Despite some tentative new signs that point to improved relations and potential for trade between South Asia’s biggest economies – India and Pakistan – the region remains poorly integrated economically, with intraregional trade dreadfully low, hovering at less than 5 percent of total trade. This is attributable to several key factors including protectionist trade regimes, weak connectivity, poor infrastructure, low levels of cross-border investment, the presence of non-tariff barriers, and of course the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.

Despite some tentative new signs that point to improved relations and potential for trade between South Asia’s biggest economies – India and Pakistan – the region remains poorly integrated economically, with intraregional trade at less than 5 percent of total trade. Photo/Flickr user Mr. Matt

A new poll of Indian public opinion, conducted by the Australian think-tank Lowy Institute for International Policy and the Australia India Institute, reveals that while Indians do want increased trade in the region, this may not necessarily include trade with Pakistan. The poll shows that 71 percent of Indians agree that India and its South Asian neighbors would benefit from free trade, and that this would make the region more peaceful. However, the data indicates that 94 percent of people in India regard Pakistan as a threat to national security, and a large majority (84 percent) considers the Indo-Pak relationship to be very weak.

Recently, there have been signs of improvement in this relationship. Last week, Pakistan’s trade minister announced that they may soon grant most favored nation (MFN) status to India. Though this is not confirmed yet, it would give India the same rights and privileges afforded by all its other trading partners. In September 2012, a new visa agreement was signed between the two countries to facilitate cross-border travel. Further, in the past year, India’s exports to Pakistan have increased by almost 15 percent, while imports from Pakistan have risen about 30 percent. Now is the time to build upon this recent momentum and rally for a boost in Indo-Pak trade.

Although both countries have a historical trust deficit and their relationship continues to be complicated, successful and mutually beneficial trade between India and Pakistan is an indispensable component of increased intraregional trade. According to the Consumer Unity Trust Society (CUTS) International, India has the potential to gain about $80 million in cheaper imports from Pakistan in about 13 categories of products. Even more notably, Pakistan stands to gain about $1.4 billion in about nine categories.

An improvement in Indo-Pak economic relations requires the building of political will to overcome historical tensions and mistrust between the two nations. It also requires including relevant stakeholders such as business owners and civil society in the conversation on regional trade. A common complaint is that there are many non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that have been hindering trade between India and Pakistan, and at the regional level. NTBs are barriers to trade other than traditional tariff barriers, such as visa restrictions or bureaucratic corruption, for example. The presence of NTBs is widely acknowledged throughout South Asia and contributes to the low percentage of intraregional trade. A study conducted by CUTS International and supported by The Asia Foundation shows that South Asian consumers are foregoing nearly $3 billion a year of aggregate minimum consumer welfare due to the presence of NTBs. This is over and above the $2 billion each year that consumers are losing out on from tariffs being imposed on their neighbors on selected product categories. These tariff and non-tariff barriers make the cost of trading with neighbors much more costly than they would otherwise be, to the extent that trading with partners outside the region is often far more cost-effective. And, the consumer is losing out.

Along with our partner organizations from Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, The Asia Foundation has identified some broad measures that, if taken, would reduce or remove these barriers to a large extent. These include: raising awareness and transparency of procedures, achieving new reforms to address legal and administrative hurdles, and regional harmonization of standards and clearance documents.

Ultimately, it is the people of South Asia who are bearing the brunt of the cost of economic non-cooperation in the region, and this must change in order for the region to grow economically and reduce poverty. On a positive note, the Lowy poll also found that 89 percent of Indians agree that ordinary people in both India and Pakistan want peace, and 72 percent identify trade and economic cooperation as a way to help bring about peace with Pakistan.

Diya Nag is a program officer in The Asia Foundation’s India office. She can be reached at dnag@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

The future of “traditional” aid is increasingly and rather suddenly in question. Why? Several reasons: rapid transformations in the global economic and political order, the growth and diversification of private financial flows to developing countries, and the emergence of climate change as a new and major draw on scarce international public funding. These factors have been prominent in UN-led discussions about the post-2015 global development framework. Perhaps more importantly, they are already beginning to influence the way in which bilateral and multilateral development organizations articulate their mandates and structure their operations.

In 1990, more than half the population of Asia was living in extreme poverty; by 2015, the proportion will be less than 10 percent. Photo/Geoffrey Hiller

Only a few years ago, until the onset of the global financial crisis, development agencies were engaging in very little self-examination. If any one thing flicked the switch, it was Asia’s resilience in the face of the financial crisis, and its continued surging growth since that time. The scale of that growth over the coming decades will make it the world’s biggest economic zone, increasingly able to address its own poverty challenges and contribute to poverty reduction elsewhere. However, Asia’s growth is neither uniform nor inclusive of the Pacific island countries, many of whom continue to struggle with poverty, conflict, and governance challenges.

Against this background, the Australian National University’s (ANU) Development Policy Centre, The Asia Foundation, the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and the University of Melbourne jointly convened a conference on “The Future of International Development in Asia and the Pacific” at the University of Melbourne on May 10, 2013. This conference brought together a diverse group of thinkers to discuss the future of aid and development in the region, looking beyond 2015. Our aim was to make a distinctly regional contribution to a global conversation.

The two keynote speakers framed the discussion with a global and a Pacific perspective. Alison Evans, until recently director of the UK-based Overseas Development Institute, spoke on global development progress and the emergence of new actors in development cooperation, heralding a new “age of choice” for developing countries, but also the persistent challenges of global poverty and inequality. Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Jimmie Rodgers, highlighted the numerous constraints on the development of the Pacific island countries, calling for a reconsideration of the country-based architecture of aid and a shift toward support for “shared sovereignty.”  He also said that while there are disadvantages in being bracketed with the powerhouses of Asia, there should be increasing opportunities for South-South cooperation, perhaps encouraged and facilitated by Australia.

Asia Foundation Vice President Gordon Hein 9center) joins experts for a panel discussion on the future of international development in Asia and the Pacific at the University of Melbourne.

Subsequent discussions were organized around three broad topics: the rise of Asia and the future of aid, aid and international public goods, and the evolving international development agenda.

