THE CASE FOR A HOLISTIC MODEL

ASEAN has in place a range of international laws, principles, and instruments that support the development of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure, including multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), transboundary impact assessment mechanisms, and international human rights laws, including corporate commitments to human rights. Furthermore, financial institutions are increasingly imposing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) requirements as a condition for investing.

Collectively, these principles and instruments reinforce global and regional commitments to incorporating resilience and inclusivity into linear infrastructure development. However, the current approach in the ASEAN region does not ensure resilience and inclusivity for two reasons:

1. Without a clear overarching regulatory framework that begins at the upstream stages with system planning and project identification and continues to individual project development, linear infrastructure is not being planned and implemented in a coordinated manner.

2. In the absence of a regulatory framework, EIAs have become the default mechanism for considering the risks associated with project proposals. However, EIAs come too late in the project lifecycle to avoid significant impacts while simultaneously expecting them to go beyond their purpose in building resilience and inclusivity.

A recent WWF analysis, Visioning Futures, attributed the lack of progress in shifting investments towards climateresilient and sustainable infrastructure to three causes:16

1. Insufficient “upstream” strategic planning across multiple projects and sectors, limited by insufficient data and analysis of key climate risk, ecological integrity, and ecosystem services factors

2. The limited spatial scope of environmental and other impact and feasibility assessments

3. Insufficient consideration of the risks and likely future impacts of ever-increasing climate change

Cutting across all three issues is a disconnect between the project-based, or “downstream,” mechanisms and the “upstream” considerations for long-term infrastructure, community, and environmental needs in a region. Without a clear requirement for landscape-level planning, project proponents are not obliged to consider risks and potential impacts as part of the upstream stage of project prioritization and selection. Rather, upstream planning only involves pre-feasibility and other assessments that focus on the financial viability of projects. These tools do not always require consideration of landscape-level, strategic issues that are critical to resilient and inclusive infrastructure development, nor do they establish criteria for project prioritization and selection that are linked to public policy objectives.