Ministry of Labour – Invalids and Social Affairs

Viet Nam Academy of Social Sciences

High Level Forum on Management of Social Transformation of ASEAN countries

Societal Vulnerability:

The Social Inclusion Challenges of Environmental Change

Viet Nam Academy of Social Sciences

Ha Noi, Viet Nam

20 December 2013

1

Concept Note

1. Introduction

The High Level Forum on Management of Social Transformation for the ASEAN countries, organized in 2013 by the government of Vietnam in co-operation with UNESCO, is proposed to focus on “Societal Vulnerability”.

The Forum is part of a series of Fora of Ministers of Social Development, which are institutionalized in various regions and sub-regions across the world under UNESCO’s Management Of Social Transformations Programme. The overall purpose of the Fora is to facilitate policy design and implementation on the basis of rigorous social science knowledge by creating an innovative space for policy-oriented dialogue involving experts as well as high-level decision-makers.

The Fora offer:

• A space for regional dialogue at Ministerial level, and with the participation of social scientists, on regional social policy strategies;

• Opportunities to work on the harmonization of initiatives;

• A platform enabling the exchange of experiences and succesful practices in national policies;

• Opportunities for co-production of knowledge through presentations by, and discussions among, several key stakeholders;

• An environment that fosters the development of joint projects;

• Opportunities to influence the international debate and policy formulation.

The two thematic priorities of MOST, as adopted by its Intergovernmental Councils in 2011 and 2013, and endorsed by the 186th session of the UNESCO Executive Board (May 2011), and subsequently by the 36th session of the UNESCO General Conference (November 2011), are “Social inclusion” and “Social transformations arising from global environmental change”.

Societal vulnerability corresponds precisely to one key dimension of the intersection between the two MOST thematic priorities. In particular, vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, which is distributed in highly differential manner across the populations of the region, is a core social inclusion challenge that requires established policy frameworks to be revisited in the light of emerging environmental challenges. By relating the multiple dimensions of environmental change in South-East Asian societies to the patterns of social inclusion and exclusion that they reflect and transform, the Forum will contribute to the knowledge base and action potential for socially inclusive environmental adaptation policies.

2

ASEAN Leaders have issued Declarations and Statements related to climate change as well as other aspects of environmental challenge. They have expressed ASEAN’s common aspirations towards a global solution to the challenge of climate change and to achieve an ASEAN community resilient to climate change through national and regional actions. While this existing legal framework has been translated into climate change mitigation and adaption programmes, there is need to develop policies that address the impact of environmental changes on the social inclusion of communities. This Forum will propose as such recommendations and practical policy options to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks with focus on socially inclusive policies.

This concept paper outlines the thematic focus of the Forum, its context, background and objectives, and its practical modalities.

2. Societal vulnerability to environmental change

In 1987, the Report “Our Common Future,” prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development (known as the Brundtland Commission), which strongly influenced the Earth Summit in 1992, defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This is still the most prevalent definition of sustainability. It relates current and future human needs satisfaction via scientific understanding of the systemic interdependencies that determine the long-range impact of human action.

The same emphasis on human needs, which is ultimately ethically grounded in a human rights framework, is apparent in Principle 1 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which states that “Human beings are the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”. Furthermore, principle 3 of the Rio Declaration stresses that “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”.

In the document “The Future We Want”, adopted at the 2012 United Nations Conference for Sustainable Development in Rio the importance of promoting an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations is mainstreamed throughout. It is recognized that the eradication of poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and that this is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In addition, the document acknowledges the negative impacts of climate change, which undermines the ability of all countries, in particular developing countries, to achieve sustainable development and the MDGs.

The international community has thus recognized the interdependence between social development and sustainable development, each of which constitutes a precondition for the other. There is no trade-off, in the long term, between satisfying human needs and protecting the environment. On the contrary, consistently with the range of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, the social development challenge is to identify a path of environmentally and socially sustainable development, as opposed to a vicious circle of environmental degradation and increasing societal vulnerability. Within environmental

3

change as a whole, climate change offers specific challenges due to its multiple timeframes, dispersed and diffuse impacts, and abstract and scientifically constructed character.