The rise of Asia and the future of aid

In 1990, more than half the population of Asia was living in extreme poverty; by 2015, the proportion will be less than 10 percent. Instead of almost one billion Asians being trapped in extreme poverty, the number will drop to 160 million. What does this changing face of poverty in the Asia-Pacific mean for the future of aid?  And with Asia the source of 60 percent of the world’s growth by 2015, what role will it play in addressing poverty?  The Pacific islands tell a different story. There, development progress has been much slower and many people continue to face chronic poverty of opportunity.

AusAID’s Rod Brazier stressed that, despite gains in poverty reduction and economic growth, large pockets of poverty, tenacious subnational conflicts, fragile states, and the growing impacts of climate change demand attention and resources throughout the region. He said that AusAID recognizes that sources of finance and budgets are growing rapidly across the region. In most of Asia, aid dollars make up a shrinking proportion of the total resources available for development.  Therefore, Australia’s strategy is to use aid to leverage countries’ own capabilities and resources, supporting sound policy planning, and public financial management to address critical challenges.

While aid might be diminishing in significance in Asia, it is still a major factor in the Pacific islands region, with the highest per capita aid levels in the world.  As the ANU’s Stephen Howes argued, Australia, as the region’s largest aid provider, must change its narrative about the Pacific to be less about aid and more about how Pacific island countries can achieve greater regional and global economic integration. For its part, Australia could do much more to extend privileges to Pacific island countries, including by taking more effective policy measures to promote labour mobility. At the same time, Howes said, Australia should be less shy about highlighting aid as one strand of its relationships with Asian countries. Aid remains an important, in fact unique, tool for addressing persistent problems at the national and regional levels in Asia, yet barely rated a mention in Australia’s 2012 Asian Century white paper.

China and India, the region’s economic and political giants, face large pockets of poverty and rising inequality. While acknowledging this, neither sees foreign aid as vital part of the solution. Tongquan Sun of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that while Chinese youth leave poor villages in search of jobs in the cities, older, rural-based relatives may see less benefit in participating in some donor-supported development projects, preferring to rely more on remittances. In fact, China and India are now emerging as game-changing donors in the region and beyond. While there are no accurate measures of aid-like flows from these countries, Chinese assistance has been estimated to be growing at 30 percent per annum, and its aid-like outflows are probably now slightly larger than Australia’s, while India’s assistance has quadrupled in the last decade and now stands at around $1.3 billion a year in terms of grants and loans.

Dealing with common challenges: aid and international public goods

Panelists also explored challenges and responses in the fields of infectious disease control, climate change mitigation, regional infrastructure, and the management of common-pool resources such as oceanic fisheries. In all these areas, country-specific development assistance has a role to play but cannot provide solutions; collective action, supported by aid, is needed. As part of this, the region’s emerging economies will need to play a major role in meeting these challenges, in partnership with traditional donors. The prospects of the poorest and most vulnerable countries of the region will in large part depend on the success of their joint efforts.

Finance, inevitably, was at the heart of the discussion. To address the global-scale challenge of climate change mitigation, a great deal of international public finance will be needed – yet it will only ever be a small part of the picture. As Warren Evans of the World Bank argued, public funds will have to be used to mobilize private investment, including through risk mitigation – and they would logically be used where the environmental impact is greatest, in the growing ranks of high-emitting, middle-income countries. Realistically, aid budgets will likely supply most international public finance for climate action, thus greatly amplifying previously existing tensions between the use of aid for poverty reduction in poor countries and its use for the provision of global public goods. And this will be happening at the same time as the number of low-income countries eligible for concessional financing from the multilateral development banks, and other sources, rapidly dwindles. For better or worse, the dominant aid narrative could buckle under the strain.

The importance of collective action at the regional level, as distinct from the global level, was also highlighted. Kazu Sakai of the Asian Development Bank held up cooperation on regional infrastructure in the Mekong Basin as one success story in this area. Dermot O’Gorman of WWF-Australia highlighted the importance and urgency of better regional cooperation in the management of the tuna fisheries of the Pacific, and also spoke on the progress of the Coral Triangle Initiative, which involves cooperating between six Asia-Pacific developing countries, supported by development agencies. While regional cooperation will often be more feasible than global cooperation, it’s not easy; successful examples are rare, and support from development agencies for regional cooperation initiatives is patchy, given that their standard approaches and internal incentives tend to point them firmly toward country-specific interventions.

The evolving international development agenda

The final session of the conference considered how the changing global context for aid might play out in the discussions on the post-2015 global development framework.

A substantial challenge in itself is the massive expansion of the development “community” over the past decade. Participants in the international development debate have expanded to include actors ranging from aid recipient countries, traditional donor countries, and multilateral organizations through to the emerging economies, major philanthropic organizations, private sector bodies, universities and think tanks, and civil society organizations. This, and in particular the ongoing transition of countries like China and India from aid-recipient to major-donor status, has resulted in varying and at times conflicting aspirations for the post-2015 agenda.

According to Lawrence Haddad of the University of Sussex’s Institute of Development Studies, the MDGs possess a “singular coherence” which will be difficult to replicate from the present position of “pluralistic cacophony.” One thing is clear: the goals that succeed the MDGs cannot be goals for aid, or goals for aid donors. Rather they must be development goals that all countries can buy into and act upon, whether individually and collectively.

Speakers and discussants, including Oxfam Australia’s Helen Szoke, Eun Mee Kim of Ewha Woman’s University in Korea, and Mark Ingram of Business for Millennium Development, identified several important elements for establishing a new development framework:

1. The framework needs to be simple with a small number of goals, not least to maximize the probability of its being used for national planning and accountability purposes.
2. The goals established should be for the world as a whole, making no distinction between groups of countries that are increasingly not distinct.
3. Flexibility must be allowed to countries, such as the fragile states of our region, to determine how and how far they contribute to the global goals, so as to recognize variations in their capacities and starting-points.
4. Goals relating to international public goods that require international collective action should be accorded more than marginal status this time around.
5. The inclusion of certain over-arching or guiding principles will be important. Here discussion highlighted three things – gender, accountability, and partnerships with civil society and the private sector – as particularly central, and poorly represented in the current MDGs.

Overall, it was clear from our discussions that a “new aid order” is not merely on the horizon, but is already fast emerging in our dynamic region, as in the world. China and India, whether old or new players in development, are quickly assuming major significance as donors. The philosophical underpinnings of their aid programs should not appear as new or strange to traditional donors, but are at substantial variance with the current orthodoxy of aid effectiveness.

