MAPPING PATHWAYS: Towards a Holistic Model for Inclusive and Resilient Linear Infrastructure

MAPPING PATHWAYS

Towards a Holistic Model for the Planning, Design, Approval, and Construction of Inclusive and Resilient Linear Infrastructure

OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSITION IN THE ASEAN REGION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While linear infrastructure development is a vital component of economic and social development, it presents significant risks to the environment and to local communities. Linear infrastructure in Asia is usually designed to follow the shortest, least-cost route, without a holistic understanding of the risks, downstream costs, or the distribution of benefits. 1 Efforts to promote environmentally sustainable linear infrastructure have emphasized low-carbon approaches that minimize environmental and social impacts but do not fully consider resilient and inclusive infrastructure, including the role that nature-based solutions can play in supporting resilience and maintaining ecosystem service provisions. 2

Ensuring that strong, inclusive, strategic planning underpins all linear infrastructure development in the ASEAN region will minimize environmental and social risks, reduce downstream costs, disaster risk potential, and community conflict, and maximize the positive social benefits of individual projects. Domestic regulations that provide certainty for all stakeholders and that ensure coordination across a holistic model at all stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle need to be established in all ASEAN member states. 3

This study proposes a holistic model for planning, designing, and constructing resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure in ASEAN.

1  Bartlett, R. (2019) Visioning Futures: Improving infrastructure planning to harness nature’s benefits in a warming world, WWF, p. 3. 2 Bartlett, p. 1

CONCEPTS: LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE, RESILIENCE, AND INCLUSIVITY

For this study, linear infrastructure includes roads, railway lines, canals, power transmission and distribution lines, and pipelines. The study focuses on large-scale linear infrastructure that could have significant intrusions into key biodiversity areas (KBAs), have negative impacts on ecosystems, be vulnerable to natural disaster risks, and affect multiple communities.

Linear infrastructure is vulnerable to a range of natural hazards—including cyclones, floods, landslides, storm surges, earthquakes, and tsunamis—many of which are becoming more frequent and intense because of climate change. Because linear infrastructure is often critical infrastructure, defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) as “physical structures, facilities, networks and other assets which provide services that are essential to the social and economic functioning of a community or society,”4 small disruptions can have a significant impact. A recent World Bank assessment reviewed the cost of infrastructure disruptions in low- and middle-income countries 5 and found that power, water and sanitation, transport, and telecommunications systems “are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards because they are organized in complex networks through which even small local shocks can propagate quickly.” The assessment concluded that making these systems more resilient “is critical, not only to avoid costly damage but also to minimize the effects of natural disasters on the livelihoods and well-being of people.”6

Inclusivity in linear infrastructure development means that infrastructure is designed, constructed, and operated in ways that can meet the needs of communities affected by the infrastructure. This includes ensuring that potentially affected people can meaningfully participate in key decisions at all stages of linear infrastructure development. 4  UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology

5  Hallegatte, S. et al (2019) Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity, Sustainable Infrastructure Series, World Bank, doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1430-3, p. Xiii

6  Hallegatte, S. et al (2019), p. 2.

LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimated that $26 trillion needs to be invested in infrastructure from 2016 to 2030 to maintain economic momentum in Asia, including $14.7 trillion for power and $8.4 trillion for transport. 7 The Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia (LISA) project, launched in 2020 and funded by USAID, identified extensive overlap between planned linear infrastructure routes and areas of high biodiversity value in Asia. 8

One of the key drivers of linear infrastructure investment in Asia is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which involves the development of overland trading routes to “assist mainland China and participating countries to hedge against the inherent geopolitical risks of single trade routes.”9 Since 2013, nearly half of the investment from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the BRI has been directed to ASEAN member states.10 The value of investment by PRC companies in ASEAN member states has increased by 85 percent since the BRI began.

In 2017, the government of the PRC produced guidance to align BRI projects more closely with the vision of “ecological civilization” advanced by President Xi Jinping.11 The new guidance requires that BRI investors and proponents comply fully with national environmental impact assessment (EIA) law and policies, as well as with transboundary EIAs and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs). Although the BRI guidance is considered voluntary for ASEAN countries, it has created a broad framework for recommendations and regulations in ASEAN to promote greener development and highlights risks that linear infrastructure development poses to biodiversity, wildlife, and habitat.

The ASEAN Charter provides a legal framework and shows a political commitment to addressing common challenges through information sharing, regional integration, and multilateral agreements. The ASEAN Community Vision 2025 commits the ASEAN member states to realize “a rules-based, people-centered ASEAN Community, where people enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, higher quality of life, and community building benefits.”12 However, the guidelines need further clarity and specific mechanisms to ensure that they are effectively implemented.

12 ASEAN Community Vision 2025, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/November/aec-page/ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf (paragraph 4)

7  ADB (2017) Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs, cited in USAID (2021) Building a Foundation for Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia, p. 14.

8  USAID (2021), p. 39.

9  Tritto, A. et al (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p. 3.

10 Tritto, A. et al. (2020) p. 4.

11 These are described in Baird and Thomas, Greening the BRI in ASEAN, CJEL 4 (2020) p. 217-234.

IMPACTS OF LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE: BIODIVERSITY, CLIMATE, AND COMMUNITIES

The impacts that linear infrastructure can have on biodiversity, climate resilience, and communities are intertwined. For instance, the LISA project found that linear infrastructure development created direct threats to biodiversity such as barriers to movement, roadkill, electrocution, habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss, as well as indirect threats from increased human access that enables poaching, illegal logging, unplanned development, and the introduction of invasive species. 13 Many of these impacts are cumulative, and most severe at the landscape level.

Linear infrastructure development can accelerate climate change by increasing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting deforestation. At the same time, climate change exacerbates the impacts of linear infrastructure, including degrading ecological health and reducing the resilience provided by ecosystem services. The long lifespan of linear infrastructure projects means that future climate scenarios also need to be considered in the design and planning of projects. Infrastructure may be developed on an assumption that ecosystem services will provide resilience to natural hazards—such as mangroves protecting against storm surges—but climate change can erode such resilience, exposing infrastructure assets to unforeseen risks. Changes to the natural environment that result from climate change can impact the long-term financial viability of assets,14 such as creating an increased risk of landslides that requires costly engineering solutions.

Linear infrastructure has both positive and negative impacts on local communities: positive impacts include increased access to services and facilities or short-term employment opportunities during construction, while potential negative impacts could include losing transportation access if bypassed, or increasing road safety risks, restrictions on land access, heightened disputes, and environmental health risks (e.g., from gas pipelines). The most vulnerable are generally the most affected. Thus, inclusivity in linear infrastructure development means not only considering potential community impacts in project design but also providing opportunities for meaningful participation for all stakeholders throughout all phases of the project lifecycle.

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 environmental 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 climate-resilient and sustainable infrastructure to three causes:

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.

PROPOSED HOLISTIC MODEL: OVERVIEW

A proposed holistic model for linear infrastructure development in ASEAN member states.

National development planning regulations

Protected areas and endangered species laws

Natural resource management laws

EIA laws

Linear Infrastructure Development Regulations

Process outline and key principles

Crossreferences

Project #1

Project #2

Project #3

Project prioritization and selection

Project prioritization and selection

Project prioritization and selection

Landscape plan requirements

Project selection requirements

Project approval process

Public participation requirements

Project design and financing

Project design and financing

Project design and financing

Approval point

Approval point

Approval point

Construction

Construction

Construction

STRATEGIC LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE

Incorporating NDCs, protected areas, vulnerability and multi-hazard risk assessments, socio-economic development plans, NRM plans

Operation and maintenance

Operation and maintenance

Operation and maintenance

Identifying areas and corridors as:

- Suitable

- Unsuitable

- Requiring case-by-case assessment

KEY PRINCIPLES APPLYING CONSISTENTLY ACROSS PHASES

• Precautionary principle

• Access to information

• Public participation

• Long-term climate resilience

• Nature positive development

• Inclusivity

• Rights of Indigenous Peoples

• EPIC

• Gender mainstreaming

The proposed model is underpinned by many of the principles of sustainable development arising from the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development 1992. The principles considered critical to the development of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure in ASEAN, and which should be explicitly incorporated into a regulatory framework for the proposed holistic model, are:

• Meaningful public participation, including access to information

• Rights of Indigenous Peoples and principles of FPIC

• Inclusivity and a gender lens

• The precautionary principle

• Inter-generational equity, including long-term climate resilience

• Nature positive development

A regulated approach for governing the proposed holistic model provides clear advantages:

• Ensures a legal basis that provides coordination between the upstream and downstream phases of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle and clarity for all stakeholders, meaning that strategic considerations around climate risks, ecosystem services, and local community needs are formally integrated into linear infrastructure system planning and followed through individual project selection and design.

• Provides clarity for communities, developers, and financial institutions about where particular types of linear infrastructure can be developed in the future and streamlines the project identification and selection phases. Planning and pre-screening could also be the basis for a “project bank” that would allow proponents to explore government and community priorities.

• Enables interfacing with existing regulations such as protected area management.

• Establishes clarity for monitoring and enforcing obligations and provides a clear basis for grievance mechanisms and access to justice.

The holistic model does not demand an entirely new series of laws or require identical laws across ASEAN; each jurisdiction can adapt its current laws and institutional arrangements. However, ASEAN is best placed to establish guidance for applying laws to linear infrastructure development. Consistent approaches between ASEAN member states would:

• Send a clear and consistent message to investors

• Support due diligence and risk assessment in planning and investment decisions

• Facilitate transboundary projects and link projects across national borders

• Enable experience sharing and collaborative development of implementation tools and mechanisms

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ASEAN provides a platform and opportunity for collective action. However, transitioning to a regulated, holistic model will also take concerted effort from the national governments of ASEAN member states, project proponents and financial institutions, and development partners, including multilateral development banks. To map a pathway for the implementation of the holistic model, the following recommendations are directed to various actors who can support the transition.

ASEAN

ASEAN should promote the benefits of a regulatory approach, including increased investment certainty, increased connectivity, and reduced conflict in the region. ASEAN can also play a key role in developing guidance on land acquisition and resettlement, as well as providing a forum for sharing experiences, facilitating data collection, and supporting project proponents and financial institutions in their due diligence and risk assessment processes.

NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS

Until a strategic landscape-level plan can be finalized, national governments should use SEAs or sector-wide impact assessment tools to evaluate key factors including climate change and disaster risks, community needs and aspirations, ecosystems and the services they provide, potential cumulative impacts on the landscape, and alternative locations that would avoid negative environmental and social impacts. National governments can also reinforce the existing EIA system using tools provided in the annexes of this report.

PROJECT PROPONENTS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Project proponents should employ upstream screening checklists to ensure that they undertake due diligence at all stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle. Financial institutions, including multilateral development banks, should require evidence of due diligence that considers resilience and inclusivity issues and should enter into an ESG covenant to promote compliance by the borrower for all environmental and social obligations associated with the project.

THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

The development community should support the adoption and implementation of a regulatory framework by offering ASEAN member states technical assistance in drafting regulations and by supporting pilot projects to demonstrate successful implementation of the holistic model. The development community should seek to increase capacity within ASEAN member states and support civil society organizations working to help local communities understand resilience and inclusivity, identify risks, and provide input into linear infrastructure development.

INTRODUCTION

While linear infrastructure development is a vital component of economic and social development throughout Asia and specifically within the Lower Mekong, it presents significant risks to the environment and local communities. Mekong for the Future (MFF), a three-year program funded by USAID, is designed to strengthen civil society’s engagement in natural resource governance in the Lower Mekong, specifically in improving understanding and access to environmental data from public and private actors.

This report proposes a holistic regulatory model for resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure development in ASEAN by focusing on investment strategies that encourage sustainability, resilience, and inclusivity, with a particular emphasis on strengthening regulatory arrangements.1

Currently, the environmental and social impacts of linear infrastructure development are largely viewed through the lens of safeguard mechanisms such as environmental impact assessments (EIAs). While EIAs are important tools, they are reactive and cannot provide a regional and holistic perspective that maximizes resilience and inclusivity. As a result, efforts to promote sustainable linear infrastructure in ASEAN have emphasized low-carbon development that minimizes environmental and social impacts but does not consider resilience and inclusivity, including the role that nature-based solutions can play in maintaining ecosystem service provision. 2

Moreover, linear infrastructure is still largely designed to follow the shortest, least-cost route, without a holistic understanding of the risks, downstream costs, or distribution of benefits. 3 This occurs, in part, from considering linear infrastructure projects on a caseby-case basis. Although land use planning arrangements exist in many ASEAN member states, they are generally not applied when designing linear infrastructure.

Ensuring that strong, inclusive, strategic planning underpins all linear infrastructure development in the ASEAN region will minimize environmental and social risks while reducing downstream costs, disaster risk potential, and community conflict, as well as maximizing the positive social benefits of individual projects.

