that UNU/IAS was working to build capacity in ecological and related sciences.
APEIS and APN’s Programme: Ryutaro Yatsu reviewed the organization and activities of APN, describing it as an intergovernmental network within the Asia-Pacific region with three main objectives: to foster global change research; to increase developing country participation in research activities; and to strengthen science-policy linkages. He outlined APN’s structure, which includes an Inter-Governmental Meeting and a Scientific Planning Group Meeting, as well as a secretariat and steering group. He noted that it includes 21 member countries and is currently expanding to include Pacific island States. Yatsu highlighted research in four priority areas: coastal zones and inland waters; climate change and variability; atmospheric composition; and terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. He stressed that research findings in these areas, which integrate scientific, social and economic factors, are provided as inputs for policymaking and implementation.
Yatsu then highlighted APN’s process for approving research proposals, and noted that funding has generally been targeted at research gaps, capacity building and networking, planning and scoping workshops, and policy products. He listed a number of specific projects on monitoring and assessment in three focal areas: climate change; land use and land-cover change; and ecosystem areas. Outlining a possible research framework for APEIS and the MA with the objective of establishing a sustainable development knowledge base for the Asia-Pacific region, he suggested that APN could contribute to integrated monitoring and assessment through research projects, networking and capacity building, and the synthesis of research products. He also proposed the involvement of other institutions, including: the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) of Japan in core research projects; the ADB, the GEF and UNEP in the development of performance indicators; IGES in research on policy options; and the UNU/ IAS in urban ecosystems. Yatsu closed with a number of proposals for continuing work on integrated monitoring and assessment, including: similar workshops to be held annually; establishment of a new research fund; and synthesis of research activities.
Regional Expectations with regard to the MA and APEIS: Effendy Sumardja, Indonesian State Ministry of the Environment, highlighted regional expectations with regard to the MA and APEIS. He noted that the MA’s aim is to strengthen capacity to manage ecosystems to provide goods and services of importance to humans, and that APEIS’ role is in developing a model for sustainable development initiatives at the regional level. On ecosystem management and assessment, he supported an approach that considers community concerns, and sustained monitoring to improve the understanding of ecosystem functions, human influences and the effects of ecosystem management. He stressed the need to account for different spatial and temporal scales in this context.
Stressing that the Asia-Pacific region is well placed to identify innovative environmental strategies, Sumardja highlighted the role of partnerships between developing and developed countries. He underscored financing for innovation and the need to move from discussion to action. He said as population and demand for resources grow, developing countries need to formulate strategies and policies for sustainable development and integrate national environmental objectives into economic development objectives, and stressed the need for political will in this regard. He proposed that APEIS and MA programme design include: monitoring of species and ecosystems; analysis and dissemination of environmental management policies and instruments; and environmental assessment, advisory and indication services. On regional priorities, Sumardja proposed a focus on urban areas, noting that the Asia-Pacific region will have a growing number of mega-cities. He said the APEIS Research Coordinating Committee should be directly linked to the MA.
Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, one participant proposed that the APN organize workshops on research relevant to the MA and APEIS. Another participant drew attention to research by a Southeast Asian regional scientific network, with models developed for seven countries. She said much of the research has not reached government officials and policymakers, and suggested that this material be used by the MA and APEIS. The next speaker agreed, but highlighted the difficulties that policymakers have in accessing scientific information, and called for the effective communication of research results. Another speaker stressed the need for policy-relevant research and links between researchers and policymakers.
SESSION TWO – INTEGRATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Daniel Murdiyarso, Indonesian State Ministry for Environment, moderated the session on integrated monitoring and assessment. Participants heard from five presenters and two commentators. Workshop participants engaged in debate on a range of issues raised by the presentations, focusing on synergies between APEIS and the MA, and considering issues related to scale, target areas and methodologies.
Condition and Scenarios Working Groups in the MA: Rik Leemans, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment of the Netherlands, explained that his presentation would focus on Working Groups Two and Three of the MA addressing Condition and Scenarios. He noted that Working Group Two on Condition evaluates the present situation, focusing on: ecosystem goods and services; conditions, causality and driving forces across ecosystem types; and impacts on human development. He listed important ecosystem types, including agricultural lands, coastal zones, forest lands, freshwater systems, and arid lands and grasslands. He explained that the group’s conceptual framework would examine the dynamics between ecosystem goods/ services and ecosystem structure/functioning, combined with pressures on ecosystems and their socioeconomic drivers.
Leemans highlighted how Working Group Three on Scenarios has a future-oriented, predictive perspective, which will take into account: trends and drivers; ecosystem dynamics and responses; evaluation of scenarios; and use of a scenario approach at different geographic scales. He illustrated the utility of scenario building for issues where scientific data and understanding of ecosystem dynamics are limited. He then outlined a conceptual framework linking the driving forces of change to ecosystem functioning, which interacts with the relation among ecosystem services, biological response systems and human response systems. He also noted how policy and socioeconomic boundaries and drivers generally do not share the same spatial scales as ecological and environmental impacts.