Global challenges, and particularly the threat of dangerous climate change, are making increasing demands on international public finance, muddying the conventional rationale for aid, and calling into question the dominance of narrowly country-based resource allocation and aid delivery processes. At the same time, the conventional rationale for aid is relied upon all the more heavily in periods of fiscal belt-tightening.

The aid community is living in interesting times – an age of choice, but also an age of uncertainty about missions, goals, and methods. Aid is likely to become more, not less, prominent as an element of international policy in the “Asian century” – because the economic engines of Asia will make it so.

Graham Brown is director of the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, Robin Davies is the associate director of ANU’s Development Policy Centre, Anthea Mulakala is The Asia Foundation’s senior advisor for International Development Cooperation based in Kuala Lumpur, and Annmaree O’Keeffe is a research fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. Read more about the event, including a background paper and full list of speakers.  The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Last year marked The 35th Anniversary of ASEAN-U.S. Relations. How is the relationship now?

While it’s true that the U.S. has been engaged with ASEAN for over 35 years, it’s also true that it was in many respects a different ASEAN. Initially it was five countries, it’s now ten. It’s also true that in those early years the challenges facing ASEAN and the opportunities it had were different than they are now. As the organization has matured, there have been additional opportunities for dialogue partners such as the United States to engage and support, and that is something that is accelerating now fairly rapidly.

What message does it deliver to Southeast Asia that you are the first ever resident ambassador ASEAN?

I have been very well received in the region, and I have found no exception to that. So, I believe that what we are bringing to the regional conversation is thought to be desirable. The ASEANs are of course aware of the breadth of our engagement, even if the public is not. And they understand that the U.S. is a positive force for helping them manage some of the most difficult problems. And also, a positive force in helping them realize some of the opportunities that exist on the economic front, and managing health issues like pandemics and disasters.

What is most important about engagement with ASEAN?

The reality is that there are all kinds of people with deep expertise in different areas – both dialogue partners and other nations who aren’t dialogue partners – that contribute guidance and financial support to ASEAN. But the interesting question is: Why are they? Some people might think it’s all about containing China, or about soft power influence in the region. The reality is that we are increasingly interdependent on systemic issues like pandemics and food and water security. Today’s pandemic in Asia is in New York tomorrow. A pandemic is in fact a security risk: there are three days of food on the supermarkets of the world. Do you think people are going to start delivering food on their trucks if there is H5N1 in the town?  Food and water security is ultimately an international issue. There is a web of things upon which we rely that could be disrupted terribly. What has become increasingly more prevalent is the need to manage the connections among us, rather than the rules that apply within each of us.

You spoke a lot about connectivity among ASEAN countries.

The ASEANs are aware of the areas of connectivity. What’s typically been meant by that is around infrastructure. But there needs to be a different approach to realize the benefits of those connections. What do you need to do to make the connections work? Some are obvious – in the economic community, you need trade facilitation that removes tariff and non-tariff barriers that speeds up the movement of goods. But some aren’t so obvious: for example, I would suggest that one of ASEANs biggest needs is to empower its citizens. That is an asset that the ASEANs need to realize fully in order to accomplish the future they have set for themselves, to which they aspire. You can’t in my view actually empower your people to the extent that’s necessary unless you pay attention to not only education, but also to their health, their well-being, their safety. The connections that I’m talking about are well known, but the way that you remove the impediments to reaching the benefits that these connections can bring is still a challenge.

Can you talk about your ideas for an “ASEAN virtual library,” and how it can help improve access to information?  

I have found that throughout the region there seems to be a lack of imagination at finding a space for young people at the discussion table. They cannot always have speaking roles, but there’s no reason that they shouldn’t have observer status so that they can become invested in the kinds of aspirations that ASEAN has stated for itself. So far, that has been a missed opportunity in some ways. But these young people need information upon which to act, to be responsible participants in the discussions. And they are capable of accessing information now through the internet in ways that is encouraging so that they will become more informed and make better decisions, which brings me to the virtual library. For about a year and a half, I’ve been trying to get universities in the region interested in hosting a database that will be organized around issues that are easily identified, and relate to the ASEAN agenda, although they could relate to any one country’s agenda as well – from food security and fisheries and water security – on the current thinking on these issues that would be an online resource for legislators and policy-makers, think tanks, journalists, bloggers, young people, the curious. This would allow them to be better informed and participate in helping make better decisions. I just recently spoke to a group of Indonesian bloggers, and my charge to them was that you have an obligation to get it right. It’s more than thinking aloud, we need your input, and you need to be informed. I think that if we could get ASEAN friends to support it, we could get universities around the world to get behind it as well.

As the 2015 goal of an ASEAN Economic Community approaches, what are the major challenges ahead?

I think the major challenge exists in ASEAN’s path forward. The ASEANs have to own these conversations; they have to put resources in them, and ultimately have to accept the responsibility to act in a lot of settings where they have had support in the past. That is going to require political will and resources – I don’t know that that will be a challenge so much as it will be a transition period where they will need to step up in ways that they are not in a position to do right now.

I do believe that the U.S. is in Southeast Asia to stay, for all the reasons I’ve suggested, and given the connections that exist in the world, we can’t afford not to be. The ASEANs are concerned that we are distracted by outside events, but all the while, we were always engaged in Southeast Asia. There’s two and a half times more foreign direct investment in ASEAN than there is in China from the U.S. People always want to talk about trade, but as the former ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan would often ask, why do we always want to talk about trade, why don’t we talk more about investment? The challenge will be for ASEAN to take on more and more responsibility for engagement. For example, the ASEANs want the dialogue partners to assist with infrastructure development. I understand why they do, and it’s critical. But it’s also true that with a more viable tax policy in the region, they would be in a better position to finance and fund more of their own infrastructure development. Now, taxes are hard to get right, but the failure to do that is something that will impact their long-term economic health and the empowerment of their people.

With ongoing tensions in Northeast Asia – North Korea threatening war, pervasive struggles over island territory, and disputes over history and trade – there is a temptation to grow impatient with dialogue and diplomacy. But for more than 60 years, economic growth, peace, and stability in this region have been secured through regional and global cooperation, dialogue, and partnership. Today, too, the peace and well-being of future generations is best assured through continued close regional and global coordination and communication – however challenging this may at times appear.