By providing an overview of the concepts of resilience and inclusivity as they relate to linear infrastructure, and a summary of the key biodiversity, climate, and social risks associated with linear infrastructure development, the report outlines the existing framework for linear infrastructure approvals in ASEAN and constructs a conceptual framework of the key regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms that apply at different phases of the linear infrastructure project cycle.

This is then used as the basis for an analysis of the constraints of the current approach to linear infrastructure development and a series of recommendations for the adoption and implementation of a holistic model. These recommendations are structured with the long-term ambition of regulatory reform while also presenting immediate interventions and tools that can be adopted within the current framework. In recognition of the need for coordinated action by all stakeholders, the recommendations are crafted for national governments, ASEAN, project proponents and financial institutions, and civil society within ASEAN.

The Dawei-Htee Khee Road, as seen on a WWF field trip. May 2015

Photo by WWF-Myanmar

MATTERS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

While this report contains detailed information related to the issues, systems, and processes involved in developing linear infrastructure in ASEAN, the following factors are beyond the scope of the analysis.

• The report does not assess the forecast demand for linear infrastructure but recognizes that accurate and justified future needs are important inputs—along with environmental, climate, disaster risk, and social assessments—to the planning and design of infrastructure.

• The report does not address issues surrounding procurement and green procurement, nor the development of green or sustainable finance mechanisms, such as green bonds and green finance initiatives being pursued in Indonesia and Thailand. These initiatives provide tools to promote sustainable and resilient development but will always be more successful if the project itself has been designed to be sustainable, inclusive, and resilient.

• The report recognizes a wide range of tools available that project proponents can use to consider resilience and inclusivity in their risk assessments and other processes when designing linear infrastructure projects but does not evaluate or recommend any of these tools. The report is concerned with the legal framework that requires such considerations to be made and the recommendations have been made presuming that proponents will continue to use such tools as appropriate for their circumstances.

• The report acknowledges that implementation of the proposed holistic model will require significant support from the development community for capacity-building and data collection and use, but does not explore these needs in detail.

LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE:

CHALLENGES FOR RESILIENCE AND INCLUSIVITY

CONCEPTS: LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE, RESILIENCE, AND INCLUSIVITY

Infrastructure can either be linear—that is, following a pathway from one location to another—or non-linear (i.e., site-specific). Often, linear and non-linear infrastructure are co-dependent and developed together (e.g., transmission lines from a solar power farm). For this study, linear infrastructure includes roads, railway lines, canals, power transmission and distribution lines, and pipelines. The study focuses on large-scale linear infrastructure that could have significant intrusions into key biodiversity areas, have other negative impacts on ecosystems, be vulnerable to natural disaster risks, and affect multiple communities. The study is not concerned with small-scale or temporary linear infrastructure such as fences or fence lines, irrigation channels, or firebreaks.

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines critical infrastructure as “physical structures, facilities, networks, and other assets which provide services that are essential to the social and economic functioning of a community or society.”4 Much of the time, linear infrastructure is considered critical infrastructure, whether to support transportation (including emergency services) or energy supply. The resilience of linear infrastructure to disaster risks is therefore of particular importance.

UNDRR further defines resilience as “the ability of a system, community, or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management.”5 Linear infrastructure can be particularly vulnerable to a range of natural hazards—including cyclones, floods, landslides, storm surges, earthquakes, and tsunamis—many of which are becoming more frequent and intense as a result of climate change. Vulnerability refers to “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets, or systems to the impacts of hazards.”6

A recent World Bank assessment of “the cost of infrastructure disruptions to low- and middle-income countries and the economic benefits of investing in resilient infrastructure”7 recognized that power, water and sanitation, transport, and telecommunications systems “are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards because they are organized in complex networks through which even small local shocks can propagate quickly. Making them more resilient—that is, better able to deliver the services people and firms need during and after natural shocks—is critical, not only to avoid costly damage but also to minimize the wide-ranging consequences of natural disasters for the livelihoods and well-being of people.”8

The World Bank assessment conceives the resilience of infrastructure at three overlapping levels: 9

1. Resilience of infrastructure assets—reducing the cost of infrastructure maintenance and repair

2. Resilience of infrastructure services—providing more reliable services through a systematic, networked approach

3. Resilience of infrastructure users—enabling people and supply chains to cope with infrastructure disruptions, reducing the impact of natural hazards on people and economies

4  UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Critical infrastructure, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/critical-infrastructure (last accessed 17 February 2022).

5  UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Resilience, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience (last accessed 17 February 2022).

6  UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Vulnerability, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/vulnerability (last accessed 17 February 2022).

7  Hallegatte, S. et al (2019) Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity, Sustainable Infrastructure Series, World Bank, doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-14303, pxiii.

8  Hallegatte, S. et al (2019), p2.

9  Hallegatte, S. et al (2019), pp10-11.

Resilience includes how biodiversity and climate change are considered in assessing the vulnerability of linear infrastructure to natural hazards. At the same time, linear infrastructure development should be inclusive of the needs and interests of potentially affected communities. The link between resilience and inclusivity can be summarized by the assertion that “resilient infrastructure is about people.”10

Inclusivity in linear infrastructure development means that infrastructure is designed, constructed, and operated in ways that can meet the needs of diverse communities served and potentially affected by the infrastructure. This includes ensuring potentially affected people can meaningfully participate in key decisions at all stages of linear infrastructure development and that they benefit from such development.

LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Infrastructure development is explicitly part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 9 is to “build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation” and includes targets and indicators for the construction of new roads and other linear infrastructure, especially in developing countries (see Box 1). Robust and reliable infrastructure—transport, irrigation, energy, and information and communication technology—is critical for boosting a country’s economic growth by enabling trade, powering businesses, connecting workers to their jobs, and creating new growth opportunities for struggling communities.”11

Box 1: SDG Goal 9—Targets and Indicators Relevant to Linear Infrastructure

Target 9.1

Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.

Indicator 9.1.1

Proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an all-season road

Target 9.a

Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological, and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing States.

Indicator 9.a.1

Total of official international support (official development assistance plus other official flows) to infrastructure

10 Hallegatte, S. et al (2019), p. Xiii.

11 Singh, S. and Gulliya, D. (2021) Integration of Environmental Risks in Infrastructure Investments in India: A Business Case for Financial Institutions, WWFIndia, p. 8.

Linear infrastructure is expected to grow significantly throughout Asia in the coming decades, representing significant risks as well as potential benefits across Southeast Asia. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has estimated that $26 trillion needs to be invested in infrastructure from 2016 to 2030 to maintain economic momentum in Asia, including $14.7 trillion for power and $8.4 trillion for transport.12 The Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia (LISA) project identified extensive overlap between planned linear infrastructure routes and areas of high biodiversity value in Asia.13

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a key driver of linear infrastructure investment in Asia. Since 2013, the BRI has seen investment from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in major infrastructure projects intended as a network of transnational economic corridors, transportation routes, oil and gas pipelines, and electricity grids to “assist mainland China and participating countries to hedge against the inherent geopolitical risks of single trade routes.”14 A recent study of the BRI in ASEAN found that nearly half of all investment from PRC in BRI countries has been directed to ASEAN member states,15 with the value of investment by companies from PRC in ASEAN member states increasing by 85 percent since the BRI was initiated.16 Figure 1 maps key BRI projects in ASEAN and demonstrates both the number of linear infrastructure projects and the spread of BRI projects across ASEAN.

WWF conducted a spatial analysis of potential environmental and social impacts of the proposed BRI corridors in relation to threatened species, environmentally important areas—including key biodiversity areas (KBAs) and biodiversity hotspots—protected areas, water-related ecosystem services, and wilderness characteristics.17 A summary and analysis showed significant areas of potential negative impacts across all BRI corridors, including in the ASEAN region.

12 ADB (2017) Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs, cited in USAID (2021) Building a Foundation for Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia, p. 14.

13  USAID (2021), p. 39.

14  Tritto, A. et al (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p. 3.

15  Tritto, A. et al. (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p. 4.

16  Tritto, A. et al. (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p. 11.

17  WWF (2017) The Belt and Road Initiative: WWF Recommendations and Spatial Analysis, p. 3-4.

Three key factors make resilience and inclusivity in linear infrastructure development critically important in ASEAN. First, member states will pursue their economic and social development needs through, inter alia, investment in linear infrastructure. Eight of the ten ASEAN member states are classified as developing member countries (DMCs) by the ADB (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam).19 In 2017, ADB estimated the infrastructure investment needs for Southeast Asia over the life of the SDGs (2016-2030) as $6.347 trillion (in 2015 prices), amounting to 8.8 percent of the region’s GDP.

This estimate uses “climate-adjusted” figures that include climate mitigation and direct climate-proofing costs but excludes broader adaptation costs such as coastal protection and flood control for disaster risk reduction. 20 Climate proofing includes “measures such as elevating road embankments… and enhancing design and maintenance standards.”21 Roads and electricity supply represent major components of these investment needs. Because road density and quality is low in developing Asia, expectations of new road development and major upgrade works are high. 22 Many ASEAN countries also have very low levels of per capita electricity generation and high levels of electricity lost in transmission and distribution. 23 A global study in 2017 (see Table 1) calculated the value

18  Tritto, A. et al. (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p. 14-15.

19  ADB (2022) Operations Manual Policies and Procedures (Section A1)—Classification and Graduation of Developing Member Countries (issued on 1 January 2022), p. 4.

20  ADB (2017), p. 43.

21  ADB (2017), p. Xiv.

22  ADB (2017), p. 10.

23  ADB (2017), p. 12.

Figure 1: Key BRI Projects in ASEAN18

of investments needed for seven of the ASEAN countries by 2040. 24 The BRI represents significant investment in linear infrastructure projects, both planned and underway, throughout the ASEAN region (see Annex 1 for a summary of the major linear infrastructure projects under the BRI in ASEAN countries).

Cambodia $59 billion $87 billion $28 billion

Indonesia $1.6 trillion $1.7 trillion $70 billion

Malaysia $383 billion $460 billion $77 billion

Myanmar $111 billion $224 billion $112 billion

Philippines $429 billion $498 billion $69 billion

Singapore $94 billion $94 billion $278 million

Thailand $394 billion $494 billion $100 billion

Vietnam $503 billion $605 billion $102 billion

Current investment trends

Baseline forecasts of infrastructure investment under the assumption that countries continue to invest in line with current trends, with growth occurring only in response to changes in each country’s economic and demographic fundamentals.

Investment need

The investment that would occur if countries were to match the performance of their best performing peers, after controlling for differences in the characteristics of each country.

Second, ASEAN boasts some of the most important, but also most threatened, biodiversity in the world. The Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot—which comprises five of the ten ASEAN member states (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam), as well as parts of southern China—is “ranked in the top 10 hotspots for irreplaceability and in the top five for threat, with only 5 percent of its natural habitat remaining and with more people than any other hotspot.”25 The region also encompasses the Philippines Biodiversity Hotspot, Sundaland Biodiversity Hotspot (which covers part of southern Thailand, most of Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the western half of Indonesia), and part of the Wallacea Hotspot (central Indonesia and Timor-Leste).

Third, ASEAN represents an opportunity to not just consider environmental and socioeconomic developmental similarities, but also a forum for collective action in response to identified issues. The ASEAN Charter provides a legal framework and political commitment for addressing common challenges through information sharing, regional

Table 1: Global Infrastructure Outlook data for ASEAN countries

integration, and multilateral agreements. Given many of the challenges associated with linear infrastructure in the region are transboundary, they require stronger approaches to ensuring infrastructure is inclusive and resilient, as well as cooperative and coordinated in its implementation. Figure 2 illustrates the interconnected nature of these challenges.

The issues involved in the pursuit of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure development are also clear elements of ASEAN’s broader objectives. The ASEAN Community Vision 2025 commits the ASEAN member states to realize “a rules-based, people-centered ASEAN Community, where people enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, higher quality of life, and community building benefits.”26 The ASEAN PoliticalSecurity Community pillar supports this commitment with the following: 27

8.1 A rules-based community that fully adheres to ASEAN fundamental principles, shared values, and norms, as well as principles of international law governing the peaceful conduct of relations among states

8.2. An inclusive and responsive community that ensures our peoples enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as thrive in a just, democratic, harmonious, and gendersensitive environment in accordance with the principles of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law

The ASEAN Economic Community pillar aims to realize: 28

10.3. Enhanced connectivity and sectoral cooperation with improvements in regional frameworks, including strategic sectoral policies vital to the effective operationalization of the economic community

10.4. A resilient, inclusive, people-oriented, and people-centered community that engenders equitable development and inclusive growth

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community pillar emphazies resilience, inclusivity, and sustainability with undertakings for:

12.1 A committed, participative, and socially responsible community through an accountable and inclusive mechanism for the benefit of our peoples, upheld by the principles of good governance

12.2 An inclusive community that promotes high quality of life and equitable access to opportunities for all and that promotes and protects human rights of women, children, youth, the elderly/older persons, persons with disabilities, migrant workers, and vulnerable and marginalized groups

12.3 A sustainable community that promotes social development and environmental protection through effective mechanisms to meet the current and future needs of our peoples

12.4 A resilient community with enhanced capacity and capability to adapt and respond to social and economic vulnerabilities, disasters, and climate change as well as emerging threats and challenges

12.5 A dynamic and harmonious community that is aware and proud of its identity, culture, and heritage, with the strengthened ability to innovate and proactively contribute to the global community

The ASEAN Community Vision 2025 also integrates with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. 29

29 ASEAN Community Vision 2025, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/November/aec-page/ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf (paragraph 6).

