RSS | Register/註冊 | Log in/登入
Site search:
Home>FFTC Document Database>Extension Bulletins>REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR ASSESSING AND COPING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF SLOPING LAND AGROECOSYSTEMS AND AGROBIODIVERSITY IN ASIA
facebook分享

Rodrigo U. Fuentes and Filiberto Pollisco Jr.
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity,
3F ERDB Building,
Forestry Campus, College,
Laguna, Philippines

ABSTRACT

The paper discusses the ASEAN organization as the primary infrastructure promoting regional cooperation in biodiversity conservation, especially agrobiodiversity, and climate change. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was organized to attain regional cooperation among the Southeast Asian nations in many of the global issues besetting the region including those mentioned above. The paper also discusses the ecosystems-based adaptation (EBA) strategy in mitigating the effects of climate change on agro-ecosystems particularly in sloping agriculture. Value-added would be the results of the EEPSEA research on Vulnerability Assessment of SEA to Climate Change and relating this to sloping land agriculture. Finally, recommendations are proposed involving payment for ecosystem services (PES) that discussed the mechanism for financing sustainable management of sloping lands.

Key words: ASEAN, ecosystems-based adaptation, climate change, agrobiodiversity, PES, sustainable management of sloping lands

INTRODUCTION

Asia, the largest continent with a vast land area and having more than 60% of the world's population, has 39 countries including states that once made up the former Soviet Union (UNESCAP, 2011). Asia is as diverse in its culture and environment as in its religion, ethnic groups, economy, and governance. Given such diversity while at the same time recognizing that there are many areas of commonalities, when it comes to regional cooperation, the challenge remains of how to orchestrate common and shared activities involving multiple countries. Asia has many experiences in implementing projects involving many countries with support from donor agencies; however, few have been able to sustain the initiatives made. Regional coordination is particularly important especially in the light of a globalizing economy, democratizing governance, technological advances and shrinking resource base.

Of the 39 countries in Asia, 11 makeup Southeast Asia namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Viet Nam. Timor-Leste, a young country that only joined the community of nations in 2002, is yet to be formally accepted as a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations, or ASEAN.

Regional cooperation: the ASEAN way

Established on 08 August 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, ASEAN has since then expanded to include Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam. Considerations are now ongoing for the inclusion of newly established state in the region, Timor Leste, which now has been given an observer status. Regional cooperation in ASEAN is defined by a set of principles reflected under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia that include:

  • mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations;
  • the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;
  • non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
  • settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
  • renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
  • effective cooperation among themselves.

This is in context that the ASEAN countries nurture cooperation within the ambit of political security, socio-cultural and economic development. Notwithstanding the diversity of governance structures, culture, language and religion, member states of ASEAN have agreed to pursue a common vision, one identity and function as a single sharing community.

The ASEAN structure

The ASEAN Member States are convinced of the need to strengthen the existing bonds of regional solidarity in order to respond to future challenges and opportunities. To this end, the member states are committed to intensify community building through enhanced regional cooperation and integration. To attain this shared vision, the Heads of State have decided to establish the legal and institutional framework of the ASEAN by agreeing on the "The ASEAN Charter".

Through "The ASEAN Charter", an ASEAN Community was envisioned with three "community pillars" _ the ASEAN Security Community, of which matters pertaining to the stability and security of the region are based; the ASEAN Economic Community, where economic development in all sectors are discussed and charted; and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, where all other sectors such as education, health, and matters pertaining to environment protection and conservation, among others, are discussed and pursued (Fig. 1).

The operating mechanism for ASEAN regional collaboration

As the three pillars define ASEAN cooperation and integration, each of the pillars have operating mechanisms that further articulates the platform for attaining the goals and aspirations of the bloc. The following discussions elucidate the mechanism for regional cooperation in ASEAN.