To those working in the non-government arena, it is also clear that the critical issues facing Asia in the 21st century – from economic development to women’s empowerment; from safeguarding the environment to disaster relief; from effective governance to rule of law – cannot be solved through the power of governments alone. In the 21st century, all elements of a nation’s strength – its citizens, communities, institutions, NGOs – all of civil society must be called upon to assure Asia’s continued development as a peaceful, just, and thriving region of the world.

The role of civil society is crucial, and no one witnessed this truth more than the Japanese people. In the grim hours, days, and months following the March 11, 2011, “triple disaster,” the world watched in awe as the people of Japan joined together to overcome this unimaginable tragedy. New civil society organizations sprang up, and those already in existence grew. These civil society groups worked side-by-side with local communities, educators, businesses, local governments, and national governments to help the victims and to get Japan back on its feet.

The world also witnessed the capacity of civil society groups from many nations to work together, and to coordinate effectively with a range of government and non-government institutions. This is an approach that The Asia Foundation, as a civil society organization with six decades of experience in Asia and 17 offices across the region, has learned well. We know that to be effective we must coordinate with the full range of Asian institutions and actors. And it is why The Asia Foundation recently began to expand its relationships with Japanese institutions and civil society.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, The Asia Foundation helped make the West more accessible to the Japanese people through travel grants, a translation service, and book donations. Today, we turn to Japanese institutions as partners in Asian development.  Last month, The Asia Foundation signed a cooperative agreement with JICA, the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Through this partnership, our two organizations will work together in support of inclusive, dynamic, and sustainable development and regional stability in Asia. And last summer, leading Japanese civil society organizations and The Asia Foundation joined together to bring members of Afghan civil society to Japan, so that their voices would be heard at the Tokyo Ministerial on Afghanistan by governments committing to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

We no longer live in a world where governments alone can solve the great challenges of the world. Civil society organizations, the business community, and governments must work hand-in-hand, across national boundaries. The Asia Foundation has had a relationship with Japan for nearly 60 years. We know that with the rise of Japanese civil society, our new strategic partnership will be even more effective as we work – together – to improve lives and expand opportunities across a dynamic and developing Asia.

Michael Armacost is the Chairman of The Asia Foundation, and was U.S. Ambassador to Japan and to the Philippines, and under secretary of state for political affairs. David Arnold is the president of The Asia Foundation.?The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

The horrific collapse three weeks ago of an eight-story garment factory building in Savar, just outside of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, took the lives of more than 1,100 people, and was followed just last week by a deadly fire in another garment factory that left at least eight dead.

The garment sector in Bangladesh accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people. Photo/Conor Ashleigh

The tragedies have left a nation in mourning, shining a spotlight on the lack of safety for garment sector workers in Bangladesh. These incidents have drawn international attention on the urgent need for better working conditions for workers, starting with safer, more secure buildings.

While these events may serve as an immediate eye opener for consumers and manufacturers in the west, the critical need to improve factory safety in the readymade garment sector in Bangladesh should not come as a surprise. The country has long been under scrutiny because of recurrent industrial accidents that point to poor working conditions and poor safety standards in some of the country’s factories. Voices from within (including international buyers and local factory owners) and outside of the industry (international donors and civil society) have repeatedly called for measures to be taken to improve factory safety.

The death toll of what is one of the largest industrial accidents in Bangladesh fully justifies national and international outcries and the ire of the customers and business community, demanding that strong commitments and measures are taken. However, the worst thing that could happen to the readymade sector in Bangladesh, and to the millions of workers whose livelihoods depend on exports to western countries, is to see the label “made in Bangladesh” boycotted by consumers.

After China, Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest apparel exporter. The garment sector accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people, mostly women. If it is true that cheap labor is the main driver of the sector’s growth, it is also fair to say that this growth has provided economic opportunities to millions of women who would have very few other options to escape extreme poverty. The garment sector, despite what seems like an extremely-low paying industry in western standards, has positively transformed the lives of many women in Bangladesh.

Maintaining the livelihood of the workers and their families should, however, never be to the detriment of their safety. Strong commitments need to be made and measures implemented not only to improve safety, but to make safety and decent working conditions the heart of the industry’s competitive advantage. This is not only the responsibility of the employers; it is the responsibility of each of the players in the value-chain: consumers, international buyers, leaders of the garment sector and professional associations, Bangladesh’s government, the international community, the civil society, and the workers themselves.

Consumers have an essential role to play in requesting information on the conditions in which their clothes are produced and in putting pressure on brands to better control the working conditions in the factories they are sourcing from. Western retailers are, of course, well positioned to press for reform, and to impose good working conditions as a prerequisite for their orders, before considering the price. Many world-famous brands have already called for more stringent labour safety standards. On May 8, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative convened a conference call with U.S. buyers in Bangladesh’s garment industry to discuss U.S. government engagement to improve workers’ rights and working conditions, and to review how the private sector can assist in these vital ongoing efforts.

The question now is whether these “good words” will translate into effective action with real and sustainable results.

The different parties have already put forward some suggestions and resolutions, including the need for independent safety and fire inspectors, the requirement that factories are certified by a group of engineers, and the establishment of a “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) which the manufacturer will have to fulfill, among others. Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus also suggested in an op-ed in the Dhaka Tribune on May 9, the establishment of a Garment Workers Welfare Trust and of a “good compliance label” that consumers could reference as a guarantee for labor compliance. On Monday, Bangladesh’s cabinet approved changes to the nation’s labor laws that are expected to increase the benefits for garment workers and make it easier to form trade unions.

Another recommendation is to draw from the experience of Better Factories Cambodia, a program managed by the International Labour Organization, in close collaboration with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (GMAC) and the country’s trade unions. The program aims to improve working conditions in Cambodia’s export garment factories and combines independent monitoring with finding solutions, through suggestions to management, training, advice, and information. In Bangladesh, the implementation of such a program would require four key elements:

• that international buyers join forces with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) to advocate for the immediate passage of labour law amendments to lay the basis for the establishment of such a program;

• that Bangladesh’s government shows a strong political will to enforce the labour laws and a strong commitment to international labour compliance;

• that workers are more organized (which implies greater freedom of association), better informed and included in the design and implementation of the program, and;

• that the BGMEA, the government, civil society, and labour groups coordinate efforts with each other and with the international community.