Leemans then outlined the Standardized Reference Emissions Scenarios, explaining how they integrate physical and ecological factors on a number of levels, including: the world economy and population; land and energy use and emissions; carbon cycling and atmospheric chemistry; and climate modeling. He noted that these components have numerous feedback loops and ultimately result in impacts on natural systems, agriculture, water resources, land degradation and sea levels. He highlighted four potential scenarios across two dimensions, from globalization to regionalization, and from material wealth to sustainability and equity. Such scenarios demonstrate potential changes in economic growth, population, energy use, crop area, forest area, land cover, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, atmospheric change, and changes across ecosystems and species. He also highlighted how such scenarios could be applied to ecosystem types, such as arctic regions, boreal forests, temperate forests, tropical forests and savannas, and to variations in land use, CO2 concentration, nitrogen deposition, climate change and alien species. He closed by calling for close cooperation between regional assessment processes and the MA’s Condition and Scenarios Working Groups, as well as the need for: high levels of resolution in assessment work; attention to the specifics of each region’s responses and vulnerabilities to change; and the integration of regional insights into global assessment efforts.
Integrated Monitoring Programme in APEIS: Masataka Watanabe, NIES, gave a brief description of integrated environmental monitoring in APEIS. He said the proposed monitoring system is composed of two satellite data receiving centers (or Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometers (MODIS)) in China to cover the East Asia region, and five ground-based monitoring stations in China. He said the five ground-based stations focused on semi-arid, grassland, dry field, paddy field and forest ecosystems. He also highlighted two stations in Japan, and said possible future implementation in Singapore could cover Southeast Asia. He said implementation of this system will make it possible to monitor the state of groundcover over time, as well as agricultural production, soil erosion, water resources and environmental disasters. He said developing the MODIS network in the Asia-Pacific region would improve the accuracy of data supply. He added that a monitoring system must provide environmental degradation indices, and that early warning is an advantage of the MODIS network. He provided examples of MODIS observations of dust storms and grassland degradation. He then identified a framework for collaboration between the MA and APEIS, noting that western China is a focal region in the MA.
Environmental Assessment Programme in APEIS: Tsuneyuki Morita, NIES, introduced the APEIS Environmental Assessment Programme, which uses environment-economy integrated models. He stressed "innovation for the environment" as an approach to resolve the issue of tradeoffs between environmental conservation and economic growth. He provided as an example Japan’s projected GDP loss related to implementing the Kyoto Protocol, noting that it can be offset through, inter alia, new investment in environmentally sound technologies, and shifting consumption patterns towards environmentally sound goods. He provided a tentative list of innovation strategies for environment-economy integration, including technological innovation, the establishment of new industrial processes and the integration of different forms of innovation such as an "inter-urban network strategy."
Morita then introduced the Asia-Pacific Model (AIM), for assessing future scenarios of socioeconomic development and environmental change in the Asia-Pacific region and for analyzing the effects of innovation, noting it had originally been developed for climate change analysis. He said four AIM modules focusing on ecosystems, materials, emissions and trends can be used to identify tradeoffs and innovation demands in different countries, and that they can function as a communication tool to enhance discussions. He demonstrated the use of the AIM/trend model, which assesses future trends up to 2032, including factors related to population, economy, environment, health and biodiversity. He noted that the AIM/trend model will be distributed to countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, one speaker said the information on costs related to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol presented by Morita should be made available to policymakers, noting timeliness as one important factor of information provided by researchers. One speaker noted the costs and benefits of policy options, stressing that they are not equally distributed and called for more research in this area. Morita replied that the model developed in Japan needs to be adjusted to account for national conditions, including equity. Another participant stressed that obtaining comparable results from different countries is important.
In response to a question from the floor on how information derived at the local level can be extrapolated to the global level, Leemans responded that this is a challenge, that extrapolation is not necessarily the answer, and that problems can instead be pinpointed at different relevant scales. He suggested drawing lessons on how to resolve the scale issue from the Global Environment Outlook initiative.
GEF Environmental Indicator and Performance Review Project: Hideyuki Mori, UNEP, and Masami Tsuji, ADB, outlined ongoing work on a GEF proposal to develop national environmental indicators and performance assessment systems in Asian developing countries. Mori outlined the four institutions involved in the project proposal and their intended areas of contribution: IGES and NIES - monitoring expertise and analytical technologies; the ADB - ability to integrate environmental factors into rural social and economic development; and UNEP - networking capacity to link experts on environmental data and information. He also stressed the importance of capacity building within the project to ensure that developing countries continue producing environmental data and information.