Figure 2: Key factors why resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure is critical in ASEAN

GREENING THE BRI

The linear infrastructure projects under the BRI (see Annex 1) pose significant threats to the ecosystems of ASEAN member states.30 Critics of the BRI often point to debt burdens and environmental and social impacts as reasons to oppose the BRI.31 In response to some of this criticism, the PRC government has released proposals to “green” the BRI and create a more sustainable model for BRI investments and project implementation. Since 2017, there have been attempts to more closely align BRI projects with the vision of “ecological civilization”32 that has been advanced by President Xi Jinping. Baird and Thomas have suggested that PRC BRI investors and proponents’ full compliance with national EIA law and policies, and the application of transboundary EIAs and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs), are important initial steps to reduce the ecological and social footprint of BRI projects. They further recommended that the PRC government engage with ASEAN on a multilateral basis to develop a common ASEAN-wide approach to EIA, SEA, and transboundary EIA dispute resolution mechanisms and environmental and social standards.33

In December 2020, the BRI Green Development Coalition issued the Green Development Guidance for BRI Projects Baseline Study (BRI guidance) with nine recommendations (see Box 2). While all the BRI documents are considered voluntary, they provide a broad framework for recommendations and regulations to promote a greener BRI in ASEAN and ASEAN member states. In addition, specific guidance for highways and railways was issued in 2021. This guidance highlighted the clear risks for biodiversity, wildlife, and habitat fragmentation caused by these linear infrastructure projects. It included recommendations that projects should avoid ecologically sensitive areas and consider the impacts of construction and design on wildlife. There is a need for further clarity and specific mechanisms to ensure effective implementation of these guidelines and recommendations.

In July 2021, the PRC’s Ministry of Commerce and Ministry for Ecology and Environment jointly issued the Green Development Guidelines for Overseas Investment and Cooperation.34 In January 2022, the Ministry of Commerce issued the Guidelines for Ecological and Environmental Protection of Foreign Investment Cooperation and Construction Projects (2022 guidelines).35

Notably, the 2022 guidelines address both private and state-owned enterprises engaging in overseas new projects, reconstruction projects, and expansion projects, as well as mergers, “to implement the concept of ecological civilization” and to “promote the green and high-quality development of projects”. The 2022 guidelines describe how companies should integrate environmental considerations along the whole project lifecycle—from project planning to construction, management and de-construction, and information disclosure.

30  Hoong Chen TEO et al, ‘Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Development under the Belt and Road Initiative (2019) 6 Environments 72

31  Shahar HAMEIRI, ‘Debunking the myth of China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”’, Lowy Institute, September 9, 2020 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/ debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy (last viewed 19 September 2022)

32  These are described in Baird and Thomas, Greening the BRI in ASEAN, CJEL 4 (2020) p. 217-234.

33  Baird and Thomas, p. 231-233.

34  For an English translation see https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/green-development-guidelines- for-overseas-investment-and-cooperationenglish-translation/

35  https://greenfdc.org/interpretation-2022-guidelines-ecological-environmental-protection-of-foreign-investment-cooperation-and-construction-projects/

Box 2: Nine recommendations of the BRI Guidance

1 Address all project phases with green overseas investment practices, from project initiation through project evaluation, financing, construction, operation, reporting, and transfer or closure.

2 Provide a list of projects not available for funding (e.g., similar to many developing financial institutions).

3 Obtain an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) depending on the project’s perceived risks, where “red,” “red-yellow,” “red-green,” and high-risk “yellow” projects obtain an independent EIA assessment based on international best practices.

4 Differentiate conditions to reduce financing costs and approval times for “red-green” and “green” projects.

5 Require an environmental and social management system for the project company to ensure mitigation measures are implemented and reported.

6 Require financial institutions to provide grievance redress mechanisms for people and NGOs. These should be easy to access and promote the sharing of violations of environmental agreements or laws with the financial sponsors throughout all project phases.

7 Integrate covenants related to breach of environmental and social agreements between the financial institution and the project company to exercise remedies to rectify environmental management.

8 Provide public reporting of the environmental performance of the project.

9 Encourage international cooperation on environmental performance reporting.

IMPACTS OF LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE: BIODIVERSITY, CLIMATE, AND COMMUNITIES

This report is concerned with the interrelated nature of the impacts that linear infrastructure can have on biodiversity, climate resilience, and communities and how those impacts are considered in a structured way in the planning and design of linear infrastructure projects. The report does not dive deeply into these risks and impacts as they are understood and documented. Rather, the report presents a summary of potential impact areas as a basis for the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanisms employed to mitigate these risks.

BIODIVERSITY

The impacts of linear infrastructure on biodiversity are generally well understood, with extensive research and literature available globally and within Asia. The LISA project conducted a detailed analysis of the published literature on the impacts of linear infrastructure on Asian species and ecosystems.36 While continuous research is needed

to refine understanding of species- and location-specific impacts, and of the effectiveness of various design options,37 sufficient evidence exists to identify risks and adopt mitigation measures in the design and construction of individual linear infrastructure projects.

The risks to biodiversity depend on the type and scale of linear infrastructure and its location but can be both direct and indirect in nature. Possible direct impacts include:

• barriers to movement of wildlife—for example, fencing constructed alongside roads and railway lines;

• road and rail collisions—where increased traffic can lead to roadkill of migratory animals;

• electrocution of birds on power lines.

Indirect impacts on biodiversity can include:

• habitat loss and fragmentation—where linear infrastructure transects landscapes, it can reduce viable and safe habitats, and range, for native species;

• roads and access routes for other linear infrastructure facilitate increased human access to previously hard-to-reach locations—this can enable poaching of wildlife, illegal logging, and unplanned development, and may lead to introduction of exotic and invasive species. Figure 3 shows an example of the “fishbone” pattern of deforestation occurring over a decade in part of western Brazil.

• ecosystem degradation—because of landscape fragmentation and increased access, ecosystem integrity can be weakened leading to the loss of important ecosystem services.

Many measures can be adopted to mitigate the impacts of linear infrastructure projects on biodiversity, including design and technical solutions such as alignment that avoids wildlife habitat or takes account of bird flight paths. For example, in Spain, redesign

Figure 3: Satellite images showing deforestation in Rondônia in western Brazil over time38

of power lines and remediation of existing, dangerous pylons to reduce the risk of electrocution of birds have resulted in a marked increase in the population of the endangered Spanish Imperial Eagle. 39

Importantly, however, many of these impacts are cumulative and most severe when considered at a landscape level, rather than for individual projects. The cumulative impacts can be cascading where direct impacts on a particular species have flow-on effects for an entire ecosystem, while a linear infrastructure project may open the floodgates for further development by enabling access to a region. Accordingly, linear infrastructure must not be considered on a project-by-project basis but rather from a strategic perspective—both spatially and temporally—within a landscape.

Moreover, the relationship between cumulative impacts on biodiversity and risks to climate resilience and local communities is particularly pertinent given that ASEAN is home to significant biodiversity and exposed to extreme risks of climate change. Ecosystem degradation exacerbates disaster risks and, in turn, can have negative impacts on the long-term viability of infrastructure assets.

CLIMATE

The relationship between climate change and linear infrastructure is complex and multidirectional; linear infrastructure development can both contribute to, and be impacted by, climate change. Climate change can also exacerbate other impacts of linear infrastructure, including effects on ecological health, as well as reducing the resilience provided by ecosystem services. The long lifespan of linear infrastructure projects means that future climate scenarios must be considered when assessing linear infrastructure projects. Direct effects of linear infrastructure on climate change include greenhouse gas emissions that result from deforestation and other land use change. Indirect emissions also increase due to increased road traffic or energy consumption. New projects can also have a positive effect when rail lines replace road traffic or renewable energy replaces fossil fuels. The climate change implications of linear infrastructure development will thus be both case-specific and involve multiple considerations, including overall system planning (e.g., energy or transportation arrangements).

Linear infrastructure is also at risk of both the immediate and longer-term effects of climate change.The economic costs of climate change and extreme weather events on infrastructure are documented around the world.40 Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand all feature in the top 10 countries most affected by climate change between 2000 and 2019.41 While Myanmar’s status in the Global Climate Risk Index is due to the severity of Cyclone Nargis in 2008,42 it continues to suffer from floods and landslides that cause extensive damage to roads.The Philippines is frequently exposed to tropical cyclones that can have major impacts on linear infrastructure, as well as on lives and livelihoods.43

39  CMS Secretariat (2020) Fact Sheet: Addressing the Impact of Linear Infrastructure on Migratory Species, p. 2.

40  Bartlett, R. (2019) Visioning Futures: Improving infrastructure planning to harness nature’s benefits in a warming world, WWF, p. 11.

41  Eckstein et al (2021) Global Climate Risk Index 2021, Germanwatch, p. 13.

42  Eckstein et al (2021), p. 14.

43  Eckstein et al (2021), p. 14.

Changes to the natural environment that result from climate change have the potential to affect the long-term financial viability of the investments in infrastructure assets,”44 such as increased risk of landslides that may require costly engineering solutions to avoid constant repairs. Oftentimes, infrastructure is developed on an assumption that certain ecosystem services will provide a degree of resilience to natural hazards (e.g., mangroves protecting against storm surges) but climate change can erode such resilience, exposing infrastructure assets to unforeseen risks. Accordingly, resilience to natural hazards, particularly in the context of climate change, requires comprehensive consideration as part of linear infrastructure development.

COMMUNITIES

The impacts of linear infrastructure on local communities can also be positive and negative. Positive impacts include increased access to services and facilities, as well as short-term employment opportunities during construction. Negative impacts may be less obvious, such as lost access if a community is bypassed, increased road safety risks, restrictions on land access, or increased environmental health risks such as those arising from proximity to a gas pipeline.

Affected communities may view increased accessibility from roads or railways as positive or negative. While some communities desire increased access to population centers, new transportation corridors may exacerbate land disputes and conflicts or be seen as a security risk. Social objectives need to be clearly defined during the planning process.

Given linear infrastructure generally traverses large distances, projects often affect multiple communities and individuals with different tenure over their lands,45 including communities where tenure may be based on traditional or customary land use and not formally recognized under national systems. Historically, major linear infrastructure projects have been treated as political or economic development priorities and used to justify the voluntary or involuntary resettlement of people from their land. The negative social and economic effects on people who are subject to relocation and resettlement can be extreme, despite efforts to compensate or resettle affected people. Even where people are not physically displaced by land acquisition or resumption, linear infrastructure projects may have negative impacts from broader land use changes that result in economic displacement.

The impacts of linear infrastructure on communities also need to be understood in the context of how inclusivity and resilience are intertwined. Often, the most vulnerable members of society are most affected by natural disasters and a changing climate. This interrelationship has been highlighted in the Global Climate Risk Index 2021. 46

The Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us of the fact that both risk-affectedness and vulnerability are systemic and interconnected; globally, 51.6 million people had to simultaneously deal with the impacts of floods, droughts, or storms while trying to contain the pandemic and deal with its consequences. It is therefore important to strengthen the

44 Singh, S. and Gulliya, D. (2021) Integration of Environmental Risks in Infrastructure Investments in India: A Business Case for Financial Institutions, WWFIndia, p. 31.

45  See generally, IFC (2002) Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan. 46  Eckstein et al (2021), p. 23-24.

resilience of the most vulnerable against different types of risk (i.e., climatic, geophysical, economic, and health-related risks). The potential impacts of linear infrastructure development, therefore, also depend on the vulnerabilities of communities and other biophysical risks associated with the project.

Inclusivity in linear infrastructure development means not just considering potential community impacts in project design, but providing opportunities for meaningful participation by potentially affected people throughout all phases of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle (see Figure 4 and, for a more detailed discussion, Annex 2 on linear infrastructure project cycles). This includes ensuring community needs and aspirations are incorporated into land use and other planning processes that set parameters for future linear infrastructure, as well as making information about individual project proposals available and undertaking meaningful consultation during their design, evaluation, and construction. It also includes providing accessible grievance mechanisms under which concerns can be raised and appropriately addressed.

ASSESSING RISKS AND MITIGATING IMPACTS: THE ROLE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN SUPPORTING RESILIENCE AND INCLUSIVITY

Given its potential to create negative impacts, establishing appropriate strategies to properly identify, assess, and mitigate the risks involved in a linear infrastructure project is vital to making it resilient and inclusive. Risk is the probability of harm arising from activities or the failure to anticipate harm. Harm can either directly affect the project or be experienced indirectly by other stakeholders.

The most common risk assessment approach involves considering the likelihood of a particular impact transpiring against the severity of the consequence of that impact occurring (see below). The higher the risk, the more attention should be paid to limiting that potential negative impact.