Only a large mobilization of all parties can help ensure that tragedies of this kind don’t happen again. All parties need to send a clear message to factory owners that decent working conditions is a prerequisite for sourcing products from Bangladesh, or from any other country in the world. In the near future, consumers need to buy “made in Bangladesh” clothes, not “despite” the bad working conditions of some of its factories, but “because” of a clear commitment of its whole industry to meet international standards.

Sadly, it is too late for the hundreds of workers who perished in the tragedy of Savar, but what better testimony to their memory than to learn from this tragedy and use it to drive safety standards and changes in attitude that will lead to a safer, more just garment industry.

Véronique Salze-Lozac’h is The Asia Foundation’s director for Economic Development Programs based in Bangkok. She can be reached at veronique.salze-lozach@asiafoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Last Wednesday night, in a ballroom packed with a who’s who of west coast movers and shakers at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) presented its inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Warren Christopher’s family, who helped established the award, filled the table next to the one where I was seated, the Women’s Initiative Table, which is part of the Pacific Council’s effort to encourage women’s participation in foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton speaks at the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) as the inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award recipient. Photo/Ken Pagliaro

The award honors the lifetime achievements of Warren Christopher, the longtime chair of the non-partisan Pacific Council’s Board of Directors, who died in 2011. Christopher’s life was devoted to public service, from a young naval officer to secretary of state to a counselor to presidents, and the head of the Christopher Commission in the wake of the Rodney King incident. As deputy secretary of state, he was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter in 1981 for his role in negotiating the release of American hostages held in Iran for 444 days. The criteria for the Christopher Award include: commitment to international affairs, to the highest ethical standards, to promotion of the common good, to equality and fairness, and to government service as a noble pursuit.

Hillary Rodham Clinton served as the 67th Secretary of State of the United States from January 2009 until February 2013, after four decades in public service as an advocate, attorney, first lady, and senator. As first lady, Hillary Clinton traveled to more than 80 countries to represent the U.S., including her trip to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in September 1995, where she said, “However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world. There are some who question the reason for this conference. There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them look at the women gathered here … It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look, and face the world’s most pressing problems.”

In 2000, she made history as the first first lady elected to the United States Senate. In 2007 and 2008, Clinton made her historic campaign for president. In her four years as secretary of state, Clinton presided over President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” in his Administration’s foreign policy.  And on Wednesday night she reminded the audience that: “Asia is home to half the world’s population. Future growth,” she said, “and our hopes for a less bloody century, depends on the Asia Pacific. The U.S. is an Asia Pacific power, and our alliances there are strong.” Clinton noted that Christopher “understood, profoundly, the growing importance of Asia,” and credited him with putting the U.S. alliance with Japan “back on firm footing,” bolstering South Korea in the face of provocations from North Korea, and putting the U.S.-China relationship “on a positive trajectory.”

Clinton told the story of how Warren “Chris” Christopher, as secretary of state, was one of the first diplomats to ever make it a priority to attend ASEAN meetings; one of the requirements was that he participate in a skit after the business meetings were adjourned. “Chris” dressed up famously as the Statue of Liberty and sang “Home on the Range.” Clinton said it was a gesture that went a very long way in demonstrating U.S. commitment to ASEAN, and to Asia, more broadly.

Amy Ovalle is The Asia Foundation’s senior director for Global Communications, based in San Francisco. She is also a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy. She can be reached at aovalle@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

When we hear about the current slow pace of negotiations between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, we can lose sight of the many concrete achievements made over the years.

As peacemakers on both sides of the negotiating table try to learn lessons from past peace efforts, two institutions in particular established in the past decade stand out:  the Bangsamoro Development Agency, which is currently working on a medium-term Bangsamoro Development Plan, and the Bangsamoro Leadership and Management Institute, which works for “ideologically-oriented and spiritually accountable Bangsamoro leaders and managers who will utilize political and social-economic knowledge and skills.” These institutions are meant to avoid a situation, ever possible in post-conflict situations, where incoming leadership from a revolutionary movement does not know how to operate in a demilitarized governance system.

During the period that these accomplishments were made, since 2001, Malaysia has acted as Facilitator of the GPH-MILF negotiations. This role can be controversial, particularly in light of well-publicized events such as the crisis in Sabah. But there are quieter, less well-known aspects of Malaysia’s involvement, such as assistance from the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme (MTCP), a crucial part of the Malaysian government’s thrust toward south-south cooperation. More than 20,000 participants from 140 countries have participated in the various programs administered under the MTCP since its inception in 1980. The program continues to draw interest and participation from a multitude of countries, ranging from the Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Oceania.  Nevertheless, qualitatively, the MTCP has a decidedly Southeast Asian focus. Seven of the top 10 countries in 2012 are located in this region. Malaysia provides assistance upon the request from prospective partner countries, and the initiative for cooperation begins with the recipient countries. In short, the program is demand driven.

Malaysia is not typically seen as a “donor” in discussions of overseas development assistance (ODA), nor does Malaysia use that term to describe its development cooperation with other countries. Malaysian assistance to other countries is part of a wider trend of “new development actors” working to extend assistance overseas, often in ways that more traditional donors (the U.S., UK, or Australia) might not do. Therefore, unlike conventional foreign assistance programs, which are often linked to donor values and priorities, MTCP strives to represent an approach of “prosper thy neighbour” and “mutual benefit” in its partnerships. This approach has been applied with regard to Muslim Mindanao.

The April 27 launching of an association of Bangsamoro graduates of the MTCP is an important occasion, given the need for a cadre of trained professionals to implement by 2016 the transition to a Bangsamoro as envisioned in the Framework Agreement signed in October 2012. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and the Bangsamoro generally, will need to look at an expanded talent pool beyond current employees of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM – which will be replaced by the new Bangsamoro) and those currently active in the MILF-led transition. An alumni association that taps the 59 MCTP trainees is an ideal beginning. A similar pool of a total of 326 young people has over the years been supported by USAID to undergo a training in public administration followed by participation in the Congressional Internship Programs for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML), and AusAID has the Philippines Australia Human Resource and Organisational Development Facility that includes a focus on Mindanao. From such pools a “registry” of potential Bangsamoro leaders and managers (both current ARMM civil servants and potential new ones) can be developed. Such a database can be drawn upon as preparations for a Bangsamoro Transitional Authority – perhaps in 2015 – move forward.