Tsuji then outlined the project’s rationale to develop reliable environmental indicators and to establish an effective monitoring system to: meet the information needs of policymakers; strengthen public accountability for programme results; and contribute data and information for the analysis of global environmental issues, particularly for providing comparable information across issues and for MEAs. He underlined the need for identification of sustainable development strategies taking into account vast differences both across and within countries in the Asian region, as well as for assessments to allocate scarce resources to meet domestic policy goals. He listed the goals of the GEF project to: improve decision-making through better understanding of conditions, trends and impacts; strengthen national environmental programme management; meet the international demand for environmental information; facilitate review of the effectiveness of donor-supported projects; and support performance-based lending requirements of multilateral finance institutions by creating a system of environmental indicators and performance assessments.
Tsuji then outlined the proposed project objectives, which include: preparation of preliminary tools for performance assessment common to each country; identification of country-specific issues and preparation of country-specific indicators; conduct of national capacity development performance assessments; and dissemination of methodologies used and tools learned through pilot projects. He noted that such activities would occur over two phases and that the project would involve five to seven countries yet to be identified. He closed by noting that the project proposal would be formally submitted to the GEF in October 2001, and, if approved, initiated in 2002.
Regional Climate Model – Progress and Future Vision in the Context of Integrated Assessment Modeling: Congbin Fu, Regional Center for Temperate East Asia, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, discussed the regional climate model (RCM), including the development of a RCM for a General Monsoon System in Asia, networking RCM research and capacity building in the region, a study on inter-comparison of RCMs for Asia, and the potential implication of RCMs in the integrated assessment of the Asia-Pacific region. He highlighted new research challenges of regional scale estimate, analysis and impact assessment of global change, including estimates of the timing and magnitude of climate change, analyses of the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of climate change, and integrated assessments of the implications for society and the environment.
Noting that the monsoon has historically been looked at as a physical phenomena, Fu said a more complete General Monsoon System should couple chemical, physical, biological and social aspects. He said the RCM project is now in the evaluation stage, and that an inter-comparison study for Asia aims to further improve the RCM’s application to Asia, develop an ensemble of the results from a group of RCMs, and provide higher confidence scenarios of regional climate change in Asia.
He said a new version is almost complete to further improve the model, which includes a hydrological dimension to distinguish between dry and wet regions, and a simplified chemical model. He also said future work will include a ten-year simulation for future validation, and emphasized that this information could be used in the integrated assessment of climate change.
Discussion: Peter Marcotullio, UNU/IAS, one of the session’s commentators, spoke on the need to include urban ecosystems in the MA. He noted that urbanization and cities are important for understanding ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific region in particular, and that the MA has not paid enough attention to the issue. He presented conceptual work carried out at the UNU/IAS on how urban ecosystems can be incorporated in a meaningful way. Noting that urbanization is increasing in the developing world where the majority of the world’s population lives, he said that cities become even more important in the context of globalization. He highlighted defining urban ecosystems and their goods and services, and accommodating different scales, as challenges with regard to integration of urban ecosystems in the MA. He presented urban environmental transition models and theory as the basis for the urban ecosystem assessment framework. On generalized trends, he noted that increasing wealth does not necessarily lead to environmental improvement, and that the environmental problems of the poor and less developed cities are different from those of more developed cities. He highlighted the relationship between urban ecosystems and human health and the concepts of cities as ecosystems and as modifiers of ecosystems. He called for a "brown" agenda of sustainable development for the poor, noting that it currently focuses on rural areas. He stressed that as wealth in cities increases, the scale of environmental problems shifts from local and immediate to global, exemplified by increasing CO2 emissions leading to climate change. He said the framework proposed by UNU/IAS accommodates these considerations, presenting the different issues of relevance for low, medium and high-income cities. He closed by proposing further work involving the users of such information.
The second commentator Amir Muhammed, Rector, Pakistan National University for Computer and Emerging Sciences, said that South Asia is becoming "an environmental disaster," experiencing accelerating environmental deterioration since UNCED despite the adoption of new multilateral instruments aimed at promoting sustainable development. He noted the lack of scientific capacity in governments, and welcomed APEIS and the MA in this context. He said many of the models and projects presented during the workshop could be valuable in assisting developing countries to improve their capacity for modeling, implementing environmental policies and assessing their ecosystems. He called for user-friendly tools and dissemination of relevant technologies in developing countries. He also reminded the group that capacities differ across the region, and said this should be kept in mind when implementing the MA and APEIS.
Responding to a concern that APEIS is taking a more top-down approach given the involvement of only a few countries in the region, Watanabe noted that there are currently only a limited number of institutions capable of accessing and processing the satellite information to be used. Several speakers noted that APEIS is still in its formative stages and that its next step will be to engage organizations in different countries working on particular ecosystems and possibly to develop a collaborative, multi-country research team. Another participant stressed the artificiality of the top-down/bottom-up dichotomy, noting that top-down and bottom-up interactions have to be modeled both ways in order to accurately simulate systems. He also stressed the integration of both the natural and social sciences, arguing that many models based solely on the natural sciences fail to consider initial causal influences derived from socioeconomic drivers along with downstream sociopolitical response measures. One participant highlighted APEIS’ connection to political leaders through ECO ASIA and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and also suggested that APEIS and the MA collaborate closely to harmonize their methodologies. Another speaker questioned the need for such harmonization, stating that the strength of the initiatives’ complementarity is their different foci.