Figure 4: Linear Infrastructure Project Lifecycle

Identifying and assessing risks should include addressing the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The concept of cumulative impacts is based on recognizing the impacts of proposed project in relation to their location, surrounding land uses, and other similar projects close by. Relatively small, incremental impacts can result in collectively significant impacts over time. The International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) has summarized global approaches to assessing cumulative impacts into six standard steps, an adaption of which is shown in Box 3.

Box 3: General process for assessing the cumulative impacts of project proposals (adapted from IAIA)47

Step 1

Identify the incremental effects of the proposed project within the environs of the project location, based on information related to current or anticipated degraded or stressed conditions, the occurrence of protected species or habitats, and the presence or anticipated presence of other human activities that would adversely affect the same environmental assets. Information on incremental effects is also needed to address direct and indirect effects from the proposed project.

Step 2

Identify other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the space and time boundaries that have contributed, are contributing, or could contribute to cumulative effects (stresses) on the environmental assets or their indicators. Based on this knowledge, identify appropriate spatial and temporal study boundaries for each environmental asset.

Step 3

For the selected environmental assets, assemble information on their indicators, and describe and assess their historical to current conditions. The historical information should coincide with the selected past temporal boundary or historical reference point. Further, and depending upon the availability of information, identify trends in the condition of the environmental assets and their indicators and compare these to numerical standards or policies, or to identified thresholds of significance for each environmental asset.

Step 4

Connect the proposed project and other actions in the study area to the selected environmental assets and their indicators. These could be either descriptive or quantitative connections. Predictions related to future effects resulting from multiple actions may be problematic due to the absence of detailed information; however, identification of “upor-down” changes in the environmental assets and their indicators can be useful. Finally,

Table 2: Example Risk Assessment Matrix

emphasis should be given to the aggregation of effects (that is, to the anticipated cumulative effects on each environmental asset).

Step 5

Assess the significance of the cumulative effects on each environmental asset over the time horizon for the study. Determinations should begin with the incremental effects (direct and indirect) of the proposed action on specific environmental assets. The focus is on the asset, not on the action. The same definition can and should be applied to determine the significance of composited cumulative effects on the environmental assets. Further, the concept of environmental sustainability (including social and economic sustainability) could be considered both in relation to incremental effects and cumulative effects.

Step 6

Develop action-specific mitigation measures for negative incremental impacts from the proposed project for which the cumulative effects are significant. Further, if significant cumulative effects are anticipated on any environmental asset or its indicators, encourage stakeholders to collaborate on developing management measures, either locally or regionally, or both. Such collaboration is important when there are multiple contributors to regional cumulative effects. Stakeholder collaboration in follow-up activities can be both cost-efficient and aid in local and regional planning.

Assessing the cumulative impacts of major linear infrastructure projects is especially relevant to vulnerability and resilience. Because linear infrastructure projects have a long lifespan, the incremental impacts of a proposed project can be extreme and difficult to identify and quantify. Moreover, because linear infrastructure often follows paths in areas vulnerable to climate change, such as coastal lands, the resilience of projects under future climate scenarios needs to be part of risk assessments. A cumulative impact assessment considers both existing projects and future projects and logically should be commissioned by the government, supported by multilateral development banks. International Finance Corporation (IFC) has supported river-based cumulative impact assessments in the hydropower sector in both Laos PDR and Myanmar. 48 Following a risk assessment, strategies should be developed to mitigate potential impacts and follow the mitigation hierarchy (see Figure 5), which outlines a logical sequence for managing impacts and risks:49

1. Avoid impacts before they occur.

2. When avoidance is not possible, minimize the duration, intensity, significance, and extent of impacts.

3. When impacts occur, rehabilitate or restore the environment, site, and communities.

4. Where significant impacts remain, offset or compensate for the impacts.

Implementing the mitigation hierarchy often involves iteration of these steps, with the application of the preventative steps (avoid and minimize) being significantly preferable to the remedial steps (restore, rehabilitate, and offset). 51 The application of the mitigation hierarchy, with examples of measures that can apply at each step, is depicted below in Figure 6.

Avoidance

• Site selection

• Design

• Scheduling

Minimization Preventive Remediative

• Physical controls

• Operational controls

• Abatement controls

• Re-establishing habitat types

• Re-establishing biodiversity values

• Re-establishing ecosystem services

• Restoration offsets

*No

* Yes

* Can potential impacts be managed adequately through remediative measures?

Impact avoidance is only a realistic strategy if it is considered in the very early phases of a project—cost-effective avoidance options can easily be missed or may no longer be considered cost-effective if they are not considered before key planning decisions are made;52 avoidance strategies often involve major design changes such as the location

50 Adapted from The Biodiversity Consultancy (2022) Mitigation Hierarchy, https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/our-work/our-expertise/strategy/ mitigation-hierarchy/ (last accessed 17 August 2022).

51  The Biodiversity Consultancy (2015) p. 11.

52  The Biodiversity Consultancy (2015) p. 12.

Figure 5 The Mitigation Hierarchy 50

Figure 6: Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy

or alignment of a project. The Biodiversity Consultancy has identified examples of how avoidance can apply to the routing of linear infrastructure:53

• Micro-routing linear infrastructure around habitat features or areas of importance to biodiversity and ecosystem services

• Burying transmission lines to prevent collisions with birds, or pipelines to avoid blocking animal movements

• Locating support roads in already disturbed habitats to avoid direct damage and risks from increased access

• Aligning new linear infrastructure alongside existing structures (e.g., existing roads or rail corridors) and on disturbed habitats

Accordingly, the mitigation hierarchy is a tool that applies throughout the whole linear infrastructure project cycle, not only in assessing individual project proposals submitted for development approval. Project proponents and financial institutions considering linear infrastructure projects should be identifying and assessing risks and considering impact mitigation from the outset of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle, consistent with due diligence in business operations that includes:54

• Identifying and assessing actual and potential adverse environmental impacts of activities and associated relationships on stakeholders;

• Integrating environmental findings from impact assessments across internal processes;

• Tracking environmental performance to verify whether adverse impacts are being effectively addressed;

• Communicating publicly, including formal reporting, on company responses to actual and potential environmental impacts.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD guidelines) adopted in 2011 recommend that enterprises conduct due diligence to identify, prevent or mitigate, and account for how actual and potential adverse impacts are addressed. These guidelines address all thematic issues in responsible business conduct, including human rights, labor rights, information disclosure, environment, bribery, consumer interests, science and technology, competition, and taxation. The OECD guidelines include a chapter that provides recommendations for enterprises to raise their environmental performance and help maximize their contribution to environmental protection through improved internal management and better planning. The OECD developed the Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct 2018 to assist enterprises to implement the OECD guidelines “by providing plain language explanations of its due diligence recommendations and associated provisions.”55

Due diligence is an integral part of decision-making and risk management systems and is an ongoing, proactive and reactive, process-oriented activity.56 Environmental due diligence supports compliance with domestic environmental protection and resource management laws but goes further to consider best-practice conduct that can have positive environmental benefits. The extent and detail of due diligence processes should 53  The Biodiversity Consultancy (2015) p. 25. 54 Bon, E. T. S. (ed.) (2022) Business and Human Rights in Southeast Asia: A Practitioner’s GuideKit for SMEs on Human Rights Compliance regarding the Environment and Labour, Kuala Lumpur, p. 54. 55 OECD (2018) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, p. 3. 56  OECD (2011) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, p. 42-3.

be commensurate with risks and appropriate to a specific enterprise’s circumstances and context, and should cover all aspects of an enterprise’s operations and its business relationships.

The OECD Guidelines list the following as effective approaches to due diligence by enterprises:57

• Due diligence is preventative.

• Due diligence involves multiple processes and objectives.

• Due diligence is commensurate with risk (risk-based).

• Due diligence can involve prioritization (risk-based).

• Due diligence is dynamic.

• Due diligence does not shift responsibilities.

• Due diligence concerns internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct.

• Due diligence is appropriate to an enterprise’s circumstances.

• Due diligence can be adapted to deal with the limitations of working with business relationships.

• Due diligence is informed by engagement with stakeholders.

• Due diligence involves ongoing communication.

These characteristics align with key principles in international environmental law, which are also commonly applied in national environmental law and policy, including in ASEAN member states. These principles include the:

• Precautionary principle

• Prevention principle

• Polluter pays principle

• Principle of public participation, access to information, and access to justice

An environmental management strategy (EMS) is a structured set of processes used by an organization to help enhance its environmental performance, comply with environmental duties, and achieve its environmental objectives in line with its environmental policy.58

An enterprise’s EMS can provide the backbone of its environmental due diligence processes by establishing clear internal steps for considering environmental objectives, risks, obligations, decision points, information disclosure, and accountabilities. As an EMS should apply throughout the whole company or organization, it is a way to mainstream environmental and social obligations. Companies involved in the construction or operation of infrastructure projects should be required to have an EMS for their operations. Proponents and implementing enterprises for linear infrastructure should have their EMS certified to the ISO 14001 standard by a third-party certification body. The ISO 14001 standard involves five main stages for an EMS:

1. Environmental policy—the enterprise’s environmental commitments

2. Planning—identification of environmental aspects of the enterprise’s operations and its legal obligations as the basis for setting environmental objectives, targets, and action

57 OECD (2018) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, p. 16-19. 58 Drawn from ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance for use

plans (including clear steps and responsibilities)

3. Implementation—creating structures and operating procedures, allocating resources, and programming training on the action plan, including training on documentation and communication

4. Evaluation—monitoring of operations and implementation of the action plan to evaluate compliance, performance against targets, and the need for corrective action

5. Review—management reviews evaluation results, determines the EMS’s effectiveness, and revises the environmental policy to improve performance

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides extensive guidance on developing an EMS that addresses environmental impacts including land, air, and water, pollution, waste (including toxic and hazardous waste), climate risk, operational health and safety, and other impacts.59 Pollution control standards include technological parameters and benchmarks, such as emissions standards and ambient quality standards, and also refer to the best available technology for activities and practices that have potential environmental impacts. Many countries also use World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines as a basis for national standards. WHO guidelines include environmental causes of harm to human health such as pollution, climate change, and environmental health in general.60 WHO guidelines reinforce the substantive link between pollution control laws that national environmental enforcement authorities are responsible for enforcing and the human rights to health and a healthy environment.

The key to an effective EMS is regular monitoring and performance reporting against an enterprise’s environmental policy and targets. In addition to helping meet the environmental due diligence recommendation on making information about the environmental impacts of an enterprise’s activities public, reporting of broader performance against an environmental policy is in line with the OECD Guidelines dedicated disclosure chapter, which covers timely and accurate information disclosure, preparation of disclosure policies, and high-quality environmental reporting standards. An EMS should also include processes for handling complaints, which could be designed to align with operational-level grievance mechanisms.

Inherent to due diligence is characteristics and effective implementation based on internationally recognized standards that apply irrespective of the legal requirements of jurisdictions in which the enterprise operates. At the same time, enterprises must also comply with regulations within the operational jurisdiction; these cannot be avoided by reference to an enterprise’s corporate processes. The OECD guidelines are explicit that “obeying domestic laws is the first obligation of enterprises.”61 Due diligence can help enterprises observe their legal obligations while ensuring that risk assessment is undertaken to levels that meet international standards. In other words, due diligence and environmental regulations collectively provide a floor for responsible business conduct irrespective of the jurisdiction in question.

59 In addition to the general guidance included in the ISO 14001 standard, see for example: ISO 14004:2016 Environmental management systems General guidelines on implementation; ISO 14001: Environmental management systems A practical guide for SMEs (https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100411. html); USEPA’s Environmental Management Systems: An Implementation Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations (https://www.epa.gov/ems/ environmental-management-systems-implementation-guide-small-and-medium-sized-organizations); and EMAS User’s Guide (https://ec.europa.eu/ environment/emas/emas_publications/guidance_en.htm).

60  World Health Organization (2021) Health Topics. https://www.who.int/health-topics/#B Accessed 30 July 2021.

61  OECD (2011) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, p. 17

Significantly, governments are increasingly mandating due diligence as part of businesses’ legal obligations, while courts are relying on the concept when adjudicating environmental cases.62 In particular, the relevance of due diligence is being considered when addressing questions of companies’ (including their directors and managers) liability for environmental harm. Accordingly, the role of due diligence in systematically applying risk assessments and mitigation hierarchy to business activities, including the development of linear infrastructure, can be expected to intensify.

62  See OECD Centre for RBC (2021) Policy Trends in Environmental Due Diligence, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/policy-trends-in-environmental-duediligence.pdf.

Cows grazing in an oil palm plantation in Sabah, Malaysia. February 2020

Photo by Aaron Gekoski / WWF-US

EXISTING FRAMEWORK FOR LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS IN ASEAN

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

A range of international laws, principles, and instruments are relevant to the development of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure in ASEAN, such as multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), transboundary impact assessments, and international human rights laws, including corporate commitments to human rights. Collectively, these principles and instruments reinforce global and regional commitments to incorporate resilience and inclusivity into linear infrastructure development. However, they provide limited guidance for translating these commitments into practice.

MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

The LISA project reviewed the application of MEAs relevant to environmental conservation in Asia. Together with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the seven key MEAs—the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), World Heritage Convention (WHC), International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance—have widespread application in ASEAN (see Table 3).

The near universal application of these key MEAs in ASEAN countries demonstrates the region’s commitment to international environmental standards. It also establishes legal commitments to apply these MEAs when planning major economic development activities, including linear infrastructure.

TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Relevant to largescale linear infrastructure development, international environmental law requires that an EIA must be conducted for a project that is likely to have a significant transboundary environmental or social impact. This was codified in Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration 1992.64 The judgements of the International Court of Justice have reaffirmed this position. Assessment through EIA is a norm of international environmental law.65

ASEAN, unlike Europe, does not have a codified system for transboundary EIAs. However, the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention),66 adopted in 1991, applies to activities likely to significantly affect the

63  Adapted from USAID (2021) “Annex 3: Existing Capacity and Constraints to Undertake Wildlife-Friendly Linear Infrastructure in Asia”, Building a Foundation for Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia, p. 17-18.

64  Baird, M. (2020) (last accessed 1 July 2022)

65  Yang, T. (2019), p. 527

66  UNECE (n.d.) Environmental Assessment, https://unece.org/environment-policy/environmental-assessment (last accessed 19 September 2022).

Table 3: ASEAN Representation in Key MEAs63

CBD WHC CITES CMS IPPC ITPGRFA Ramsar

environment in other countries. The obligations under the Espoo Convention require the parties to take “all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce, and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities.”67

These obligations include requiring project level EIAs, notifying potentially affected countries, providing access to information to potentially affected parties, and allowing parties to comment and be informed on final decisions on projects. The Espoo Convention lists covered activities and provides a list of information that, at a minimum, should be included in an EIA. The Espoo Convention is important as it is based on international environmental law and provides access to information and the right to participate and be informed of potential adverse impacts from activities that may have a transboundary impact.68 The transboundary EIA procedures under the Espoo convention are depicted in Figure 7.

Confirmation of participation in application of convention

Transmittal of information

Preparation of EIA documentation

Distribution of EIA documentation for participation of authorities and public of affected Party

Consultation between parties

Final decision

Transmittal of final decision documentation

Post-project analysis

Public participation (may include one or more rounds)

The 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin (the Mekong River Agreement) is focused on sustainable development, use, conservation, and management of the water resources in the Mekong basin.70 It does not specifically refer to linear infrastructure projects and is concerned with water projects and water resources, but it does provide a framework for the transboundary impacts of development projects in the region. The key articles linking sustainability, development, and international cooperation in the Mekong River Agreement are reproduced in Box 4.

67 Espoo Convention, Article 2.

68 UNESCAP (2021), p. 13.

69 Ruza, S. (2010) “Presentation on Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991)”, Workshop on Multilateral Environmental Agreements Tirana, Albania, 22-24 June 2010

70 Preamble, Mekong Agreement. https://www.mrcmekong.org/publications/agreements/

Figure 7: Summary of the Transboundary EIA Procedures under the Espoo Convention69

Box 4: Mekong River Agreement provisions

ARTICLE 3. PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGICAL BALANCE

To protect the environment, natural resources, aquatic life and conditions, and ecological balance of the Mekong River Basin from pollution or other harmful effects resulting from any development plans and uses of water and related resources in the basin.

ARTICLE 4. SOVEREIGN EQUALITY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

To cooperate on the basis of sovereign equality and territorial integrity in the utilization and protection of the water resources of the Mekong river basin.

The Mekong River Agreement requires member countries to provide notification and have consultations with neighboring countries prior to making any commitments when projects may have transboundary impacts.71 The Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) adopted in 2003 further enhanced the requirements for prior consultations.

The PNPCA promotes better understanding and cooperation among the Mekong River Commission (MRC) member countries. The guiding principles of the PNPCA are:72

• sovereign equality and territorial integrity

• equitable and reasonable utilization

• respect for rights and legitimate interests

• good faith

• transparency

The PNPCA outlines the process for notification for any proposed use and requires it to be submitted to the MRC in a timely fashion. The notification should include any feasibility study report, implementation plan, and all available data. This notification and accompanying supporting documentation is then transmitted via the MRC Joint Committee to the National Mekong Committees (NMCs). For certain specific uses, prior consultation is required. The PNPCA provides for a transmission and consultation mechanism that includes both NMCs and relevant line ministries. Any member state may make a submission on the proposed use. These are then considered and reviewed by the MRC Joint Committee. The time frame for consideration of prior consultation is six months.

The MRC has conducted transboundary EIAs for some projects using a similar process for submission, consultation with affected stakeholders, and review and consideration.73 The MRC has also developed guidelines on transboundary EIA processes in line with the requirements of the PNPCA.74

71 Mekong River Commision, Frequently Asked Questions about MRC Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement process, https://www. mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/consultations/pnpca-prior-consultations/faqs-to-the-mrc-procedures-for-notification-prior-consultation-and-agreementprocess/

72 Mekong River Commission (2018) Guidelines for Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TbEIA) in the Lower Mekong River Basin: A Working Document, https://www.mrcmekong.org/resource/ajg6hp

73 https://www.mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/consultations/pnpca-prior-consultations/

74 Mekong River Commission (2018) Guidelines for Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TbEIA) in the Lower Mekong River Basin: A Working Document, https://www.mrcmekong.org/resource/ajg6hp

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS

Human rights and the environment are deeply intertwined; human rights impacts can flow from the failure of environmental governance and be a cause of environmental harm. At the same time, having a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has been formally recognized as a human right by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR)75 and the United Nations General Assembly,76 including its importance for safeguarding other human rights.

Three procedural rights recognized under international human rights law—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—are critical for effective environmental governance and support improved environmental outcomes.77 These procedural rights are also linked to substantive human rights, including the obligation of states to provide clean, healthy, and sustainable environments.78 Access to information is important for effective environmental governance because it:79

• Enables meaningful public participation in decision-making that affects the environment and communities;

• Strengthens decisions by increasing opportunities for communities to understand the basis for decisions and by enabling them to respond with additional relevant information;

• Strengthens decision-making and builds trust between decision-makers and communities;

• Supports transparency and accountability amongst decision-makers, which in turn reduces corruption and mismanagement of resources and thus increases opportunities for sustainable natural resource management;

• Ensures compliance with environmental regulations;

• Helps communities understand the legal obligations of private companies and build trust between communities and companies;

• Supports the watchdog function played by many CSOs.

Effective compliance and enforcement strategies include operational (or project) grievance mechanisms (OGMs) that are easily accessed by affected stakeholders, including workers and NGOs acting on behalf of nature. A project-based OGM is a mechanism established by the project proponent at the project level that can be used by affected people to address concerns and issues about the project.80 OGMs should seek to resolve concerns promptly, using a transparent consultative process that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible to the community. It should be at no cost or risk to the complainant and should not be seen as impeding access to judicial or administrative remedies.

75  Human Rights Council resolution, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, 48/13, A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1 (8 October 2021), available from https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/48/13.

76  UN General Assembly resolution, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/RES/76/300 (28 July 2022), available from https:// digitallibrary.un.org/record/3983329?ln=en.

77  WWF (2022) Access to Information in the Lower Mekong, forthcoming

78  Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/HRC/37/59 (24 January 2018), available at https://digitallibrary.un-.org/record/1474985?ln=en

79  WWF (2022) Access to Information in the Lower Mekong, forthcoming.

80  World Bank Environmental and Social Framework, World Bank, 2017, p. 11 and IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, IFC, 2012, p. 15

The growing discussion over the right to development and the need to protect the planet has led to the development of global approaches to business, human rights, and the

environment such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the UN Global Compact.

The UNGPs are a statement on the relationship between business and human rights, recognizing that while governments have the primary duty to protect and promote human rights, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. This responsibility is addressed by 31 non- binding principles relating to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights.

The UN Global Compact is a non-binding pact designed to encourage sustainable and socially responsible business practices. It incorporates ten principles covering human rights, labor, the environment, and anti-corruption, and is consistent with the UNGP (see Box 5). The principles are derived from various sources, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

Box 5: The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact

HUMAN RIGHTS

Principle 1: Support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights.

Principle 2: Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

LABOR

Principle 3: Uphold freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

Principle 4: Eliminate of all forms of forced and compulsory labor.

Principle 5: Abolish child labor.

Principle 6: Eliminate discrimination in respect to employment and occupation.

ENVIRONMENT

Principle 7: Support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges.

Principle 8: Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility.

Principle 9: Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.

ANTI-CORRUPTION

Principle 10: Work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

DOMESTIC LAWS

At the national level, approval processes for linear infrastructure development vary between jurisdictions and depend on the infrastructure type, location, and proponent. Most countries do not have a dedicated regulatory regime governing the development of major infrastructure, let alone linear infrastructure specifically. Instead, countries usually have a mix of regulatory tools that apply to various activities and developments, which capture certain phases of the linear infrastructure project development cycle.

EIA laws establish the primary project evaluation and approval processes throughout the ASEAN region. All ASEAN members states81 have adopted EIA legislation or procedures that incorporate EIA requirements for linear infrastructure projects.82 With some variations for local circumstances, the EIA processes adopted in ASEAN reflect the standard procedure recognized universally:83

• Screening

• Scoping and defining terms of reference

• Data collection by EIA consultants

• Preparation of draft EIA report

• Preparation of environmental management plans (EMP)

• Submission of EIA report

• Assessment of EIA report and EMP

• Approval of EIA report and EMP

• Issuing of environmental compliance certificates

• Approval of licenses or permits

• Commencement of project construction

• Commencement of project operations

• Monitoring and compliance with approval conditions and EMP

• Closure or completion of the project

Table 4 summarizes the elements of the EIA systems in the ASEAN member states. The green boxes reflect clear requirements in laws and policies, the yellow boxes reflect partial requirements (laws not directly related to EIA), and the grey boxes reflect the absence of laws or policies, with some of the transboundary EIA elements arising from membership in the MRC. 81  Note that Singapore does not have any specific EIA laws or regulation. Singapore does conduct EIA on an ad-hoc basis and has required EIA assessment and approval for linear infrastructure projects in the past. 82  UNESCAP (2021) Technical Report and Recommendations to Strengthen Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures in ASEAN 83  See EIA Guidelines for Business Project Development in ASEAN Economic

Reflects a clear requirement in the laws and policies

Reflects a partial requirement

Reflects an absencet in the laws and policies

MRC refers to the Mekong River Commission

In the last four years, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia have each amended their national EIA laws and procedures. Regulations and guidance manuals are also being updated, which provides an opportunity to include recommendations for amendment in the EIA process to strengthen and enhance its effectiveness.

In addition to EIA laws, the most common regulatory arrangements relevant to biodiversity, resilience, and inclusion that are applied in ASEAN are summarized in Table 5. Sector specific regulations may also apply, covering rural development, road or rail transportation, and energy. Such sector specific regulations may include design requirements or construction standards, as well as processes for public participation in planning and decision making.

Table 4: Summary of key elements of EIA arrangements in ASEAN member states 84

Regulatory area Relevance to linear infrastructure

Environmental impact assessment

Requires the assessment of potential risks of the project and identification of mitigation measures, with approval required prior to construction commencing

Land use planning Defines processes for identifying the types of development that can occur in a region, including zoning, and guiding decisions on land use

Land titling Establishes rules governing the nature of tenure that can be held over land, transfer of rights in land, and processes for the acquisition of land for public purposes

Forestry Governs logging activities in identified forests, including approval for logging to facilitate development activities

Protected areas Establishes processes for demarcating areas of land as protected from certain activities, including development, as well as for seeking approval for exemptions from these restrictions

Endangered species Identifies species at various degrees of risk of extinction and establishes rules for activities that may impact on such species

Water resources management

Governs access to the use of water resources and authorizes the discharge of pollutants into water resources

Disaster risk management Defines disaster risk management systems, which can include requirements or links to construction standards

Access to information Defines rules for the public dissemination of certain information and processes for individuals to seek access to information held by government agencies—this could relate to information about proposed, planned or operational linear infrastructure

Project cycle phase

Project design and financing—EIA approval point comes prior to project proceeding to construction phase EMPs and other conditions of the EIA approval must be complied with through construction, operation, and decommissioning

Strategic planning

Strategic planning; project prioritization and selection; project design and financing; construction

Project design and financing; construction; operation and maintenance

Strategic planning; project prioritization and selection; project design and financing; construction

Project design and financing; construction; operation and maintenance

Project design and financing; construction; operation and maintenance

Project design and financing; construction; operation and maintenance

Strategic planning; project prioritization and selection; project design and financing; construction; operation and maintenance

Table 5: Regulations relating to resilience and inclusion relevant to linear infrastructure development

The application of these regulations and their sequencing varies throughout ASEAN. One consistent point, however, is that an EIA must be approved before a project proposal proceeds to implementation (i.e., before the construction phase commences).