A strong cadre of civil servants is particularly important inasmuch as the Framework Agreement for the Bangsamoro specifies that the Bangsamoro will have a “ministerial” form of government – a parliamentary system rather than the “presidential” system of separation of powers in both the national and local Philippine government. Rather than a chief executive (e.g., a mayor, governor, or president) elected separately from the legislature for a fixed term, the new Bangsamoro will have a chief executive elected by the legislature for as long as the executive retains the confidence of the legislature. A cabinet will be appointed from the legislature (in some parliamentary systems cabinet members retain their legislative seats; in others they resign to serve in the cabinet).

The point here is that, as the Framework Agreement says, once there is a ministerial form of government, “The Bangsamoro Transition Authority may reorganize the bureaucracy into institutions of governance appropriate thereto.”  In presidential systems, typically the chief executive appoints many layers of the bureaucracy:  in the Philippines, this includes cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and even directors. In parliamentary systems, typically just the top one or two political leaders of a cabinet department are political appointees; the rest (up to the very top level) are permanent civil servants. A reason for this difference is that in a parliamentary system the duration of an executive government is uncertain – it is only in power as long as it retains the confidence of the legislature. Rather than fixed terms, and fixed intervals between elections, there is uncertainty. An election can be called any time that a government cannot sustain support from the elected members of the legislature. Thus, continuity of services and processes in the bureaucracy rests in the top-level bureaucrats.

In the process of setting up the Bangsamoro Transition Authority to replace the ARMM, the average ARMM civil servant is being assured of retention (as long as they are not “ghosts“). But the opportunity to set up a senior civil service is one that the MILF can use to help instantiate its vision of a Bangsamoro beyond the regular election in 2016. The MILF has repeatedly stated that it is open to other forces winning in 2016, but a well-functioning civil service will help ensure that the post-2016 Bangsamoro serves the citizens of the region well.

Steven Rood is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in the Philippines, and represents the Foundation as part of the International Contact Group for the GPH-MILF negotiations. He can be reached at srood@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Against the background of Mongolia’s famous blue sky, around 1,215 delegates from 104 countries gathered in Ulaanbaatar to participate in the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies (CD) from April 27- 29, 2013, organized under Mongolia’s Presidency of the CD, which started in July 2011.

1,215 delegates from 104 countries gathered in Ulaanbaatar to participate in the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Photo/Tenzing Paljor

After an opening ceremony on April 27 led by Mongolian Prime Minister N. Altankhuyag, who highlighted the country’s democratic achievements and a group picture in front of the Chinggis Khaan statue at Sukhbaatar square, participants broke off to attend the fora of the five CD pillars: Civil Society, Youth, Parliamentary, Women, and Business. The Asia Foundation, through the USAID-funded “Supporting Mongolia’s Presidency of the Community of Democracies” Project, provided assistance to both the Parliamentary and Women’s forums.

At the joint meeting on the final day, chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, President Tsakhia Elbegdorj spoke of his country’s long road to democracy as well as how new democratic practices such as direct democracy and citizen participation increasingly are gaining momentum in Mongolia. He reiterated Mongolia’s role as a friend and its willingness to assist other countries that are transitioning to democracy. Thailand’s Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, spoke about the democratic struggles that her country has undergone and emphasized that these are not yet over, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi expressed her gratitude for the support of the international community to the people of Burma in their fight for democracy, emphasizing that Burma has made the choice to transition towards democracy but still has a long way to go to become a full-fledged democracy. She also reminded that democracy brings with it not only rights, but also responsibilities and should be seen as a continuous learning process. She was later presented with the Geremek award in remembrance of the late Professor Bronislaw Geremek, one of the co-founders of the CD. Other speakers included Nobel Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman from Yemen, UN Under-Secretary General, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Bill Burns, the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security, Baroness Catherine Ashton, and the Vice President of Nigeria, Namadi Sambo.

During a plenary session on “Threats against Civil Society and Freedom of Expression,” several speakers outlined the worrisome trend by which many governments around the world are imposing restrictions on civil society and the use of internet. Parallel thematic sessions were held on “Democracy Education,” “Corruption and other Threats to Democracy,” “Arab Spring after 2 Years: Lessons and Challenges,” “Democracy and the MDGs,” and “Online and Press Freedom.”

Journalists interview the Minister of Health, N. Udval, at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Photo/Tenzing Paljor

The Parliamentary Forum for Democracy (PFD) provided a space for legislators to share their experiences and best practices. This is just what a legislator from Libya was seeking. He noted how during the country’s recent revolution, freedom was the only concern; now his fellow parliamentarians face the harder challenge of building institutions and practices in line with the democratic values he and his fellow citizens fought for.

This year’s PFD focused on the debilitating effects of corruption. Legislators heard how corruption is a complex issue, resulting from weaknesses in laws, regulations, monitoring, enforcement, deterrence, institutions, and the political will to address it. Participants created a five-point plan for parliamentarians to address corruption:

• An anti-corruption paradigm shift to place more emphasis on the outcomes and results of anti-corruption efforts rather than focusing on the laws and institutions that address anti-corruption;

• Coalition strengthening among parliamentary and anti-corruption networks;

• Peer-to-peer review by parliamentarians across countries to allow for informal comment and positive advice on how a state can improve its anti-corruption efforts;

• Ensuring access to information legislation allows for citizen monitoring of all aspects of government income and expenditure; and

• Ending secrecy clauses in government-private sector contracts.

The Women’s Forum, organized by the Women’s Caucus of Parliamentarians, the National Committee on Gender Equality and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focused this year on the challenges women face in political representation at the national and local level, challenges still common in many of the countries represented. Parallel sessions on “Democracy and Women’s Socio-Economic Rights and Empowerment,” “Women’s Role in Preventing Corruption and Promoting Transparency,” “Democratizing and Engendering Culture,” and “Stronger Systems, Institutions and Processes for Stronger Voices” provided a platform for further discussion on women’s positive role in addressing issues such as poverty, human rights violations, conflicts, and corruption.