Several speakers highlighted the complementarity and synergies of the proposed GEF project with the APEIS and MA initiatives. One participant stressed that GEF projects have to be country-driven and expressed concern over an apparent lack of consultation with other countries in the region. He also highlighted related work undertaken by ASEAN and the importance of harmonizing data collection processes. In response, Tsuji noted the importance of country participation and explained that the GEF project’s first phase is intended to be a planning stage, which would provide an opportunity to involve other countries.
SESSION THREE – INTERACTION WITH POLICYMAKERS
Saksit Tridech, Secretary-General, Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment of Thailand, moderated the session on interaction with policymakers. Participants heard presentations on: the response options programme in the MA; innovative strategy options for APEIS; and the recent WSSD international eminent persons’ meeting on inter-linkages. Two commentators provided brief presentations and participants then engaged in discussion.
Response Options Programme in the MA: Kanchan Chopra, Institute of Economic Growth of the University Enclave, India, and Co-Chair of MA Working Group Four, provided an overview of MA Working Group Four on Response Options, highlighting its particular focus on the multi-scale context of user needs. She stated that the group’s mandate is to synthesize the present state of knowledge of selected ecosystems so as to develop options for management, technology and institutional policies. She reviewed the analytical links and feedback loops between: 1) ecosystem goods and services, including their state, availability, proximate pressures and tradeoffs; and 2) individual and community responses, including technology, policy, institutions, and demand for ecosystem goods and services. She characterized the two-way nature of this relationship, noting that ecosystem processes and the availability of their goods and services may elicit corrective responses at different geographic levels from the individual to the global community. In turn, these policies and responses may impact demand for ecosystem goods and services. She then outlined several examples of national and international level policy response options, particularly stressing the difficulty of matching the scale of the policy response to the scale of the environmental issue or problem. She further noted that legal and social institutions are often poorly matched to provide adequate policy responses.
Chopra then outlined the two phases of the group’s activities. Phase I will examine the state of knowledge, including policy and response options, impacts on ecosystem states and processes, and multi-scale economic and social policies. Phase II will develop policy and alternative scenarios to support the sustained provision of ecosystem goods and services, as well as economic development. She closed by quickly reviewing the MA’s Working Group One on Sub-Global Assessment, which will look at particular local and regional scenarios. She noted that while some specific cases have been selected, others may be proposed. She then outlined criteria for new studies in the MA, including: use of the MA’s conceptual framework; involvement of users and stakeholders; use of social and natural sciences; mechanisms for peer review; accountability in governance and use of funds; and exchange and public availability of data.
Research on Innovative Strategy Options for APEIS: Kazuo Matsushita, IGES, started by outlining the objectives of the APEIS component on "Innovative Strategy Options," which include: formulating a policy options inventory; presenting innovative strategy options based on the policy options inventory; and building capacity through collaborative research activities and pilot projects. He explained that the policy options inventory will look at the intersection of issues (such as, forest management, biodiversity conservation, freshwater management, urban planning, climate change) and policy measures (such us, economic instruments, technology transfer, regulation and compliance, information dissemination, regional cooperation and policy integration, and participatory and voluntary approaches). He added that options will be specified according to their appropriate geographic level, and will focus on local-level case studies, national strategies and regional approaches. He said activities will draw on fieldwork and qualitative analyses, and employ a problem-solving approach complementary to APEIS’s component on assessment research. Matsushita then reviewed a process for identifying innovative measures, reviewing existing measures and identifying obstacles to implementation, which will provide the basis for developing innovative strategy options. He closed by inviting input from interested researchers and outlining a communications strategy, including the introduction of innovative strategy options into policy fora, use of the Internet and ensuring availability to policymakers and stakeholders.
Report from the WSSD International Eminent Persons’ Meeting on Inter-linkages: Jerry Velasquez, UNU Global Environment Information Centre, reviewed the results of the recent inter-linkages meeting, and highlighted a number of trends in addressing global environmental issues, including: lower interest in the environment by policymakers; fewer resources to address an increasing number of problems; excessive rule-making and insufficient implementation; too much focus on institutional structures rather than on function; and the existence of policy conflicts and lost opportunities for synergy. He outlined the inter-linkages concept through the interaction of ecosystems and their components with socioeconomic systems. He listed challenges to the WSSD, including inter alia: a less favorable political climate compared to UNCED; the global economic recession; meeting and aid fatigue; and backlashes from globalization. He noted a number of possible topics raised during the meeting that could focus the WSSD’s agenda, including: global commons and public goods; international migration; urbanization; population; poverty; technology; globalization; and MEAs.