Implementation mechanism for ensuring regional cooperation

The Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) is the main ASEAN body that oversees the overall ASEAN cooperation in food and agriculture and in environmental sustainability, with the guidance of the ASEAN Ministers (ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) and the ASEAN Ministers on Environment (AME). Sectoral working groups/ joint committee/ board, and experts groups have been established to implement the respective cooperation sectors of food, and the various sub-sectors of agriculture and forestry, as well as in the trade promotion of agriculture and forest products, and for the various sectors in the environment. For example, for areas pertaining to marine protection, there is the ASEAN Working Group (AWG) on Coastal and Marine Environments (AWG-CME), for climate change _ the AWG-CC, for biodiversity _ AWG NCB (Nature Conservation and Biodiversity). Agriculture, fishery and forestry development under the "Economic" pillar, have similar AWGs on Agriculture and Forestry. The concerns on Multilateral Environmental Agreements, or MEAs, have its own AWG _ the AWG-MEA. Providing the support mechanism for the member states implement their respective commitments to every decision made at the Working Group, Senior Officials, Ministerial, and Heads of State levels is the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEAN Secretariat acts as the overall coordinator and provides necessary assistance in all aspects to ensure successful undertaking of the cooperation programs and projects in collaboration with sectoral working groups, national focal points and relevant institutions. Most of the ASEAN programs and projects are implemented under a networking arrangement, where cooperation is implemented through the focal point in each ASEAN Member State and utilizes national funds. However complex this arrangement may appear, it is through this mechanism that regional cooperation and coordination are assured.

ASEAN + Countries

This mechanism of the ASEAN encourages other countries, in this case other Asian countries, to partner with ASEAN. East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China are combined as ASEAN + 3. Such cooperation is implemented with agreements by the ASEAN and the respective +3 countries before any project or activity is implemented. It can also be on a per country basis such as the ASEAN+China. In South Asia, the cooperation involved ASEAN+India, and so on.

Other nations are encouraged to partner with ASEAN and each ASEAN Member State has its designated or responsible focal point for any country that would partner with ASEAN. For example, the Philippines is the focal point for any concerns with the USA, Viet Nam for the Soviet Union, Singapore for the United Kingdom and Australia, etc. Other AMS focal points have their designated country dialogue partners.

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity:

A facilitation and coordinating center serving the member states

In view of the mounting concerns and pressures on biodiversity in South East Asia, the ASEAN Member States deemed it necessary to create a regional center of excellence on biodiversity conservation and development. From the project that was the ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC) funded by the European Union, the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) was established.

The ACB is an inter-governmental organization that facilitates coordination and cooperation among the 10 ASEAN Member States and with relevant national governments, regional and international organizations on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from use of such biodiversity. Hence, the concerns as discussed in the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are also the concerns of the Centre implemented in the 10 ASEAN Member States, on a region-wide scale.More specifically, in pursuing its mandate the Centre focuses on the following program areas:

  • Policy development and coordination
  • Human and institutional capacity development
  • Digital knowledge management
  • Promotion of awareness of values of biodiversity
  • Sustainable financing mechanisms

Cross-matched with the mandate are the following thematic areas of global and regional importance for which the Centre supports ASEAN governments:

  • Agriculture and food security, including food certification and biodiversity
  • Access to, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from biological and genetic resources
  • Climate change and biodiversity conservation
  • Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation
  • Payment for ecosystems services scheme and valuation of biodiversity
  • Wildlife enforcement
  • Managing invasive alien species
  • Peatland management and biodiversity
  • Global taxonomic initiative
  • Support to the program of work on protected areas
  • Managing biodiversity information and knowledge
  • Business and biodiversity

ASEAN perspective on the linkages of agriculture, climate change and biodiversity

In the context that this paper focuses its discussions on responding to climate change and addressing its impact in agroecosystems and its linkage with promoting sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity, perhaps it might be valuable to look at some perspective of how ASEAN appreciates the connectivity of these themes.

Agriculture (including forestry) and its role in ASEAN economic development

Agriculture is a critical sector that significantly contributes to economic growth of many states in ASEAN. For most ASEAN Member States, the agriculture sector is a key contributor to national development (Table 1), connecting to issues that address poverty alleviation and food security. Given the sector's prominence in the region, regional cooperation is thus necessary and critical.