The IPCC, in its 3rd Assessment Report (2001), has offered a multidimensional understanding of vulnerability which is useful for addressing a wide range of issues, including those not directly related to climate change. Defining vulnerability as “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes”, the IPCC distinguishes three components: exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity. Societies are systems in this sense, and their vulnerability can be assessed by mobilization of an interdisciplinary knowledge base and addressed through appropriate scientifically informed policies.

Building on the IPCC definition of vulnerability, the 2011 report of the UN Task Team on the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, which the MOST programme has contributed to, explores the factors that affect adaptive capacity and make people exposed or sensitive to climate change.1 These can be equally applied in the broader context of environmental vulnerability as well.

The report emphasized that adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity are shaped by many non-climatic, socioeconomic factors, such as access to and control over economic, social and institutional resources. These resources comprise:

- Human capital, such as good health, skills, knowledge and education

- Social capital, including the power to influence decision-making, voting rights, and social connectedness, whether to relatives, neighbours, civil society organizations, business or government agencies;

- Physical capital, such as shelter, farming tools, but also community infrastructure such as embankments or terraces that protect a watershed and health care facilities, for example;

- Natural resources, including land and water, and

- Financial capital, such as income, savings or credit.

Whether or not people have access to these resources in turn depends greatly on social, political and economic conditions and institutions at both local and global levels: the rules, norms, policies and services etc, that shape people’s lives. An enabling institutional environment that empowers people and allows them to gain access to the resources they need for their well-being and the resilience of their livelihoods is therefore critical for adaptation. Institutions are mechanisms that mediate vulnerability. These include:

- Normative and governance structures and processes, including human rights, transparency, accountability, participation and other elements of good governance;

1 UN Task Team on the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, 2011. The Social Dimensions of Climate Change.

The report is downloadable e.g. at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_169567.pdf.

4

- Social and cultural norms, which determine significant parts of access, political power and equality, including gender norms, social differentiation, exclusion and discrimination;

- Social policies and services, such as social protection, preventive and curative health services, that can reduce vulnerability to climate change from control programmes for climate sensitive diseases, to reproductive health services and education;

- Sectoral policies, such as trade, agriculture and food security, health, land tenure and economic policies;

- Climate change policies, including mitigation strategies and adaptation support systems, some of which are being negotiated globally, like financing and technology transfer mechanisms, others of which are provided naturally, such as agricultural extension or meteorological services;

- Markets, as well as finance and credit institutions.

3. Vulnerability, inclusion and exclusion

While it may sometimes be meaningful to analyze vulnerability at national level, for most analytical and policy purposes, it is the intra-country differential aspects of vulnerability that are the most significant.

Thus, in the case of climate change, due to its nature and magnitude, everyone is vulnerable to its effects but not to an equal extent. At the individual and household level, factors that make the difference are means to prepare, respond and recover; formal and informal support services; social capital; and knowledge – i.e. elements the lack of which defines the status of “socially excluded”.

In other words, the most vulnerable are “usually poor, undernourished, of poor health, live in precarious housing conditions, farm on degraded lands, have low levels of education, lack rights, have little opportunities to influence decision making, work under precarious conditions, and/or reside in countries and regions with non-resilient health systems, limited resources and sometimes poor governance systems. Social, cultural or political circumstances, often including inequalities and discriminatory practices, deprive them of the basic assets and entitlements and the institutional support needed to make a living and ensure their well-being even under normal conditions, let alone for mastering the increased and additional challenges posed by climate change. These non-climatic factors and socioeconomic context in which climatic problems occur is likely to be as important, if not more so, than climate-related hazards themselves”.2

The exclusionary dynamics associated with climate change will not stop, however, at the point of putting more pressure on these groups thereby reinforcing their current disadvantage. They are likely to intensify and, by interacting with other dimensions of exclusion, create new marginalized groups consisting of those who, before climate change

2 UN Task Team on the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, 2011. The Social Dimensions of Climate Change, p.

24.

5

was added to the equation, were staying above the line, but may fail to manage this new powerful setback. Such a dynamic will have the potential not only of impacting future growth but also of reversing the progress already made, including towards the MDGs.

The combination of high exposure, high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity thus leads to specific forms of social exclusion that pose specific challenges to social inclusion policies. Understanding the dynamics of climate change as a factor shaping social change is therefore essential to effective policy design.