The forum developed a statement calling for action by the members of the CD in four key areas:

• Endorsing women’s property rights, ensuring access to finance, and ensuring equal wages, as well as recognition of unpaid work;

• Increasing research and independent monitoring of the impact of corruption using a gender lens, and strengthening of women’s anti-corruption networks;

• Creation of a culture of gender equality, free from gender-based stereotypes and gender-based violence in all sectors of society, including media, education, and domestic life; and

• Increasing and honoring gender quotas for elected and nominated positions within national and local governments and political parties, and actions to ensure fair financing of political campaigns of women and men in part through campaign finance and political party reform, including political party financing.

After the fora, plenary sessions were held on “Harnessing Open Governance for Democracy,”  “Supporting Democratic Transitions: Insights from the CD Task Forces in Moldova and Tunisia and Lessons for Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan,” and “Women and Democracy.” At the closing session, representatives of each of the five pillars of the Community of Democracies presented the resolutions prepared during the different fora and the Ulaanbaatar Declaration of the CD was adopted. Mongolia also handed over its presidency of the CD to El Salvador, which will assume leadership on July 1, 2013.

Mongolia can look back at a very successful presidency over the last two years, during which it gave new impetus to the CD and was able to make significant progress in the priority areas of its presidency. The 7th Ministerial Conference provided an opportunity to showcase to the world the important progress Mongolia has made since its democratic transition in 1990 and share important lessons learned with current and aspiring democracies around the world.

Watch a new video, developed by The Asia Foundation, that features interviews with Mongolians across the country on what democracy means for them, how democracy has developed since Mongolia’s democratic transition, and views on the CD. The video has been produced in support of Mongolia’s Presidency of the CD through funding from the Embassy of the United States in Mongolia. The Asia Foundation was the first international nonprofit organization to be invited into Mongolia following the democratic transition in 1990. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Foundation in Mongolia since it opened its office on October 1, 1993.

Meloney C. Lindberg is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Mongolia, Jeremy Gross is a Foundation consultant based in Indonesia who has worked in Mongolia to support the Ministerial Conference, and Tirza Theunissen is the program and operations manager. They can be reached at mlindberg@asiafound.org, jg1@cbn.net.id, and ttheunissen@asiafound.org, respectively.

Cambodia announced two major bilateral trade agreements last month, with the Philippines and Thailand, that are expected to further expand the country’s rice export sector. Over the last few years, Cambodia has emerged as a major rice exporter in the region, due in large part to the Royal Government of Cambodia’s recent expansion of its agricultural sector.

Despite positive development, compared to neighboring countries with similar weather and soil conditions, Cambodia’s paddy rice yield remains relatively low. Photo/Karl Grobl

Agriculture, led by rice farming, contributes to roughly a third of the country’s GDP and has immense potential for strengthening Cambodia’s economic growth, accelerating poverty reduction, and improving the living standard of its citizens. As part of this agenda, in 2010, the RGC adopted a new Policy Paper on Paddy Production and Rice Export, better known as the Rice Policy, to promote diversification of Cambodia’s economic sectors by catalyzing growth in paddy rice production and milled rice export to match the growth seen in the garment and service sectors. In his keynote address at the policy’s launch, Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen said: “The policy aims to ensure that we grab the rare opportunity to develop Cambodia in the post global financial and economic cataclysm.”

If Cambodia’s rice export sector were to reach its full potential, it could produce 3 million tons of milled rice, with the total export value amounting to $2.1 billion (approximately 20% of the GDP) and an estimated additional $600 million (approximately 5% of the GDP) to the national economy. It would also boost employment and income for agricultural farmers who make up more than 70 percent of the population living in rural areas.

Despite positive development, compared to neighboring countries with similar weather and soil conditions, Cambodia’s paddy rice yield remains relatively low. In 2006, the average yield was 2.6 tons per hectare, while Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam achieved 2.8 tons, 3.5 tons, and 4.9 tons, respectively.

The underutilization and non-usage of arable land is a huge deterrent to the industry’s growth. Most Cambodian farmers cultivate paddy rice once per year during the rainy season, while farmers in Vietnam’s delta region cultivate 3.5 times annually. Such low productivity is mainly a result of high energy prices and poor transportation infrastructure. For example, in the low elevation Mekong plain, petroleum products are generally used to pump water into irrigation canals, which makes it too expensive for farmers to plant multiple crops a year. Moreover, rural areas pay a much higher rate (30-90 cents per kWh) than those living in urban centers (20 cents). In contrast, farmers in Vietnam only pay about 10 cents per kWh.

As a relatively new player in the milled rice market, Cambodia faces a steep learning curve. However, with a surplus of 3.5 million tons of paddy rice, Cambodia has the potential to soon be among the top five milled rice exporters in the world. Photo/Karl Grobl

Poor transport and infrastructure such as roads, railways, warehouses, and handling equipment also increase costs for farmers. To transport one ton of rice on a 100 km road, Cambodian farmers must spend $15, while their counterparts in Thailand and Vietnam pay $4 and $7.50, respectively. The lack of handling equipment in one of the main ports, the Sihanouk-Ville Port, is also a major constraint for the export of large quantities of milled rice. In addition, lack of access to and high cost of credit decreases domestic economic value-added and hinders milled rice export, presenting an obstacle for rice millers to stockpile paddy rice.

According to the Rice Policy, If Cambodia is to export 3 to 4 million tons of milled rice per year, it has to produce at least 10 to 11 million tons of paddy rice. In fact, in 2012, Cambodia enjoyed a surplus of more than 4.7 million in paddies, according to the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery. Yet, official figures from the Ministry of Commerce showed that it only exported 200,000 tons of milled rice last year, or only 10 percent of its full capacity.

To better understand the bottlenecks in the rice sector, The Asia Foundation, in partnership with the AusAID-funded program, “Cambodia Agricultural Value Chain” (CAVAC), hosted a series of consultative forums last year in three provinces – Kampong Thom, Kampot, and Takeo – with stakeholders from the private sector (farmers, seed producers, agro-business owners, exporters) and the public sector (Ministries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Water Resources Management, provincial governors, provincial departments of line ministries, and local authorities). Approximately 370 participants attended the workshops and discussed how to create business-friendly environments (i.e., competitiveness and productivity, access to finance, access to markets), and the technical aspects of rice production (use of fertilizers and insecticides, seed categories, and availability of water sources). The insights were frank and eye-opening.