Table 5 shows that most regulations that apply to linear infrastructure development in ASEAN become relevant at the project design and financing, construction, and operation and maintenance phases. They generally relate to specific controls on activities. Land use planning is an area of regulation that is particularly relevant at the strategic planning stage, but in practice is seldom adhered to; detailed strategic plans that clearly identify areas that are or are not appropriate and prioritized for linear infrastructure development are seldom implemented. Land use planning primarily governs zoning the types of development that can be undertaken in urban and peri-urban areas.

The Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity, prepared by the ASEAN Secretariat in October 2020 under the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 (MPAC), acknowledges the need for improved strategic, landscape-level planning and decision-making processes for linear infrastructure. ASEAN leaders adopted MPAC 2025 in September 2016 with the vision “to achieve a seamlessly and comprehensively connected and integrated ASEAN that will promote competitiveness, inclusiveness, and a greater sense of community.”85 The Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity recognizes that “new infrastructure projects are being delivered in fast-tracked programs as governments focus on enhancing infrastructure development quickly.”86 In response to this, the framework states that appropriate strategic planning is needed to identify projects that should be undertaken and prioritized, and the trade-offs that are involved in those decisions.87

NON-REGULATORY MEASURES

A wide variety of non-regulatory measures (i.e., those that are not required by the host government’s laws) support improved environmental and social outcomes of linear infrastructure development. Many of these measures are applied to different stages and types of linear infrastructure development around the world, including ASEAN. A proponent or finance institution may apply these measures as part of standard methodologies or due to the nature of the project proposal.

Table 6 provides a summary of some of the mechanisms that apply to linear infrastructure development within ASEAN and demonstrates the variability in the mechanisms and how they might apply directly or indirectly to linear infrastructure projects. The summary also highlights the fact that there is little coordination between these mechanisms and the existing legal framework for linear infrastructure development.

Project proponents and financial institutions also employ a wide range of tools and methodologies during the project design and financing stage of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle. Many of these methodologies strengthen sustainability, resilience, and inclusivity factors at this stage and involve certification possibilities, which can be used to support project proponents’ and financial institutions’ efforts and reporting on

85 ASEAN Secretariat (2017) Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025, p. 7.

86 ASEAN Secretariat (2020) Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity, p. 14.

87 ASEAN Secretariat (2020) Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity, p. 14.

ESG investing. The Sustainable Infrastructure Tool Navigator (https://sustainable-infrastructuretools.org/) is a comprehensive, publicly accessible website dedicated to collating and making accessible many of these tools. This study does not analyze these tools in any detail88 or recommend the adoption of particular tools, but rather is concerned with how ESG investing intersects with the regulatory processes governing the development of linear infrastructure, as discussed in the following section.

Figure 8 provides a summary of the main regulatory and non-regulatory measures that support sustainability outcomes and currently apply to linear infrastructure development in ASEAN.

Table 6: Key tools for building resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure

Tool Relevance to building resilience and inclusivity

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

National-level plans set strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation, which should in turn establish a national context and expectations for the resilience of major infrastructure.

SEA considers environmental effects of proposed strategic actions and provides early warning of cumulative effects and largescale changes, thereby integrating the environment into sector-specific decision-making. Contemporary approaches to SEA emphasize inclusivity and enable broader consideration (in terms of geographic and temporal scale) of the climate resilience implications of multiple linear infrastructure projects.

Ecological corridor planning

Planning for ecological connectivity can maximize biological diversity conservation and, therefore, increase resilience from ecosystem services. Such planning is particularly relevant for both existing and future linear infrastructure.

Multi-hazard risk and vulnerability assessments

Involves the identification of areas prone to various hazards to support planning and decision making on strategies, projects, and mitigation measures that maintain and strengthen resilience. Vulnerability assessments ensure that resilience is understood as a function of the climate risks and the local community circumstances, and therefore strengthens inclusive approaches to decision making.

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)

Multilateral development bank environmental and social safeguards

Nature-based solutions

Following FPIC principles is a way of ensuring that there is meaningful participation of key stakeholders in the linear infrastructure project development lifecycle.

Safeguards policies provide a framework for considering the needs of communities and climate resilience, inter alia, in projects funded and supported by multilateral development banks.

Nature-based solutions incorporate natural features or processes into projects or interventions as alternatives to traditional infrastructure. They inherently promote resilience and inclusivity.

#

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE STANDARDS

Financing and operational organizations are using environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing to strengthen the sustainability of infrastructure. ESG investing is broadly understood as “an approach that seeks to incorporate environmental, social, and [corporate] governance factors into asset allocation and risk decisions, so as to generate sustainable, long-term financial returns.”89 While there is limited clarity and consensus around what ESG investing means in practical terms, it is commonly used as a framework for reporting and disclosing information on how enterprises incorporate these factors in their processes and decision-making, as well as on how financial institutions consider these factors when making investment decisions. The IFC has summarized the ESG factors, and examples of common issues under each factor, in the diagram replicated in Figure 9.

The IFC has also released ESG standards that comprise its existing performance standards, which define clients’ responsibilities for managing their environmental and social risks, and the Corporate Governance Methodology, which sets out an approach to evaluate and improve the corporate governance of clients.90

ASEAN member states are also developing guidance for ESG investing. There are also important developments in ESG investing arising from within ASEAN. The stock exchanges in six of the ASEAN member states have issued guidance for listed companies on reporting ESG factors:91

Figure 8: Current regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to considering sustainability in linear infrastructure development

* Includes due diligence, sustainability reporting, etc.

Steps include project planning, concept design, financing, procurement, and detailed design ^ Vary with project type and location (e.g. protected areas; endangered species; forestry)

• The Indonesia Stock Exchange has issued the Application of Sustainable Finance for Financial Services Institutions, Issuers and Public Companies (2017)

• Bursa Malaysia has issued the Sustainability Reporting Guide (2020)

• The Philippine Stock Exchange has issued the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines for Publicly Listed Companies (2019)

• The Singapore Exchange has issued the Sustainability Reporting Guide (2018)

• The Stock Exchange of Thailand has issued Guidelines for the preparation of sustainability reports (2012)

• The Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange, Vietnam, has issued the Environmental and Social Disclosure Guide (2016)

In December 2020, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) adopted guidelines on environmental risk management for banks.92 In 2022, the managing director of the MAS, Mr. Ravi Menon, was appointed the chair of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) which now includes over 100 central banks. The NGSF Glasgow Declaration, released at the UNFCCC COP26 in November 2021, stated: “In light of the urgency and seriousness of climate change and environmental issues, we will expand and strengthen our collective efforts to improve the resilience of the financial system to climate-related and environmental risks and encourage the scaling up of the financing flows needed to support the transition towards a sustainable economy.” 93

A lone Asian elephant walks along a road in the forest in Kui Buri National Park in Thailand’s Prachuap Kiri Khan Province. June 2015

Photo by Luke Duggleby / WWF-US

Environmental

Businesses rely on natural resources and physical assets to perform their operations. Products and services may directly or indirectly impact the environment.

• Climate change

• Carbon management

• Resource depletion

• Pollution

• Energy consumption

• Land use

Social

• Loss of biodiversity

• Water consumption

• Waste management

• Innovations or products or services that reduce environmental impact

To conduct their operations, companies harness the talent and skills of their employees. Products and services, and operating activities involved in production, may benefit society or cause harm.

• Job creation and working conditions

• Equal opportunity

• Diversity

• Training

• Impacts on local communities

• Health and safety

Governance

• Child and forced labor across supply chains

• Grievance mechanisms

• Human rights

• Social impact of products, services, or company operations

• Gender-based violence and harassment

When making decisions and allocating their natural, human and financial resources, companies should consider how they will create long-term value that will benefit all stakeholders.

• Purpose, values and culture

• Board diversity, structure and oversight

• Succession planning

• Executive pay

• Internal controls

• Risk governance

• Ethics and compliance

• Shareholder rights

• Governance of stakeholder engagement

• Disclosure and transparency

Figure 9: ESG factors for companies and investors

Although ESG is not explicitly mentioned in the ASEAN Vision 2025, commitments in the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Chapter support key ESG factors. The aim of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community is to “be one that engages and benefits the peoples, and is inclusive, sustainable, resilient, and dynamic.”95 This will be achieved by good governance (12.1), promotion and protection of human rights (12.2), environmental protection and intergenerational equity (12.3), climate change and disaster risk resilience (12.4), and promotion of innovation and global connectivity (12.5). Moreover, the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) is working to foster sustainable finance for long-standing development in the region. While developing the ASEAN Sustainability Bond Standards, ACMF published a Roadmap for ASEAN Sustainable Capital Markets. As one of its top priorities, the roadmap highlights that “ASEAN countries need to adopt consistent measures to increase the transparency and comparability of reporting in promoting sustainability.”96

The growth of ESG investing provides opportunities for the formal inclusion of ESG criteria in the linear infrastructure project lifecycle. Importantly, these criteria can be used to promote inclusivity and resilience in the funding analysis, rather than a more traditional down-stream consideration of environmental and social safeguards.

Ranger on bike patrol, Cambodia. March 2017

Photo by Ranjan Ramchandani / WWF

RESILIENT AND INCLUSIVE LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE FOR A HOLISTIC MODEL

The premise of the proposed holistic model is that the current approach to developing linear infrastructure in the ASEAN region cannot ensure the effective consideration of resilience and inclusivity for two interrelated reasons:

1. The lack of a clear overarching regulatory framework that begins at the upstream stages covering system planning and project identification and continues to individual project development, means that 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. This often comes too late in the linear infrastructure project lifecycle to avoid significant impacts while expecting EIAs to go beyond their purpose in terms of building resilience and inclusivity.

These issues form the basis for the proposed integrated regulatory model for the holistic planning, design, and construction of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure. They are also consistent with the findings of a recent WWF analysis, Visioning Futures, which categorized the lack of progress in shifting investments towards climate resilient and sustainable infrastructure into three overarching causes:97

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 causes is a disconnect between the project-based, or “downstream” mechanisms and the “upstream” considerations about the long-term infrastructure, community, and environmental needs of a region. As a result, EIAs are overused as risk management tools. The analysis of this upstream-downstream disconnect is based on an understanding of the approach to project development in ASEAN, including the authors’ practical experience in advising governments on major project investment and environmental assessment procedures.

LACK OF A COORDINATED APPROACH TO DESIGNING FOR RESILIENCE AND INCLUSIVITY

As can be seen by Figure 8 and the more detailed discussion above, various regulatory requirements and non-regulatory tools that strengthen resilience and inclusivity apply to linear infrastructure development in the ASEAN region. These tools, however, largely operate independently of each other as they were adopted to address specific public policy objectives that apply to economic development projects, including linear infrastructure. This is especially the case for the regulatory requirements, which largely focus on natural resource management and environmental conservation. They are not applied in a coordinated manner that:

1. establishes long-term linear infrastructure needs, including from the perspective of local communities;

2. incorporates strategic considerations that apply across a landscape, including the implications of climate change, disaster risks, and ecosystem services;

3. identifies regions (or potential routes) appropriate (or inappropriate) for linear infrastructure for environmental or social reasons;

4. establishes clear criteria for resilience and inclusivity in infrastructure development;

5. provides a framework whereby a project can be proposed and selected in the context of these regional, developmental objectives and followed through the design, approval, and construction stages (i.e., covers both the upstream and downstream stages of the linear infrastructure project cycle).

The scale of linear infrastructure projects and the extent of their potential impacts demands a more structured approach that incorporates these issues as early as possible and throughout the project lifecycle.

While many tools may be applied to support evaluations of the sustainability, resilience, and inclusivity of specific projects, these are not regulated or applied consistently within the ASEAN region and do not provide certainty for stakeholders. For example, even

where efforts are made to consider nature-based solutions, these often occur at a stage when significant design decisions have already been made and it is too late to be effective in supporting resilience.98 Similarly, technical assistance programs designed to improve environmental or social outcomes of infrastructure development often focus on individual project-level interventions.99

To be effective, such tools need to be applied in a landscape-level context for selection, planning, and design decisions. It is insufficient to consider individual projects in isolation, and it is too late to consider the broader siting implications at the project selection stage It is also insufficient to rely on proponents and financial institutions taking of voluntary measures or undertaking upstream strategic planning. A structured and integrated regulatory framework is necessary for broadscale, landscape-level planning to be appropriate and effectively linked to individual project selection and design decisions.

As noted above, SEAs are employed to consider the upstream phases of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle (including project selection and route planning) when a strategic plan at the landscape level is absent. However, studies of SEAs applied to linear infrastructure show that they still fail to deliver sufficient integration of environmental, social, and economic considerations—including impacts on ecosystem services—to properly evaluate route options across an appropriate spatial scale.100 One key reason is that the SEAs are often initiated in response to proposals for particular projects, or to address one strategic consideration (e.g., biodiversity impacts), rather than starting with the objective of developing a clear vision for the development trajectory for a region.