4. South-East Asian policy context

ASEAN Member States have developed national plans and strategies for climate change and established ministries or agencies as the focal point to deal with climate change and its impact. There are many programs supporting adaptation and mitigation activities such as the Climate Change Development Policy Operation in Vietnam. But more action is needed. There is urgent need for developing a framework of socially inclusive environmental adaptation policies. Vulnerable populations to environmental changes will become increasingly more vulnerable if policies and structures are not put in place to proactively address challenges of climate change.

South-East Asia is highly vulnerable to climate change as a large proportion of the population and economic activity is concentrated along coastlines; the region is heavily reliant on agriculture for livelihoods; there is a high dependence on natural resources and forestry; and the level of extreme poverty remains high. Climate change effects on ecosystems, economies, and populations are evident across the region. Greater resource scarcity, greater severity and frequency of droughts and floods, and rising sea levels have a major impact on many millions of people’s lives. Climate change intensifies other environmental issues such as the loss of biodiversity or land degradation.3 These result in significant social, economic and natural resource problems for ASEAN nations including education, human population movements, gender-related vulnerability, and livelihoods.

During the Asia-Pacific Meeting and Stakeholder Consultations on the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda (Bali, December 2012), there was consensus among participants that the road leading to the new framework should be inclusive and focused on partnerships with marginalized groups and the most vulnerable to climate change and social inequality. The participants proposed that in order to tackle the challenges of climate change, a network linking local communities to global scientific findings as well as a feedback mechanism that considers local knowledge and best practices be established.

The social impact of climate change is different between and within ASEAN countries due to the different levels of dependence on natural resources and resilience of people. Poor communities are severely affected when the environment is degraded or their access to it is restricted. This link between poverty and the environment has been recognized for some

3 German Commission for UNESCO. For life, for the future. Biosphere reserves and climate change. A collection

of good practice case studies. Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO, 2011, p.10.

6

time.4 Climate change increases poverty and vulnerability of the poor and marginal people. In line with this, it is a “multiplier of existing inequalities”.5 Other vulnerable groups such as women, children, the elderly, people with a disability and indigenous communities often lack resilience to disasters as they do not have the necessary resources to adapt or cope. To increase their resilience, it is important to understand the impact of environmental change on their livelihoods and put in place policies that promote social inclusion.

Social protection constitutes one important area of intervention in this regard, which directly relates social policies to climate change adaptation. It has been compellingly argued that appropriate social protection policies can create institutional entitlements that, effectively, protect the assets of the poor – and thereby help keep them out of extreme poverty in the face of shocks such as those driven by climate change.6 In particular, recognizing the strategic importance and necessity of ensuring universal social protection, the United Nations Chief Executives Board adopted in April 2009 the Global Initiative for a Universal Social Protection Floor (SPF).7

5. Research – policy linkages

As noted in the introductory section, the overall purpose of each MOST Ministerial Forum is to facilitate policy design and implementation on the basis of rigorous social science knowledge by creating an innovative space for policy-oriented dialogue involving experts as well as high-level decision-makers. This concern has been widely recognized by the international community.

In the 2012 Rio+20 outcome document, Member States recognized “the important contribution of the scientific and technological community to sustainable development. We are committed to working with and fostering collaboration among the academic, scientific and technological community, in particular in developing countries, and strengthen the science-policy interface as well as to foster international research collaboration on sustainable development”.

The decision to establish a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum, building on the strengths, experiences, resources and inclusive participation modalities of Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD), and subsequently replacing the Commission, directly reflects these concerns, as do the commitments to:

4 H. Reid. Climate Change - Biodiversity and Livelihood Impacts. IIED. 2006, p. 43.

5 Adapted from: I. Dankelman. (Ed.). Gender and Climate Change: An Introduction. London: Earthscan, pp. 55-

57. 6 See for instance World Bank, 2011. Social Protection and Climate Resilience.

7 See for instance ILO, 2011. Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization. Report of the Advisory

Group chaired by Michelle Bachelet, convened by the ILO with the collaboration of the WHO. Downloadable at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_165750.pdf.