Velasquez then briefly reviewed the outputs of the meeting’s three working groups. The group on globalization particularly stressed the need for policies to integrate globalization and sustainable development, as well as for institutional arrangements to respond to globalization (noting for example options such as an overall security council, global summits, or a strengthened Commission on Sustainable Development). The group on MEAs proposed that MEAs should be: considered as instruments of sustainable development; universal in membership; and clustered according to topic area, allowing for improved coordination of scientific assessments, technological development, institutional arrangements, national and regional activities, and funding. The group on sustainable development strategies proposed: human or Earth security as a theme for the WSSD; mandates for issue integration at all levels; development of better decision-making tools, such as assessment methodologies; development of incentive systems; elimination of perverse subsidies; and increased stakeholder awareness and engagement of the private sector. He closed by stressing that the WSSD needs to identify and focus on a few key issues, and to develop a post-WSSD follow-up mechanism to ensure implementation.
Discussion: Guang Xia, Policy Research Center of the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration, emphasized the importance of APEIS as countries are looking for appropriate policies to address environmental problems and sustainable development issues. He highlighted both common and different challenges facing Asia-Pacific countries, the increasing influence of various stakeholders, and the increasing cost of environmental management. He said cost-effective policies are needed. He highlighted key points to consider when developing policy options: creating an innovative policy inventory; understanding "innovation"; and criteria in determining options. On producing the innovative policy inventory he distinguished between an "experiences-based approach" and a "rational-design approach." He said environmental strategy "innovation" should aim to lower formulation and implementation costs, and emphasized policy efficiency. He said trying to "perfect" environmental policy sometimes leads to higher costs and stressed that the principle of economics should be applied.
Xia then offered some suggestions, including the extension of a policy matrix using "issue-wise" and "measure-wise" approaches to create the policy inventory. Issues could include, on the one hand, environmental condition issues such as ecosystem deterioration and environmental pollution, or, on the other hand, environmental management issues. He also suggested regional cooperative research, such as seminars and training, to be carried out before the case studies begin.
Philip Mathews, Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia, said most governments have scarce resources to address issues related to economic development and environmental protection. He said governments need help internally, for example through more trained personnel, appropriate technology, improved information gathering and information dissemination, and stricter enforcement of legislation. He also said countries need help externally to improve their negotiating skills. He said APEIS promises to deliver to policymakers the tools they need to make the right decisions, at the right time and in the right doses.
He said the policy option inventory is a unique and innovative mechanism, and emphasized its flexibility. He highlighted certain conditions that must be met in order to ensure the integrity and usefulness of APEIS. He said APEIS is only as good as its inputs, and that the strictest standards must be applied to data sourcing. He stressed: creating conditions to ensure that experts do not leave their native countries; collaboration with existing networks such as ASEAN; choosing research partners in participating countries; and careful studies in the siting of pilot projects and clearly defined and publicized purposes. He said the most important determinant of the success of APEIS and the MA is the level of public awareness in target countries, and advocated an intensive publicity effort to ensure maximum information dissemination and participation by countries and stakeholders. He said the media must be a partner in this process, as it is the best conduit to carry the right information to the people.
Discussion: Several speakers highlighted the difficulties of matching policy development with implementation, stressing the need to integrate response options into socioeconomic policies. Others emphasized the importance of capacity building to ensure that all countries in the region can participate in the APEIS and MA initiatives. One participant expressed concern that specific mechanisms for stakeholder involvement had not been identified. Another speaker highlighted the need for policy options to consider timescales as well as spatial scales, particularly noting that environmental problems themselves have different temporal dimensions. Chopra further highlighted how policy-making timescales differ from natural processes, and also stressed the need to look at compliance with laws and regulations. Responding to a comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of policy options, Matsushita stated that criteria for assessing effectiveness need to be developed. Responding to a comment that the WSSD should review the implementation of Agenda 21, Velasquez noted political obstacles as the Rio conventions have their own review mechanisms.
During the ensuing discussion, Velasquez acknowledged the importance of efficiency and innovation, but also stressed that policies must be sustainable. Responding to a participant’s request for more clarification on the media’s involvement, Matthews advocated ongoing dialogue with the media to sensitize them to the issues. A number of participants agreed that participation of the mass media was a good way to involve stakeholders. One participant highlighted his country’s sustainable development strategy, which includes a national Agenda 21 framework and local Agenda 21 frameworks in some provinces. Although lamenting the lack of involvement of other stakeholders, he noted efforts were underway to involve them from an early stage.
One participant from a developed country highlighted a case in his country where a lack of local capacity hindered the implementation of nationally mandated environmental management policies, and suggested undertaking an analysis of the various types of capacity building needs throughout the region.
SESSION FOUR – GENERAL DISCUSSION
Co-Chair Zakri moderated the general discussion, which five commentators initiated. The discussion focused on key issues identified by the Workshop Chairs: the draft design of APEIS and its scientific components; perspectives on the MA from Asia-Pacific countries; collaboration between APEIS, the MA and other relevant projects in the region; and relevant issues for implementation, including networking and capacity building.