ASEAN cooperation in the agriculture sector dated back as early as 1968 first focusing on food production and supply. With the needs of society expanding, the scope of cooperation broadened that included the greater area of agriculture and forestry by 1997. As embodied in the present Economic Blueprint, the basic objective of the ASEAN cooperation in food, agriculture and forestry is to formulate and implement regional cooperation activities to enhance the international competitiveness of ASEAN's food, agriculture and forestry products as well as further strengthen the food security arrangement in the region and joint positions in international fora. More specifically, the ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) identified the following seven priority areas as reflected in the Ministerial Understanding (MU) on ASEAN Cooperation in Food, Agriculture and Forestry signed in October 1993 in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam:

  • Strengthening food security in the region;
  • Facilitation and promotion of intra- and extra-ASEAN trade in agriculture and forestry products;
  • Generation and transfer of technology to increase productivity and develop agribusiness and silvo-business;
  • Agricultural rural community and human resource development;
  • Private sector involvement and investment; ?
  • Management and conservation of natural resources for sustainable development; and?
  • Strengthening ASEAN cooperation and joint approaches in addressing international and regional issues.

For the forestry sector ASEAN, specifically developed five strategic thrusts, namely:

  • Sustainable forest management;
  • Strengthening ASEAN cooperation and joint approaches in addressing international and regional forestry issues;
  • Promotion of intra- and extra-ASEAN trade in forest products and private sector participation;
  • Increasing productivity and efficient utilisation of forest products; and?
  • Capacity building and human resources development.

The sharp increase in international food prices in 2007/2008 prompted the Leaders to embrace food security as a matter of permanent and high priority policy and adopted a Statement on Food Security in the ASEAN Region, which commits, among others, to the implementation of the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework and the Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security in the ASEAN Region (SPA-FS) (2009-2013).

Environmental Sustainability: the link that connects development to human well-being

As concern for environmental sustainability became a global agenda at the turn of the 21st Century, ASEAN countries have also embraced the philosophy of sustainable development actively participating in the global discussions that support and promote the environmental agenda. ASEAN has, since 1977, cooperated closely in promoting environmental cooperation among its member states, aware that environment and the region's natural resources is one of its most precious assets. While occupying only three percent of the world's total land area, the region houses rich and diverse ecosystems that span from terrestrial to coastal and marine areas. ASEAN has three of the known mega diverse countries (Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines), has 34% of the 284,000 square kilometers of the world's coral reefs and central to the Coral Triangle which has 75% of the world's reef-building corals. It goes without saying that at the core of economic and social development for the member states lies in the sustainable use of its natural resources. Currently, ASEAN environmental cooperation focuses on ten priority areas of regional importance as reflected in the Blueprint for the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC Blueprint) 2009-2015 as follows:

  • Addressing global environmental issues;
  • Managing and preventing transboundary environmental pollution
  • - Transboundary haze pollution
  • - Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes
  • Promoting sustainable development through environmental education and public participation;
  • Promoting environmentally sound technology (EST);
  • Promoting quality living standards in ASEAN cities/ urban areas;
  • Harmonizing environmental policies and databases;
  • Promoting the sustainable use of coastal and marine environment;
  • Promoting sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity;
  • Promoting the sustainability of freshwater resources; and
  • Responding to climate change and addressing its impacts

The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report launched in 2005 placed strong emphasis on the connectivity of the natural assets with human well-being. Current global discussions are emphasizing a more focused articulation of sustainable development by looking at natural resources from an ecosystems standpoint and that the benefits that are derived from them are considered as services provided to promote human development. ASEAN has picked up this notion cognizant that the pressure points of population growth, coupled with shifting demographics from rural to urban areas, expansion of demand for food associated with evolving consumption patterns, conversion of agricultural lands for other uses, globalization of markets, and climate change are integral factors that affect agriculture as an industry.