Although the challenges are significant, the opportunities for the sector are greater. Dr. Hang Chuon Naron, Secretary of State for the Ministry of Economy and Finance, optimistically predicted that the RGC can achieve its target for milled rice: “With regards to RGC’s rice export target in 2015, we may achieve up to 80 percent of the 1 million tons planned. This should include the milled rice to Vietnamese, Thai, and non-EU markets.”

Implementing a strategic framework like the Rice Policy is just the beginning. To increase the paddy rice production to meet market demand and promote the export of milled rice, the government must initiate and support a host of reforms in partnership with the private sector. For instance, to solve the issue of credit shortages for buying and processing paddy rice, the government can provide incentives to commercial banks to increase the loan portfolio for agriculture.

At the end of the day, the RGC must keep the farmers themselves in mind. Introducing new technologies or improving agricultural practices can only go so far if they are not accepted and adopted by farmers. Donors and NGOs can play a pivotal role in providing support and facilitating the successful implementation of new policies and projects aimed at improving the agricultural value chain.

As a relatively new player in the milled rice market, Cambodia faces a steep learning curve. However, with a surplus of 3.5 million tons of paddy rice (equivalent to 2 million tons of milled rice), Cambodia has the potential to soon be among the top five milled rice exporters in the world. More importantly, growth in the agricultural sector will translate into more economic opportunities for Cambodia’s vast rural population. While not a silver bullet, the success of the rice sector is an exciting and potentially crucial driver in Cambodia’s prosperous and equitable development.

Khut Inserey is The Asia Foundation’s senior program officer in Cambodia. He can be reached at ikhut@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

The conference in the Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation dialogue series convened in Seoul, South Korea, this month, and brought together development experts and senior government officials to discuss climate change mitigation, green growth, and adapting to and building resilience to natural disasters. This dialogue series, co-organized by The Asia Foundation and the Korea Development Institute (KDI), brings together both “emerging” and “traditional” development actors to discuss international development challenges. This year’s focus on effective cooperation for deterring the impacts of climate change was launched in Seoul, fittingly, as South Korea is playing a leading role in low-carbon development in the Asia-Pacific region.

According to the UN, boosting global investments in renewable energy to $630 billion by 2030 would create at least 20 million additional jobs worldwide. South Korea is playing a leading role in the region’s green growth. Photo/Flickr user Toby Simkin

Green growth is a new policy paradigm for Asia and the Pacific that emphasizes ecologically sustainable economic progress and fosters low-carbon, socially-inclusive development. Its four pillars include sustainable production and consumption, green businesses, sustainable infrastructure, and fiscal incentives and reforms. “Growing green” means implementing more eco-efficient and profitable production, producing less pollution and waste in the process, and prioritizing the environment as essential to long-term social and economic development goals.

In July 2009, South Korea announced its “National Strategy for Green Growth” through 2050, providing a blueprint for how to shift its economic structure away from energy-intensive industries that have driven the majority of the development paths in Asia. The target goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from a business-as-usual path by 2020, and increase the country’s renewable energy to 11 percent of total energy supplies by 2030.

With initial funding of $83.6 billion (representing 2 percent of GDP), South Korea’s first Five-Year Plan for Green Growth 2009-2013 has successfully turned strategy into concrete and operational policy initiatives toward achieving green growth and resource efficiency. South Korea’s government announced plans to continue making investments in innovative, low-carbon technologies for renewable energy, waste management, public transportation and construction, and to create enough new jobs in these sectors to offset the loss of employment in current carbon-intensive industries, such as mining, petroleum refining, and fossil fuel power generation.

In terms of development cooperation, South Korea has increased its development assistance budget since 2000 by 6.5 times, to approximately $1.3 billion in 2011, and has pledged to boost financing of regional renewable energy, conservation, and development projects to 30 percent of the total aid budget by 2020. Already, the Korean government installed a Communications, Ocean, and Meteorological Satellite system to improve Sri Lanka’s disaster preparedness by allowing officials to better share data, analysis, and forecasting capability. The system is part of the East Asia Climate Partnership, an initiative announced in 2008 and funded by the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) to share South Korea’s knowledge and technology resources in green growth, climate change adaptation and improved resource management to developing countries. KOICA has also pledged to build reservoirs, irrigation channels, and treatment facilities that will clean, recycle, and better manage water resources needed to effectively sustain agricultural production in the Philippines, which has decreased dramatically due to recent sustained droughts.

South Korea is also playing a leading role in green-growth policy advising. The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), founded in 2010 as a Korean NGO and since established as a treaty-based intergovernmental organization, works to advance the practice and theory of green growth by supporting the development, implementation, and diffusion of green growth strategies in developing and emerging countries, including in the least-developed countries in Asia. GGGI involves both state and non-state actors, such as other international organizations, NGOs, private companies, and research institutes.

According to a United Nations report on green growth, boosting global investments in renewable energy to $630 billion by 2030 would create at least 20 million additional jobs worldwide, making it a much larger source of employment than today’s fossil energy industry. One of the most interesting but least reported aspects of the current economic recovery effort is that over two-thirds of global green stimulus has in fact been committed in the Asia-Pacific, led by Australia, China, South Korea, and Japan.

Indeed, South Korea’s green growth strategy was highlighted throughout the AADC dialogue with representatives from other emerging economies in the region, notably China, India, and Malaysia, to share its successes on enacting renewable energy policy, implementing low-carbon transportation, and employing financial incentive for industries to make reforms to achieve green growth goals. Reflected in part by its leadership in this area, South Korea has been chosen as the home of the newly established Green Climate Fund, the multilateral financial mechanism recently created to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adaptation and mitigation efforts.

At the 2010 G20 Seoul Summit, South Korea’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Kim Sung-han, declared that “many issues today require unprecedented international cooperation. Solving today’s complex challenges will require ‘middle powers’ to play a greater, more active role. Through various initiatives, such as its programs in green growth and development cooperation, South Korea has demonstrated the influence middle powers are having on global governance and that they may be best suited to facilitate consensus building and revitalize momentum for cooperation.”

Kourtnii S. Brown is a program officer for The Asia Foundation’s Environment Programs in San Francisco, and attended the AADC conference in Seoul. She can be reached at kbrown@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.