Heng Keng Lee, Department of Environment of the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, suggested that APEIS, as the successor of the LTPP, build on and draw lessons from its successes. Lee underscored the diversity of the Asia-Pacific region in terms of culture, levels of development and political and social systems, and said strategy options should respond to country-specific needs. He called for capacity building for the developing countries in the region, emphasizing information and communication technologies and access. With regard to research, he stressed local participation and ownership, and the need to bridge the gap between scientists and policymakers. He underscored collaboration and consultation to realize synergies between the MA and APEIS, and suggested that APEIS focus on the sub-regional level to accommodate the diversity of the Asia-Pacific region.
Mingsarn Kaosa-ard, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, noted that the Mekong River Basin (MRB) has been suggested as one MA focal area. She characterized the six MRB States as market economies with varying political regimes, relying on donor aid and resource management in the MRB as sectoral. On scientific research, she stressed the need for capacity building and making results accessible in the MRB. She highlighted as a potential problem that the MRB is less important to China and Thailand and more important to Cambodia and Vietnam, which may affect overall commitment to the MRB as an MA focal area. She said the MRB is the least developed river basin in the world, noting that most activities take place in the delta. She questioned whether this provides a good cumulative impact case study, since little information on water quality and biodiversity in the upper reach is available. On linking the MA and APEIS, she suggested selecting sites in the same countries catering to a shared audience, and the partial sharing of methodology and tools, allowing also for some complementary work.
Liu Jiyuan, Chinese Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, presented the MA sub-global assessment in western China, and suggested it could become an example of MA/APEIS synergies. He said the western China project aims to: provide the scientific basis for ecosystem protection, management and reconstruction; integrate existing research; and disseminate information. He said it will establish an index system and standards for ecosystem assessment, develop new models to assess ecosystem conditions and human influences, develop future scenarios and appraise and propose policies. On the technical support system, he said that this consists of: a data and information system; an ecosystem assessment system; and a decision-making support system. He highlighted existing data, the situation in western China, and cooperation with Japan. On potential synergies between the MA and APEIS, he stressed, inter alia: common capacity building activities; databases; a research and exchange network, including stakeholders; and shared technology. He proposed selecting the western China subproject to develop MA and APEIS synergies, making it a showcase project on synergy development.
Suparb Pasong, Walailak University, Thailand, reviewed the workshop’s overall objectives and noted the differing bases for the inception of the two projects: APEIS being government sponsored, and the MA relying more on nongovernmental and intergovernmental inputs. Using examples of shrimp farming and climate change, he stressed consumption issues, especially in the developed world, and their direct and indirect impacts on countries in the Asia-Pacific region. He advised that the MA should concentrate more on the demand side for ecosystem goods and services, in addition to the supply side. Pasong also called for transparency within the initiatives, especially with regard to the process for soliciting, evaluating and approving subglobal assessments under the MA. He closed by stressing the need to be specific about how civil society would be involved in the two initiatives.
Shidong Zhao, Chinese Academy of Sciences, recommended that the workshop organizers make a clear statement about the goals of collaboration between the MA and APEIS, and consider the need to identify personnel, institutions, funding and specific mechanisms to ensure such cooperation. He also highlighted ongoing work in China on ecosystem assessments and the Chinese government’s interest in environmental management issues in the Hunan Province and in the MRB.
Discussion: One speaker highlighted two features of APEIS (capacity development at the national level, and production of environmental information and data), noting how the GEF/ADB project contributes to the first and the MA to the latter. Reiterating the governmental nature of APEIS, one speaker encouraged further consideration of the engagement of stakeholders outside the policymaking community. The potential contributions of APN, specifically in research and capacity building activities, were highlighted, with one participant suggesting that APN collaborate with national institutions to convene capacity building workshops throughout the region.
A speaker stressed the need to list the ecosystem goods and services of value to the region, and not to simply address ecosystem conditions and threats. In response, another speaker highlighted the impacts of increased glacial melt, receding forests and sedimentation in Nepal. One participant noted that consumption and its pressures are considered in the MA’s conceptual framework, and recommended development of policy response options in that regard. Speakers also recommended, inter alia: considering the unique ecosystems of small island developing states (SIDS); introducing the MA to environment ministers at the upcoming ECO ASIA Conference; ensuring that information from researchers is communicated in appropriate language to policymakers; examining the effects of illegal logging; and considering the timing for reporting on progress under the MA and APEIS to the WSSD. A final speaker stressed the need to consider the sociopolitical context within the two initiatives, most specifically trends in globalization and decentralization.
During a closing Plenary, rapporteurs from each session provided summaries of the proceedings. A Workshop Chairs’ draft summary was distributed to participants, who provided comments and suggestions. Co-Chairs Yatsu and Zakri thanked the participants, organizers and supporters of the workshop, and adjourned the workshop.
Chairs’ Summary: The Chairs’ summary includes three sections: general recommendations; programme design and synergy; and collaboration. The section on general recommendations addresses APEIS, the MA and general comments.