DEFINING THE VULNERABILITY OF AGROECOSYSTEMS AND AGROBIODIVERSITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

ASEAN vulnerability to climate change: findings of the EEPSEA Project

According to the World Risk Report of 2011, the Philippines, Japan, Brunei Darussalam, and Bangladesh are four of the Asian countries that are quite exposed to natural hazards such as earthquakes, storms, floods and droughts, as well as exposure of populations to sea level rise. The Philippines come in as the 3rd most exposed country, Japan came in 5th, Brunei is 8th and Bangladesh is 15th.

For Southeast Asia, the Economics and Environment Program of South East Asia, or EEPSEA, conducted a project on Vulnerability Mapping to Climate Change for the 10 countries of ASEAN. This project was done in 2009 and the results were presented to the First ASEAN Conference on Biodiversity organized by the ACB in Singapore. The project considered the factors affected by climate change such as tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, landslides, and sea level rises.

Each factor, when analyzed, has a country/ies identified that is most vulnerable. For example, only three countries were identified as vulnerable to tropical cyclones (Philippines, Viet Nam, Lao PDR). On the other hand, taking into account all the factors and consolidating them into a vulnerability map, the result of the analysis is that those countries facing the Pacific Ocean are more vulnerable to climate change than those located in the interior of the region. The map below (Fig. 2) shows the rankings. Relating this to sloping land agriculture, many if not all of the ASEAN Member States are vulnerable to climate change.

AGROBIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS-BASED ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Agricultural ecosystems and agrobiodiversity

Feeding more than 500 million people in the region is everyone's problem and in order to do this, the agriculture sector needs to be productive and sustain its productivity. When humans began farming, we were using more than 7,000 edible species. Today, 30 crop species provide 90% of our energy requirement (FAO 2011). Of the 18,000 species of animals, only 30-40 species of mammals and birds were domesticated for food and only 14 species account for 90% of livestock production. Since the beginning when humans began to farm, FAO estimates that 75% of the world's genetic resources have been lost.

Food sources come mainly from agricultural ecosystems _ intentionally altered and intensively managed ecosystems for the sole purpose of providing food, fiber and other products to which human communities depend on for survival. As such, agricultural ecosystems have inherent economic and ecological dimensions (FAO, 1998). Since these ecosystems are `altered and intensively managed', ecological processes have been modified (e.g. soil fertility, water regimes, checks and balances of beneficial/detrimental organisms) to suit the needs of the human communities. This has put a lot of pressure on the ecological processes within the system such that some breaking point will have been reached in time. To aggravate the concern, agricultural production has encroached on sloping lands and uplands factoring in soil loss and erosion in the sustainability equation.

Clearly, the methods used in agricultural production are no longer appropriate if we are to feed our expanding population. Alternative production systems have been introduced such as conservation agriculture, "no-tillage or minimum tillage", organic farming, and sustainable agriculture, to name a few. Although these alternative approaches will not replace the high-yield mainstream farming of modern agriculture, at least they offer some choices to conserving whatever agricultural resources and ecological processes that remain intact from the onslaught of chemical/synthetic and intensive farming.

It has been slowly recognized that biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems is an important factor in sustaining agricultural production. Why do we have to maintain such biodiversity? The FAO, in 1998, argues that maintaining agricultural biodiversity would ensure the continued supply of the agroecosystem's goods and services. FAO further identified these goods and services as:

  • (i) evolution and crop and livestock improvement through breeding _ the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and management practices that occurs in situ within agro-ecosystems ensures that a dynamic portfolio of agricultural biodiversity is maintained and adapts to changing conditions;
  • (ii) biological support to production _ support is provided by the organisms that make up the biological diversity of the agro-ecosystem. For example, soil fauna and micro-organisms, together with the roots of plants and trees, ensure nutrient cycling; pests and diseases are kept in check by predators and disease control organisms, as well as genetic resistances in crop plants themselves; and insect pollinators contribute to the cross-fertilization of outcrossing crop plants; and
  • (iii) wider ecological functions _ valuable ecological processes that result from the interactions between species, and between species and the environment include the maintenance of soil fertility, water quality and climate regulation.