7

85 (k) Strengthen the science-policy interface through review of documentation bringing together dispersed information and assessments, including in the form of a global sustainable development report, building on existing assessments

(l) Enhance evidence-based policy making at all levels and contribute to strengthening ongoing efforts of capacity -building for data collection and analysis in developing countries

In view of the importance of science and research-policy linkages have been given in the outcome document it is of major importance that the UN Secretary General, addressing the UN General Assembly on 24 September 2013, has requested UNESCO to take the lead in creating a Scientific Advisory Board and also to provide the secretariat for it. The initiative is one of the outcomes of the Secretary-General’s High-level panel on Global Sustainability (GSD) and its report “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing”. With specific reference to paragraph 51 thereof: “Governments and the scientific community should take practical steps, including through the launching of a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between policy and science. The Secretary-General should consider naming a chief scientific adviser or establishing a scientific advisory board with diverse knowledge and experience to advise him or her and other organs of the United Nations”. It is of high importance that the social sciences – and notably the MOST Programme – contribute to this important initiative.

For every major issue that bears on sustainability, whether regarded in environmental or in social terms, relates to the dynamics of complex hybrid systems that are inseparably physical, biological and social. They can neither be understood nor acted upon without a strong contribution from the social and human sciences. This will require new ways of producing knowledge, and at the same time new modes of knowledge utilization.

Furthermore, the contribution of the social and human sciences is not simply analytical. Ensuring that cities, agriculture, transport and energy systems – and every other sustainability challenge within contemporary societies – are understood as shaped by human beliefs, values, institutions, and behavioural patterns, is not just a matter of improving descriptive or predictive capacities. Managing the social transformations inherent in the search for sustainability means also establishing a normative – ethical and political – basis for them. What the world needs, in the face of challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and freshwater scarcity, is not to “do what science demands” – since science, as such, does not “demand” anything. The task is rather to create a framework within which the values, beliefs, institutions and behavior that might underpin sustainability can be imagined, legitimized and promoted. Without the contributions of the social and human sciences, none of those objectives is likely to be attained.

6. UNESCO research and expertise in South-East Asia

Analytical input to the proposed Forum will be provided by the results of a series of recent and ongoing projects in the ASEAN region that have identified specific aspects of vulnerability and clarified certain policy challenges in response to them. The analytical work

8

undertaken to establish future projects will also be drawn on as part of the substantive expertise available to Ministers at the Forum.

The focus of the proposed Ministerial meeting aims at UNESCO’s main concerns. The Social and Human Sciences sector addresses global environmental change as a cross-cutting challenge calling upon the resources of the social sciences, environmental and development ethics, and critical thinking in the humanities.

This Forum will build on existing knowledge and ongoing activities by UNESCO and others. The Forum will be informed by key ASEAN documents such as the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint 2009-2015 - Section D10: Responding to Climate Change and addressing its impacts; the ASEAN Bangkok Resolution on ASEAN Environmental Cooperation (2012); and the ASEAN Action Plan on Joint Response to Climate Change.

There is also growing research on the interaction between climate change and social inclusion such as the Asian Development Bank’s reports on Climate Risks in the Mekong Delta (2013), Climate Change and Migration (2012), and the Economics of Climate Change in South-East Asia (2009).

The proposed Ministerial Forum will also benefit from the content of the 2013 World Social Science Report, published in November 2013, which addresses “Changing Global Environments” from a comprehensive social science perspective, with extensive material relating specifically to South-East Asian challenges.

Finally, environmental change gives rise to ethical challenges that need to be grasped within a framework of critical and forward-looking thinking. Environmental challenges often tend to be framed as costs to be borne and technologies to be discovered, leaving behind the opportunities and co-benefits associated with serious engagement with their ethical dimensions. Through the joint efforts of its Programme Sectors, its expert advisory body in this area – COMEST – and relevant international bodies, UNESCO has developed a range of activities on environmental ethics that generates intellectual knowledge, plays an advisory role for the benefit of the Member States and offers a basis for reflecting on the relevance of standard-setting initiatives. The Forum will be able in particular to rely on the successive reports of COMEST on the ethical aspects of climate change,8 as well as on the “Framework of Ethical Principles and Responsibilities for Climate Change Adaptation” adopted by COMEST at its 7th Ordinary Session in 2011.9

In addition to its own projects, UNESCO will ensure representation at the Ministerial Forum of other UN agencies and relevant international bodies.

8 COMEST, 2010. The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change, downloadable at

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001881/188198e.pdf; COMEST, 2011. Background for a Framework of Ethical Principles and Responsibilities For Climate Change Adaptation. 9 Available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/Summary-Report-on-

Decisions_COMEST_2011.pdf#page=9.