The recommendations regarding APEIS specify that the project should: consider the specific needs of each country; ensure stakeholder participation involving scientists, policymakers and civil society; and incorporate existing initiatives, activities and projects. The APEIS draft proposal will be further elaborated by the Japanese Environment Ministry, NIES and IGES based on the joint MA/APEIS workshop and submitted to the ECO ASIA 2001 meeting. The recommendations regarding the MA propose the inclusion of urban ecosystems, as well as ecosystem assessment for a few Pacific countries, including SIDS. The results of the joint MA/APEIS workshop will be submitted to the second MA design workshop. General recommendations include: giving highest priority to awareness raising and capacity building to involve developing countries; focusing the MA and APEIS on action and implementation; taking into account social and political constraints to response options unique to the region; and attaining the highest level of institutional, governmental and scientific cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.
The section on programme design and synergy includes sections on APEIS, the MA, and synergies and cooperation between them. Regarding the APEIS programme design and synergy, the Chairs’ Summary proposes that the capabilities and capacities of the Asia-Pacific countries are considered, and that scientists and policymakers from the region are involved to ensure consideration of the needs and circumstances of the countries. It also states that the most important determinant of APEIS’ success is the level of stakeholder awareness, and it also emphasizes strengthening the capacity building exercise. On the integrated monitoring subproject, the summary recommends a process for extending the experiences to other sub-regions and parts of the world. On the assessment subproject, the summary recommends practical training in modeling for developing countries, accessibility of data and information for environmental management and policymaking, and the incorporation of equity considerations. On the policy option research subproject, the summary suggests: the use of standard terms and definitions applicable in all languages; the consideration, with regard to data collection, of transparency, national sovereignty issues and possible data abuse; conducting studies after carrying out pilot projects; and a focus on policy research options, including environmental economics and finance, national planning and policy frameworks, collaborative management systems, technology development, regulatory instruments and the participatory approach.
Regarding the MA and issues particular to the Asia-Pacific region, the Chairs’ summary calls attention to the state of ecosystems, particularly: mountain regions; endangered ecosystems in SIDS; degradation of coastal ecosystems from land development and fisheries; rainforest degradation from human induced fires; desertification and sand storms; degradation of soil in agro-ecosystems from agriculture and deforestation; and the goods and services of different ecosystems. The summary also addresses modeling and scenario development, highlighting building modeling capacity, improving integration of social and natural sciences in the different assessment models, and considering water availability and quality. Regarding policy, the summary identifies focal areas of policy research options and distinguishes between experience-based and rational design-based policies.
Regarding synergy and cooperation between APEIS and the MA, the summary recommends, inter alia: collection of new data on conditions and trends by APEIS; development of regional scenarios and storylines to feed into MA regional assessments; identification of major gaps in data and research for assessments; assessment and information sharing on innovative policy responses; dissemination of scenarios and results of assessments to policymakers; provision of new knowledge on conditions and trends of natural resources by APEIS; feedback on outcomes from the MA, particularly regarding methodologies for assessing global trends and comparisons with other regions; collaboration on planning a regional assessment in western China; exploration of harmonization of scientific methodologies, such as satellite data processing and ecosystem modeling; and attention to urban ecosystems.
The summary element on collaboration addresses five specific institutions and processes: APN; UNU/IAS; the GEF project proposed by the ADB, NIES and IGES; the General Monsoon System of Asia; and the Southeast Asia Research and Information Network (SEARIN). APN is highlighted, inter alia, for: research, networking and capacity building activities; synthesis of past research outputs; and organization of capacity building workshops on integrated monitoring and assessment. UNU/IAS is noted for its knowledge, expertise and experience on urbanization issues and capacity building for policymaking. The GEF National Environmental Indicators and Performance Assessment Systems Project is highlighted with regards to its potential integration with APEIS. The General Monsoon System of Asia is noted for its regional climate models and its potential role in networking and capacity building. SEARIN is highlighted for its relevant work on land use and land-cover changes.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR
2002 WSSD SUBREGIONAL PREPARATORY MEETINGS: The Asian subregional preparatory meetings for the WSSD in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002 are scheduled to take place between September and October 2001. The South Pacific subregional meeting will take place 5-7 September in Apia, Samoa. The Central Asia meeting will convene from 19-21 September in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The South Asia subregional meeting will be held from 27-29 September in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The Southeast Asia subregional meeting will take place 17-19 October in Manila, the Philippines. For more information contact: Rezaul Karim, UNESCAP, Bangkok; tel: +66-2-288-1614, e-mail: email@example.com or Nirmal Andrews, Director, UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok; tel: +66-2-288-1870; fax: +66-2-280-3829; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GLOBALIZATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: This meeting will take place in Grado, Italy, from 11-13 September 2001. It is being co-organized by Harvard University’s Center for International Development and Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and the Third World Academy of Sciences. For more information contact: Derya Honca, Program Coordinator, Center for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA; tel: +1-617-495-1923; e-mail: email@example.com; Internet: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/r&dconf/description.htm