A truck loaded with acacia leaves a plantation. Phu Loc district, Vietnam. April 2017

Photo by James Morgan / WWF

Developing a strategic vision is inherently the responsibility of governments, requiring coordination across multiple agencies and involving the input of all stakeholders. While there are some innovative academic tools for “comprehensive and spatial-sensitive linear infrastructure route planning,” the priority should be ensuring government ownership and formalizing processes through clear regulatory requirements—the exact tools employed to undertake the planning process should then be selected within this regulatory framework and according to local circumstances. Without a clear requirement for landscape-level planning for linear infrastructure development, project proponents are not obliged to consider risks and potential impacts as part of the upstream project prioritization and selection. Rather, upstream planning only involves pre-feasibility and other assessments that focus on the financial viability of potential projects. In ASEAN, this stage includes discussions between project proponents and financial institutions—often multilateral development banks—which may trigger corporate due diligence processes or lender safeguard policies. However, 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.

Some jurisdictions encourage private investment in major infrastructure projects by establishing project banks. Project banks are essentially a repository of projects that are seen as necessary by governments and that require financing (whether from, or in partnership with, the private sector, multilateral development banks, or other sources).

Often, these projects will pass through some form of business case development and prioritization, indicating that the proposal has already progressed to the detailed design and financing phase, before they are entered into the project bank. However, this does not ensure any strategic planning or that the proponent assessed landscape- or sector-wide needs and potential impacts.

The absence of a coordinated approach to the planning, design and implementation of linear infrastructure projects, including any upstream consideration of strategic issues related to resilience and inclusivity, results in an unreasonable over-reliance on EIAs.

OVER-RELIANCE ON EIAS

The EIA is the primary tool used in the region to apply environmental and social safeguards to linear infrastructure proposals. While the EIA is an internationally recognized and important tool for risk assessment and management, and a critical element of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle, it has become, in many cases, the only safeguard mechanism used because there is no structured and coordinated system that goes throughout the project lifecycle. In particular, as discussed above, no clear requirements are in place to consider potential impacts of projects at the upstream stage of project selection and prioritization.

The purpose of EIA is to estimate and assess potential impacts of projects before they are approved, with a view to ensuring that, if approved, they are undertaken in ways that avoid, mitigate, or remediate negative impacts. EIAs should consider the cumulative impacts of the proposal, taking account of other developments in the region, and evaluate alternative

options, including the option of not proceeding with the project. An EIA also forms the basis for project approval and the recommendations from EIA reports are usually included in some form of environmental approval or permit. The EIA recommendations and approval conditions will also form the basis of the EMP that governs implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for the project.

However, the reliance on EIAs as the primary safeguard mechanism applied to linear infrastructure has some critical shortcomings and ultimately undermines the integrity of the EIA process (see Box 6 for a summary of some of the practical experiences contributing to this analysis):

• An EIA responds to a specific project proposal and is therefore reactive—it cannot consider the holistic development needs of a region.

• EIAs are generally undertaken at a stage in the project cycle when significant decisions and investments have already been made, which makes it difficult for EIAs to result in significant changes such as infrastructure location or alignment, let alone decisions to not proceed with the project. In these cases, the mitigation hierarchy cannot be applied because the options to avoid major impacts were design decisions that have already been made. EIAs will therefore often argue that avoidance of major impacts (or even a “no-go” project option) is not viable.

• EIAs are often undertaken in the absence of broader contextual information or regional plans, which precludes an EIA from assessing the potential cumulative impacts of the project.

• EIAs are often poorly conducted and then reviewed by government departments with limited capacity to restrain proponents from commencing construction prior to complete technical assessment and approval. These challenges are exacerbated by the points previously listed and lead to the expectation that EIAs address strategic issues that are beyond their scope or to justifying tokenistic approaches to the application of the mitigation hierarchy.

The critical role of EIAs should instead be recognized and supported by ensuring complementary measures are also in place. Ultimately, reliance on any one tool is insufficient—developing sustainable, resilient, and inclusive infrastructure requires a combination of participatory planning that takes account of future climate scenarios, community infrastructure and development needs, and the application of project-specific safeguards.

Box 6: Insights from EIA capacity-building in Myanmar

Between 2015 and 2020, the author of this report organized and delivered an extensive package of EIA trainings in Myanmar. These capacity-building activities were supported by and delivered through a range of organizations, including Vermont Law School, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung), Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF, UNDP, ADB, and the IFC, and thus drew on a broad range of perspectives and expertise.

The activities included: training for government staff on EIA fundamentals; training for local EIA practitioners on Myanmar’s EIA framework and international good practice; introductory EIA workshops for local civil society organizations and environmental lawyers; and EIA review clinics involving one-on-one, hands-on assistance for government staff responsible for reviewing EIA reports.

Through these capacity-building activities, particularly the EIA review clinics, the author received an unprecedented level of access to EIA reports submitted to the Myanmar government seeking approval for project proposals, including major linear infrastructure projects.

Key insights into the practice—and constraints—of the EIA process contribute to the analysis in this report.

PROPOSED HOLISTIC MODEL: OVERVIEW

A holistic regulatory model that better integrates the upstream and downstream consideration of infrastructure needs and risks will address key weaknesses in the current approaches to linear infrastructure development in ASEAN. Guidance issued by ASEAN itself on the standards expected for key issues involved in major economic development activities in the region (such as public participation and transboundary planning and impact assessment) would further the development and implementation of the model. The proposed holistic regulatory model also anticipates that project proponents and financial institutions will continue to strengthen ESG approaches and incorporate many of the regulatory tools recommended below into corporate environmental management systems.

The proposed model builds upon the Visioning Futures paper recommendation to:101

Expand and develop national regulatory frameworks enshrining holistic consideration of natural capital, ecosystem services, and climate risks in national policies, laws, and regulations governing spatial or strategic planning processes, including procurement requirements, whether driven by large-scale infrastructure investments or otherwise.

101 Bartlett (2019), p. 53.

The core elements of the proposed holistic regulatory model (depicted in Figure 10) are:

1. Strategic landscape planning that incorporates

a. long-term socio-economic development objectives (including the SDGs) that drive linear infrastructure needs;

b. medium and long-term climate projections, including multi-hazard risk assessments and vulnerability analyses, to support understandings of resilience in the landscape;

c. NDCs and other climate change strategies applicable in the landscape

d. clearly identified ecosystems and the services they provide, with links to applicable biodiversity strategies;

e. guidance on the relative suitability of locations and corridors for linear infrastructure development (including clear “no build” designations).

2. Pre-screening (with clear guidance) of potential linear infrastructure projects to consider their appropriateness in the context of the landscape plan, as well as specific environmental and social risks.

3. The integration of ESG and other financial risk tools, including due diligence and risk assessment, to cost potential linear infrastructure projects more effectively.

4. Linking EIAs to the landscape plan to ensure adequate consideration of potential cumulative impacts.

5. Establishing standard conditions for any approved EIAs to strengthen resilience and inclusivity outcomes.

6. Clear requirements for public participation, access to information, and access to grievance mechanisms and remedies throughout the process.

7. An interface with other relevant regulations, including national planning arrangements, protected areas and natural resource management laws.

STRATEGIC LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR LINEAR

Incorporating NDCs, protected areas, vulnerability and multi-hazard risk assessments, socio-economic development plans, NRM plans

Identifying areas and corridors as:

- Suitable

- Unsuitable

- Requiring case-by-case assessment

KEY PRINCIPLES APPLYING CONSISTENTLY ACROSS PHASES

• Precautionary principle

• Access to information

• Public participation

• Long-term climate resilience

• Nature positive development

• Inclusivity

• Rights of Indigenous Peoples

• EPIC

• Gender mainstreaming

As depicted in Figure 10, the proposed regulatory model requires that each linear infrastructure project be developed in response to strategic planning undertaken at the landscape level. This approach sees strategic decisions made at the landscape level flow through all phases of individual linear infrastructure projects and ensures that projects are considered in relation to each other rather than in isolation.

The approach follows a logical stepped process, screening out projects that should not be pursued on various grounds prior to the EIA stage. The holistic model is consistent with due diligence and risk assessments as outlined in the OECD Guidelines 2011 and with the approach adopted by PRC to “Greening the BRI.” Figure 11 illustrates how the proposed model narrows the risks of linear infrastructure development through systematic considerations.

Figure 10: Depiction of holistic framework for linear infrastructure development

There are multiple advantages of to using regulatory measures to establish the proposed holistic model:

• A regulatory approach ensures that the holistic model has a legal basis for requiring coordination between the upstream and downstream phases and provides clarity for all stakeholders. This includes ensuring strategic considerations around climate risks, ecosystem services, and local community needs are formally integrated into linear infrastructure system planning and followed through into individual project selection and design. It also includes establishing principles that would apply consistently across all phases of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle.

• The requirement for strategic planning at the landscape level provides clarity for communities, developers, and financial institutions about where particular types of linear infrastructure can be developed in the future. In combination with requirements for pre-screening risks, this streamlines project identification and selection stages, thereby reducing costs and risk for project proponents and financial institutions. This approach to planning and pre-screening also facilitates creating a project bank where proponents can view projects that governments and communities have identified as priorities.

• A structured regulatory approach enables coordination of linear infrastructure planning and development with existing regulatory measures such as protected area management. Currently, overlapping measures are not clearly identified or documented and can be cumbersome for all stakeholders to navigate.

• Public participation is enhanced across the various stages of the project lifecycle, leading to more inclusive approaches and outcomes. In conjunction with the clarity a regulatory model establishes for monitoring and enforcement of various obligations, the model also provides a clear basis for structuring grievance mechanisms and providing avenues to access to justice.

Figure 11: Narrowing of risks through systematic consideration

Early and systematic consideration of risks and impacts

Continuous refinement of key issues and risks

Scope out issues and potential impacts through avoidance

Increasing attention on risk management

Reduced financial and reputational risk

Better outcomes

Pre-feasibility screening round 1

Pre-feasibility screening round 2

A holistic regulatory model does not demand entirely new laws or identical laws across ASEAN. Rather, the model simply brings together and builds on a jurisdiction’s existing laws and regulations to guide the application of these regulations to linear infrastructure projects. . For example, existing national laws on planning can be strengthened with

Strategic landscape-level planning for linear infrastructure

EIA

guidelines that require mapping of corridors or eco-sensitive zones, to help delineate areas as appropriate and inappropriate for infrastructure development. There would be significant advantages to consistent approaches between ASEAN member states, including:

• Sending clear and consistent messages to investors;

• Supporting due diligence and risk assessment in planning and investment decisions;

• Facilitating transboundary projects and linking projects across national borders;

• Enabling experience sharing and collaborative development of implementation tools and mechanisms.

Adopting the proposed approach does not to elevate the requirements applying to linear infrastructure over other major development projects through a dedicated set of arrangements; many of the issues relevant to developing resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure are pertinent to other types of infrastructure, while the underlying principles and ideas of strategic landscape-level planning for major projects can be broadly adopted. In this context, the proposed regulatory model and tools could be readily expanded to apply to other sectors.

Annex 3 summarizes recommendations for to establishing this holistic model with the main components discussed in further detail in the following sections. These more detailed sections also include practical recommendations and tools that can be employed by both policymakers and advocates to prepare for implementation of a holistic model. The discussion also addresses the potential role of ASEAN in supporting regional consistency in approaches.

KEY PRINCIPLES

Important principles of sustainable development underpin the proposed holistic model, many of which arose from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 and have become core principles of environmental law around the world. These principles are included in national laws and intergovernmental agreements on environment and development.

The principles that are considered critical to the development of resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure in ASEAN, and which should be explicitly incorporated into the proposed regulatory framework, are:

• Meaningful public participation, including access to information

• Rights of Indigenous Peoples and principles of FPIC

• Inclusivity and a gender lens

• The precautionary principle

• Inter-generational equity, including long-term climate resilience

• Nature positive development

MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Meaningful public participation in decision-making—supported by access to information— is a procedural human right and is critical for effective environmental governance.102 In recent years, extensive work has been undertaken in the ASEAN region to articulate the key elements of meaningful public participation and provide guidance for its application in EIA processes:

• Governments and CSO representatives from the five lower Mekong countries worked together in a multi-stakeholder process to prepare Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Mekong Region.

• Governments of Cambodia and Myanmar prepared draft national guidelines on public participation in EIA processes.

• United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in support the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, created the Technical Report and Recommendations to Strengthen Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures in ASEAN.

While these guidelines focus on EIA processes, the principles and approach are applicable to the proposed holistic model. The Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Mekong Region, in particular, provide detailed guidance that could be drawn upon for linear infrastructure project proposals.

Ensuring that public participation is meaningful and contributes to inclusivity outcomes requires a structured approach that includes coordinating public participation during the project lifecycle and establishing clear processes for information disclosure and rights to access information. It should also make appropriate grievance and resolution mechanisms available at all stages.