Biodiversity is indeed an important regulator of agro-ecosystem functions, not only in the strictly biological sense of impact on production, but also in satisfying a variety of needs of the farmer and society at large. Understanding the life cycles, ecological responses and interactions within and between the organisms that provide ecological services enables agro-ecosystem managers to build on and enhance the essential services provided by biodiversity. Managers can reduce external input requirements, increase productivity and improve the sustainability of the ecosystem (FAO 1998). Thus, it is important that the "ecosystems-based approach" be considered in conserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change perturbations.

Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EBA) to climate change

The Convention on Biological Diversity has recognized this approach during the 10th Conference of Parties held in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010. In their decision (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33), "ecosystems can be managed to limit climate change impacts on biodiversity and to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change; implement where appropriate, ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation, that may include sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, as part of an overall adaptation strategy that takes into account the multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities".

Ecosystem-based adaptation integrates the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall adaptation strategy that can be cost-effective and generate social, economic and cultural co-benefits and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity (SCBD, 2009). It uses biodiversity and ecosystem services in an "overall adaptation strategy and includes the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change" (SCBD, 2009).Some examples of the EBA are the establishment of diverse agroforestry systems to cope with increased risks from changed climatic conditions; conservation of agrobiodiversity to provide specific gene pools for crop and livestock adaptation to climate change (SCBD, 2009).

The EBA can be a useful and widely applicable approach to adaptation because it can be applied at regional, national and local levels, at both project and programmatic levels, and benefits can be realized over short and long time scales. It may be more cost-effective and more accessible to rural or poor communities than measures based on hard infrastructure and engineering. It can integrate and maintain traditional and local knowledge and cultural values (SCBD, 2009).

Ecosystem-based adaptation, if designed, implemented and monitored appropriately, can also generate multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities, contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, contribute to climate change mitigation by conserving carbon stocks, reducing emissions caused by ecosystem degradation and loss, or enhancing carbon stocks (SCBD, 2009).

Ecosystem-based adaptation may require managing ecosystems to provide particular services at the expense of others. For example, using wetlands for coastal protection may require emphasis on silt accumulation and stabilization possibly at the expense of wildlife values and recreation. It is therefore important that decisions to implement ecosystem-based adaptation are subject to risk assessment, scenario planning and adaptive management approaches that recognize and incorporate these potential trade-offs (S-CBD 2009).

Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) for sustainable management of sloping lands

Another approach to sustain the management of sloping lands is the payment for ecosystem services. Despite the sloping lands being in an altered / modified state for agricultural production, the agro-ecosystem still provides goods and services to those who use it. As we all know, sloping lands are components of watersheds, and the primary good that watersheds provide is water. Good quality water is needed for the users downstream, be it for agricultural purposes or for domestic and industrial use.

For water to be of good quality, siltation and sedimentation have to be minimized, and this is where the upland farms can contribute to the conservation of their sloping land resources. Less erosion means less siltation and sedimentation of rivers and streams. For upland farmers to have more incentives to sustainably manage their sloping lands, the scheme of payment for ecosystems services can be applied.

Payment for ecosystem services, or PES, is a scheme whereby users of an ecosystem good or service pay for that product in order to sustain the supply and quality of that product, in this case, water. Upland resources are valuated and factored into the value of water so that users, usually those from the lowlands, pay for the use of the product to water resources managers, or watershed resources managers, or the local government units who have jurisdiction of the resources in the watershed. The funds generated by the PES scheme is then plowed back to the upstream users of sloping lands for them to sustainably manage their sloping lands to produce good quality water for the lowlanders to use.

Fig. 3 below shows the flow of goods and services of the ecosystem and the payments generated for the "sellers" (upland communities) to utilize. On the other hand, the upland communities are also the users of sloping land resources and the goods and services that they benefit from are the soil resources they plant their crops in, the fertility of the soil, the water that they use for growing their crops, the favorable temperature in high elevations for growing high value crops, and a host of other services. In this case, the upland communities become the buyers and the state or local government unit will be the sellers. Funds generated will be used for the sustainable management of the upland resources.