SECOnd APN Workshop on Climate Variability and Trends in Oceania: This meeting will be held from 5-9 November 2001 in Auckland, New Zealand. For more information contact: APN Secretariat, Kobe, Japan; tel: +81-78-230-8017; fax: +81-78-230-8018; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.apn.gr.jp
2001 Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community: This meeting will take place from 6-8 October 2001 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. For more information visit: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting/info.html
MA SECOND TECHNICAL DESIGN MEETING: This meeting will take place from 8-11 October 2001 in Cape Town, South Africa. For more information contact: Valerie Thompson, Interim MA Secretariat, Washington, DC; tel: +1-202-729-7794; fax: +202-729-7610; e-mail: email@example.com; Internet: http://www.millenniumassessment.org
ECO ASIA 2001: The Environment Congress for Asia and the Pacific (ECO ASIA) will take place from 13-14 October 2001 in Tokyo, Japan. For more information visit: http://www.ecoasia.org/
2002 WSSD ASIA AND PACIFIC PREPARATORY MEETING: The Asia and Pacific regional preparatory meeting will take place in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from 27-29 November. For more information contact: Hiroko Morita-Lou, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-8813; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
2001 ASIA-PACIFIC EARTH CHARTER CONFERENCE: This conference will take place from 29 November - 2 December 2001 in Brisbane, Australia. The purpose of the conference is to promote awareness, acceptance and adoption of the Earth Charter for the Asia-Pacific Region. The meeting will also contribute to the region’s preparation for the WSSD. For more information contact: Clem Campbell, Conference Coordinator, Brisbane, Australia; tel: +617-5429-5401; e-mail: email@example.com; Internet: http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/eljag/04_events/nov2001earthcharter/earth_charter.htm
2001 BERLIN CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: This conference will be held from 7-8 December 2001 in Berlin, Germany. The conference will examine the inter-linkages between global and national environmental politics, and look at new forms of global environmental governance that link global institutions with national decision-making. For more information visit: http://www.environmental-policy.de
SECOND MA BOARD MEETING: This meeting will take place from 14-16 January 2002 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. For more information contact: Valerie Thompson, Interim MA Secretariat, Washington, DC; tel: +1-202-729-7794; fax: +202-729-7610; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.millenniumassessment.org
SECOND PREPARATORY SESSION FOR THE 2002 WSSD: This meeting will take place from 28 January - 8 February 2002, at UN Headquarters in New York. It will review the results of national and regional preparatory processes, examine the main policy report of the Secretary-General, and convene a Multi-stakeholder Dialogue. For more information contact: Andrey Vasilyev, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: email@example.com; Major groups contact: Zehra Aydin-Sipos, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax: +1-212-963-1267; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2002: This meeting will be held from 9-11 February 2002 in New Delhi, India. The theme of the Summit is "Ensuring sustainable livelihoods: challenges for governments, corporates, and civil society at Rio+10." For more information visit: http://www.teriin.org/dsds/index.htm
THIRD PREPARATORY SESSION FOR THE 2002 WSSD: This meeting will take place at UN Headquarters in New York from 25 March - 5 April 2002. It is expected to produce the first draft of a "review" document and elements of the future work programme of the CSD. For more information contact: Andrey Vasilyev, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: email@example.com; Major groups contact: Zehra Aydin-Sipos, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax: +1-212-963-1267; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
FOURTH PREPARATORY SESSION FOR THE 2002 WSSD: This meeting will take place from 27 May - 7 June 2002 in Indonesia. It will include Ministerial and Multi-stakeholder Dialogue Segments, and is expected to result in elements for a concise political document to be submitted to the 2002 Summit. For more information contact: Andrey Vasilyev, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: email@example.com; Major groups contact: Zehra Aydin-Sipos, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax: +1-212-963-1267; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
Third International Human Dimensions Workshop: This meeting will be held from 3-14 June 2002 in Bonn, Germany. The topic of the meeting, organized by the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and the Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training is human dimensions of urbanization and the transition to sustainability. For more information contact: Maarit Thiem, IHDP, Bonn; fax: +49-228-739054; e-mail: email@example.com; Internet: http://www.ihdp.org
WSSD: The World Summit on Sustainable Development will take place in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 2-11 September 2002. For more information contact: Andrey Vasilyev, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Major groups contact: Zehra Aydin-Sipos, DESA, New York; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax: +1-212-963-1267; e-mail: email@example.com; Internet: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
Sustainable Developments is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) firstname.lastname@example.org, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½. This issue is written and edited by Stas Burgiel email@example.com, Leila Mead firstname.lastname@example.org and Malena Sell email@example.com. The Logistics Coordinator is Marcela Rojo firstname.lastname@example.org. The editor is Jonathon Hanks email@example.com. The Director of IISD Reporting Services (including Sustainable Developments) is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI firstname.lastname@example.org. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the United Nations University. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses and at tel: +1-212-644-0204. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Sustainable Developments are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from Sustainable Developments may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. For further information on Sustainable Developments, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at email@example.com.