9

7. Organization of the MOST High Level Forum

The Forum will bring together the various actors who could benefit from working together in designing and implementing effective strategies and policies for social development that affect environmental vulnerability. To improve links between research and policy in the context of the Forum, Ministers are invited to:

• Share their knowledge of the policy responses that have been most effective in their country and which could be useful for other countries in the region;

• Consider the research findings on the themes prior to, and during, their debate;

• Identify and discuss research and policy gaps and needs, as well as ways of using academic research in the design, implementation and evaluation of social policies in the region;

• In some cases, participate as panelists in panels with researchers and UN system members, and react actively to their presentations;

• Identify and approve new projects of cooperation between different ministries;

• Formulate policy recommendations taking into account the research presented and agree on a final declaration and commitment.

3.1. Agenda and format

The one-day High Level Forum will be designed to facilitate an interactive debate among participants, and particularly among the countries’ Ministers. In order to ensure strong and relevant expert input, the Forum could be preceded by an informal one-day expert meeting, the outcome document of which would be presented to the Forum.

The agenda of the Forum incorporates 3 plenary working sessions, as follows:

• Presentations and discussions concerning “societal vulnerabilities”: this session will feature presentations by the ASEAN high ranking officials in the field of Social Development of the steps that the countries have taken to address social vulnerabilities, including key policy and researches. It would be desirable for these written statements to be submitted ahead of the Forum by each participating Minister and include key updates in terms of policy and research opportunities and gaps in their countries, as well as key steps that the country has undertaken to follow up on international or regional recommendations in the relevant areas. The presentations will be followed by an interactive debate where Ministers will provide their feedback and comments on achievements so far, key issues to address within the thematic agenda of the Forum, and the way forward.

• State of the art on research and policy development on the themes of the Forum: building on expert input, the Forum will be briefed on key existing or new regional research on the core themes of the Forum, as well as on key policies and research issues identified by Ministers. These will set the tone and form the basis of the ministerial discussions in closing session, with a view to translating them into priority responses within the political agenda.

10

• Final debate and adoption of the Forum’s Declaration: building on the identification of key subregional issues and on the presentation of substantive research, the high level debate will be chaired by the Minister of Social Development of the host country and will discuss key issues of interest that will be introduced by the Ministers. They will identify key challenges and present respective experiences emphasizing on successful policies and proposed actions. The Ministerial debate should take the form of a dynamic dialogue rather than a successive presentation of respective national programmes. Non-Ministerial participants (researchers, regional organisations, UN System partners) may be given the opportunity to intervene in the debate. This dialogue process will feed into the finalisation and adoption of the Declaration of the Forum, which will have been drafted and circulated to Ministers for feedback in advance of the Forum.

3.2. Participants and partners

The baseline assumption to ensure a successful Forum is that all entities participating should be actors that are keen on working together and committed to supporting the follow-up. In this perspective, the Ministerial Forum is expected to bring together:

• Representatives of national governments

Identification of the most relevant Ministerial participants from each country will be conducted in discussion with the Government of Vietnam. In many cases, Ministers in charge of Social Development may be expected to be lead participants, though account will be taken of specific national circumstances. In addition, national Governments may be encouraged to also be represented, at their own cost, by other Ministers responsible for issues related to the theme, such as Ministers of Environment, Youth or Women’s Affairs. The participation of Ministers of Finance may also be desirable in ensuring sufficient resources to accompany the Ministerial commitments and to support follow-up activities at national level

• Representatives of regional research institutions and main social sciences networks in Asia

Their participation and engagement of researchers is highly valuable in the effort to strengthen research-policy linkages, within the context of the Fora of Ministers. UNESCO will cooperate closely with these organizations throughout the preparation, running and follow-up of the Forum. The outcome of the Forum will feed into research programming so that future studies can contribute to policy concerns identified by ministers.

• Representatives of UN entities and other intergovernmental organisations

The UN system has been closely associated with the Ministerial fora in other regions and has contributed in and provided support for, the outcome. Key UN System entities will be invited to contribute to the high-level expert meeting and to attend the Forum, as will major organizations in the region such as ASEAN.