Establishing a PES scheme requires buyers and sellers to negotiate. In the case of water, the buyers may be the water districts of the municipalities downstream, and the sellers are the upland communities. These stakeholders have to sit down and negotiate. However, for everyone to be on the same page, the ecosystem goods and services have to be valued and agreed upon by the negotiators. Negotiations may take many years and the players have to develop a "shared understanding of the diverse interests, assets, capacities and power of the players" (Smith et al. 2008). The aim however should be the formation of an agreement between the parties that specifies the design and rules for operating a payment scheme that is effective, efficient, enforceable, transparent, equitable and sustainable (Smith et al. 2006).

There are four categories of services provided by a watershed (Smith et al. 2006):

  • 1. Provisioning services _ services focused on directly supplying food and non-food products from water flows: freshwater supply, crops and fruit production, livestock production, fish production, timber and building materials supply, medicines, hydro electric power.
  • 2. Supporting services _ services provided to support habitats and ecosystem functioning: wildlife habitat, flow regime required to maintain downstream habitat and uses.
  • 3. Regulating services _ services related to regulating flows, or reducing hazards to related to water flows: regulation of hydrological flows (buffer run-off, soil water infiltration, ground water recharge, maintenance of base flows), natural hazards mitigation (flood prevention, peak flow reduction, landslide reduction), soil protection and control of erosion and sedimentation, control of ground an surface water quality.
  • 4. Cultural and amenity services _ services related to recreation and human inspiration: aquatic recreation, landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage and identity, artistic and spiritual inspiration.

CONCLUSION

PES requires that information used in negotiations should be science-based so that there would be little room for mistrust and that negotiations and agreements could move smoothly for all stakeholders' satisfaction. Having such a scheme would influence the biodiversity of agro-ecosystems and to function according to the needs of the stakeholders and help in mitigating the impacts of climate change in sloping land agriculture.

New approaches are needed for agricultural production especially in sloping lands. Although the EBA approach will not replace conventional agriculture in feeding the world, it will keep the ecosystem services flowing to beneficiaries and make agricultural production in sloping lands sustainable. As such, the payment for ecosystem services could play a big role in this.

REFERENCES

  • FAO 1998. An international workshop jointly organized by FAO and the SCBD. 2-4 December 1998 FAO HQ Rome Italy. Accessed at <www.fao.org/biodiversity> on 15 September 2011.
  • Francisco, Hermie., Ariel Yusuf Anshory, and Rich Fuchs. 2009. Climate Matters: Vulnerability Mapping for South East Asia. Paper presented at the ASEAN Conference on Biodiversity 2009, Singapore,21-23 October 2009.
  • Pollisco, F.A. Jr. 2010.Presented in the National PES Conference Workshop. Lancaster Hotel, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines, 12-13 August 2010.
  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2009. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation. Technical Series No. 41. Published by the Secretariat of the CBD. Pp. 9 _ 12.
  • Smith, M., de Groot, D., Perrot-Maîte, D. and Bergkamp, G. (2006).Pay _ Establishingpayments for watershed services. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Reprint, Gland,Switzerland: IUCN, 2008.
  • UNESCAP, Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific, 2011. Sustaining Dynamism and Inclusive Development: Connectivity in the Region and Productive Capacity in Least Developed Countries. Thailand May 2011.
  • UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33. 2010. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its Tenth Meeting - X/33. Biodiversity and Climate Change. 18 _ 30 October 2010. Nagoya, Japan.


Index of Images

  • Fig. 1 The ASEAN structure

    Fig. 1 The ASEAN structure

  • Fig. 2 Climate hazard in the ASEAN region. Source: EEPSEA 2009

    Fig. 2 Climate hazard in the ASEAN region. Source: EEPSEA 2009

  • Table 1 Contribution of the agriculture sector to GDP among ASEAN Member States

    Table 1 Contribution of the agriculture sector to GDP among ASEAN Member States

Download the PDF. of this document (758), 1,247,908 bytes (1 MB).