11

3.3. Preparatory process

Following conclusion of an agreement with the Government of Vietnam, specifying the respective responsibilities of the parties, detailed planning will be conducted in a participatory manner, in line with the priority areas of the IGC MOST, taking into account the interest of Government of Vietnam, the needs in the region, other events that may be taking place, and the contribution that the Forum would make into the regional policy formulation and adaptation processes. An annotated agenda of the Forum will be prepared by and distributed to the participants in advance of the Forum.

Research institutions and partners will prepare substantive concept papers on the thematic areas covered by the Forum which will be circulated in advance to provide the Ministers and other participants with ample time to review them and consolidate their position.

In advance of the Forum, the UNESCO Secretariat will provide elements for a proposed draft declaration, which will be disseminated to the Ministers and further reviewed based on their feedback and the findings of the research. The objective would be to attain a maximum substantive consensus base prior to the Forum so that the debates at the Forum can focus more on action rather than wording. If time permits, MOST National Committees (where they exist) would be encouraged to organize national preparatory dialogues on the theme of the Forum in order to prepare national recommendations in advance of the Forum.

3.4. Outcome of the Forum

The main outcome of the Forum will be a written Declaration and a Plan of Action to which the Member States’ representatives will commit. The Declaration will provide:

• An overview of the key policy concerns and priority issues in terms of environmental vulnerability in the region;

• Succinct recommendations for follow-up action until the next Ministerial Forum.

In addition to the Declaration, the Forum would analyze whether to establish a mechanism to monitor the follow-up of the recommendations and provide an accountability structure for all stakeholders involved. The mechanism would identify key areas of work and responsibility, responsible task teams or stakeholders as well as specific performance indicators and reporting lines.

The Forum is also expected to provide a space for:

• A review of the social science state of the art on the theme of the Forum and specific linkages with key policy concerns, thereby sharing experience and enhancing capacity for all participants;

• The development and articulation of horizontal cooperation projects between 2 or more countries.

The outcome of the Forum feeds into other major policy processes at international level, such as the sessions of the MOST Intergovernmental Council and the Commission for Social Development of the UN General Assembly.

12

3.5. Follow-up

Follow-up of the recommendations of the High Level Forum is crucial to ensure that the political commitment, informed by research, is translated into tangible action and results. It is also indispensable in terms of enabling the results of each Forum feed into the next one, thereby promoting sustainability and, thus, effective and lasting impact of the Fora of Ministers as such. With this in mind, particular attention will be devoted in planning the proposed Forum to ensuring that the outcomes of the MOST Ministerial Forum on social protection held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in 2011, are taken into account, with due regard to the specificities of the situation in South-East Asia.

Experience to date points to certain key mechanisms and modalities in this respect.

It is desirable that the Minister hosting the Forum should take the lead in the coordination of the follow-up, with UNESCO’s involvement and support from the Secretariat.

Proper follow-up mechanisms should be put in place within each country engaging Ministry officials, researchers and community organizations. Within this mechanism, a national focal point should be appointed with the responsibility to participate in a network of national focal points to follow-up on the various activities, exchange ideas etc. Ideally, focal points would be civil servants in order to ensure continuity of the Forum.

The research community, the regional and the UN System partners that will participate in the Forum should be fully engaged in the follow-up of the Forum through clearly identified follow-up responsibilities.

MOST National Committees (where they exist) could be encouraged to contribute to the implementation of the results of the Forum at the national level.

Furthermore, the Forum should connect to the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) and the Scientific Advisory Committee of MOST. The outcome of the Forum will be transmitted to the Intergovernmental Council of MOST. As such, the findings of the Forum will feed into the debates and discussions at the IGC on how to address environmental vulnerability challenges and support adaptation policies in this perspective, thereby enriching understandings of social inclusion challenges in South-East Asia. Through the IGC, the outcome of the Forum will be made available to other regions, with a view to enriching their perspective and potential impacting on related policies and enabling inter-regional cooperation in areas of common interest.

In addition to the IGC, the Scientific Advisory Committee of MOST could support the follow-up of the recommendations of the Forum, by providing scientific feedback on research gaps, showcasing relevant research developed at international and regional level and replicating the research conducted in the context of the ASEAN Forum to other regions.

For more information, please contact:

Ms Angela Melo, Executive Secretary of MOST, a.melo@unesco.org

Mr John Crowley, Team Leader, Global Environmental Change

Ms Cecilie Golden, Programme Specialist, Global Environmental Change

Ms