A more coordinated approach to public participation across the entire linear infrastructure development project lifecycle will address the frequent conflicts that arise between civil society and governments or developers when public participation is invited only at the later stages of the project cycle and information is not disclosed throughout the project.103

RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND FPIC

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples104 recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have specific rights that should be respected, including through the application of the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) principle. It aims to provide Indigenous Peoples with self-determination over their lives, lands, and resources, including regarding decisions on development projects that might affect them.

FPIC provides for a meaningful process of public participation with Indigenous Peoples by respecting their decision-making procedures. It results in either a final agreement about the conditions under which a proposed project would be accepted or a clear opinion that consent for the proposal is withheld.

102 WWF (2022) Access to Information in the Lower Mekong, forthcoming.

103 Bartlett (2019), p. 19.

104 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, October 2, 2007, A/ RES/61/295. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Applying FPIC is particularly relevant for proposed projects that may significantly impact Indigenous Peoples, including where the project:

• Would be located on, transect, or provide access to lands traditionally owned by, or under the customary use of, Indigenous Peoples;

• Could involve relocating Indigenous Peoples from their lands or restricting their use of natural resources;

• Effect the cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples.

INCLUSIVITY AND THE GENDER LENS

Inclusivity is at the heart of this model, with its emphasis on ensuring that linear infrastructure projects deliver benefits to the people and communities potentially affected by those projects. Recognizing inclusivity, and the need to apply a gender lens as a key principle of linear infrastructure development processes, is an important step in ensuring these considerations are translated into practice.

There are three key aspects of this principle:

1. Identifying the needs and aspirations of local communities living in proximity to proposed linear infrastructure projects and incorporating these into all stages of the planning, design, and decision-making processes—this includes communities that might be connected or bypassed by such projects, and recognizes that there will be diverse views within and between communities.

2. Applying a gender lens to considering these needs and aspirations, as well as to public participation processes, by addressing barriers to participation, ensuring that the voices of women and girls are heard, and considering the gendered impacts of development projects. Application of this principle implicitly recognizes that women and girls may have different needs, perspectives, and concerns to men, who continue to dominate formal and informal decision-making roles in the region.

3. Ensuring special consideration of historically marginalized and vulnerable groups, and any needs they may have, to maximize their ability to participate when identifying stakeholders and potential impacts of proposed projects. This includes facilitating the participation of diverse ethnic groups, people who use non-dominant languages or dialects, people with disabilities, those below the poverty line, the landless, and children and the elderly.

Establishing inclusivity and applying a gender lens is relevant at all stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The precautionary principle states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 105 The application of this principle is core to the mitigation hierarchy, effective EIA systems, and the proposed holistic model. In practice, applying the precautionary principle means that public and private decisions are guided by:

• careful evaluation to avoid—as a priority and wherever practicable—serious or irreversible damage to the environment;

• an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

The precautionary principle has also been incorporated into the United Nations Global Compact, which states:

“Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges.”106

INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY, INCLUDING LONG-TERM CLIMATE RESILIENCE

The principle of intergenerational equity provides that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity, and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. This requires considering the potential long-term impacts of a proposed activity or project, including project operations and maintenance, decommissioning, and site decontamination. This principle is particularly relevant to major linear infrastructure projects that are anticipated to have long lifespans and could have significant negative impacts—direct, indirect, and cumulative—if not properly planned and designed.

NATURE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Nature positive development is the contemporary approach to responding to the deterioration in planetary health resulting from biodiversity loss and climate change. It supports resilience by reversing biodiversity loss and requiring development activities to contribute to a global increase in the health of natural processes, ecosystems, and species. The concept of nature positive development recognizes that nature is both intrinsically important and a key element of global processes—climate, weather, hydrology, and chemistry—that drive biodiversity, which itself is the basis for human well-being.107

LANDSCAPE-LEVEL PLANNING

Adopting a regulated approach to landscape-level strategic planning for linear infrastructure is central to the proposed holistic model; strategic planning provides context for individual project-level design decisions and long-term development in the region.

Given the significance of this process and the inherent links to broader national socioeconomic development planning, the regulations should assign national-level government responsibility for the planning process. A responsible government agency needs to be identified, considering local institutional arrangements. It should be a central agency with considerable intragovernmental influence and the ability to convene multiple stakeholders, ideally an agency with central planning responsibilities rather than a sector-specific ministry responsible for linear infrastructure (e.g., transport or energy ministries).

106 UN Global Compact (n.d.) The Ten Principles, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is- gc/mission/principles (last accessed 11 September 2022).

The objectives of the planning process should be clearly articulated, both in the regulations and in all communication with internal and external stakeholders. The objectives should include, at a minimum, producing a clear plan that:

• identifies priorities for linear infrastructure development for a defined region in the medium and long-terms;

• identifies areas of land, or “planning corridors,” deemed suitable, unsuitable, or requiring further investigation for linear infrastructure development;

• provides clear guidance for developers and communities about the type and location of anticipated linear infrastructure development. Identifying planning corridors should prioritize development in previously developed areas and areas with existing infrastructure. These corridors could also include conditions for development that may be undertaken in identified locations, such as requiring coastal corridors to include nature-based solution buffers to build resilience. The plan may generate maps for different locations, scales, and timeframes.

The regulations should also outline the planning process. This includes requiring participatory processes involving multiple stakeholders and articulating decision-making processes, including decision-making responsibilities and how any trade-offs between competing objectives or interests should be made, documented, and communicated. The regulations should also include clear arrangements for periodic reviews and updates on the planning outcomes.

The planning process should incorporate all information relevant to making considered decisions around a region’s linear infrastructure needs and constraints. This includes all available socio-economic, climate, environmental, and land use information (see Figure 12), recognizing that information may be held in varying forms and by different entities. The regulations should articulate the minimum inputs required to incorporate resilience and inclusivity considerations into the planning process, including:

• existing linear infrastructure, along with projected lifespans and anticipated upgrade needs;

• medium and long-term climate projections;

• multi-hazard risk assessments;

• vulnerability analyses;

• NDCs and other adopted climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies;

• land tenure maps, including identifying areas under customary land use and customary tenure;

• key biodiversity areas (KBAs) and other important ecosystem services;

• commitments under multilateral environmental agreements;

• population projections;

• social and economic development objectives;

• community development needs and expectations related to linear infrastructure (both direct and indirect).

The planning process (see Figure 12) should explore different scenarios for the landscape, including “no development” options, to assess the relative impacts of various approaches to meeting the anticipated linear infrastructure needs and to properly consider the potential cumulative impacts of development within the region.

Socio-economic development objectives

• National and subnational development plans

• Population projections

• Community expectations

• Transboundary connectivity

Climate projections and disaster risks

• Medium and long-term forecasts

• NDCs

• Multi-hazard risk assessments

• Vulnerability analyses

Ecosystems and services

• KBAs

• Watershed flow data

• National biodiversity strategies

• Protected areas

Land use and tenure

• Land classification and tenure maps

• Existing linear infrastructure requiring upgrades

As part of establishing the participatory, multi-stakeholder planning process, the regulations should also formally recognize the role that CSOs can play in identifying and articulating community needs, concerns, and aspirations.

Public participation within the planning process also needs to be clearly articulated. At a minimum, draft versions of the plans should be released for consultation, including through targeted engagement with key stakeholder representatives and opportunities for broader public input. A summary report should be prepared and publicized that documents the planning process, including its objectives, inputs, decisions made, and consultations undertaken.

While the objective of national linear infrastructure planning arrangements is to create a national plan, transboundary issues cannot be overlooked and will require consideration when establishing the planning framework. Transboundary issues arise in relation to linear infrastructure—both individual and networked projects—that crosses international borders. This is particularly relevant in the ASEAN region where there is growing interconnectedness between countries. More conceptually, however, a landscape approach to strategic planning is more concerned with biophysical features than political boundaries. A comprehensive analysis of resilience in a landscape may include ecosystems and ecosystem services that cover two or more countries. As such, a transboundary approach to landscape planning for linear infrastructure requires coordination and data sharing with neighboring countries and public participation processes that engage with international stakeholders.

ASEAN can play a critical role in supporting the implementation of a landscape-level

Figure 12: Strategic landscape planning for linear infrastructure—inputs

planning approach that transcends national borders. Such support could range from setting standards and expectations about processes, to providing avenues for sharing experiences about good practices for considering resilience across national boundaries or creating formal mechanisms for transboundary planning. ASEAN’s contribution may be dedicated guidance on processes for addressing transboundary considerations in linear infrastructure planning or as part of broader ASEAN-wide arrangements under consideration for EIA and public participation in a transboundary context.

Many models of landscape, spatial, and natural resources planning, including those within ASEAN, can provide a template for regulations needed to facilitate the planning process and obtain inputs. Depending on the circumstances, jurisdictions may decide to employ or amend existing planning regulations, but such an approach must ensure that there is a planning obligation that focuses on linear infrastructure within the landscape.

Time is required to transition to a fully planned approach to linear infrastructure development—including drafting and adopting the regulatory framework and preparing the landscape plans themselves. Accordingly, arrangements may be needed to address situations where a plan has not been finalized for a given landscape. Formalizing the role of SEAs can bridge this gap. A SEA could be conducted in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances and particular needs. For example:

1. A sectoral agency is considering development in a region lacking an overall landscape plan (e.g., energy sector transmission upgrades). In such a case, the agency could facilitate an inter-ministerial strategic assessment of that type of linear infrastructure, emphasizing the potential cumulative impacts of various development scenarios. Such an SEA would become an important input into subsequent broader strategic landscape planning undertaken, while providing a nearer-term basis for evaluating individual project proposals.

2. A proponent or financial institution is considering a specific linear infrastructure project for a region lacking a landscape plan. In this case, the proponent could undertake a strategic assessment on the need for the project in advance of (and to inform) detailed design and financing. Such an assessment would consider the same landscape-level issues identified above, including considering the project in relation to existing and planned projects, but would emphasize an evaluation of the need for the project and how those needs might be delivered (i.e., without prior determinations of project form, location, and alignment).

3. A package of economic development activities may be proposed for a region as part of official development assistance (ODA) or foreign direct investment (FDI), including activities under the BRI. An example of this might be a planned special economic zone with new or upgraded transport links and energy supplies. In such a case, the host government might require the foreign government to fund a SEA to consider the entire package of activities—both those initially proposed and any that may be expected to arise because of the initial investments. Such an assessment would ensure a holistic and cumulative assessment of the projects, which might otherwise only be subject to individual project-level EIAs.

Under these scenarios and others, the national government should provide guidance on the objectives and process for undertaking the SEA. This guidance should include clear, publicly disseminated terms of reference for the assessment, as well as clarity

on how a completed SEA will be used in decision-making on individual projects. Such guidance should be included as part of explicit transitional arrangements in the regulatory framework. However, it should also be clearly articulated that a SEA is used as a bridging tool while comprehensive landscape plans for linear infrastructure are rolled out. In other words, a SEA can play an important role but should not be treated as an alternative to comprehensive strategic planning.

UPSTREAM SCREENING

Upstream screening is a critical component of the proposed holistic model as it is the first stage of translating the strategic landscape-level assessment of linear infrastructure options into individual project-level considerations. Early-stage screening identifies risks associated with potential projects, which forms the basis for ongoing risk assessment and initial application of the mitigation hierarchy to reduce risks as much as possible. Upstream screening should support a more structured and considered approach to identifying and selecting potential projects for more detailed design and financing exploration. Importantly, the concept of upstream screening is independent of the common approach to screening project proposals as the first step in EIA processes; upstream screening is used to determine the type and extent of assessment required for the EIA.

The proposed holistic model includes two formal rounds of upstream screening, but in practice it is a continuous process whereby there is an ongoing refinement of risks warranting increased attention as a project progresses through pre-feasibility considerations and before being formalized into a concrete project proposal undergoing a full EIA.

The first round of upstream screening involves an initial identification of potential risks associated with a potential project. To aid this preliminary screening, a simple checklist is provided at Annex 4 that covers six key issues:

1. Strategic Planning Context

2. Biodiversity and Heritage Risk

3. Climate and Disaster Risk

4. Resettlement and Tenure

5. Gender and Inclusion

6. Peace and Conflict

For each issue area, a short series of questions is listed to prompt users to consider the matters and information to inform deliberations about potential projects at this stage.

The screening checklist is then expanded to facilitate the second round of upstream screening (Annex 5). This second round involves a more detailed consideration of the issues that are likely to be relevant to linear infrastructure projects, with four additional issue areas identified and increased specificity in the questions for all ten issue areas, including:

1. Pollution and Chemicals

2. Waste

3. Workers and Occupational Health and Safety

4. Operational Grievance Mechanism and Community Consultation

These upstream screening checklists are designed as tools to suppor t the identification of potential risks. Following this upstream screening process—and noting the reiterative nature of the process outlined above—the next step is to conduct a risk assessment on the identified key risks.

While the screening checklists have been designed primarily for project proponents and financial institutions, they can be used by other stakeholders, including governments and CSOs, to support their own thinking about potential issues involved in linear infrastructure project development. This formalized approach to the upstream risk screening is consistent with contemporary approaches that multilateral development banks are adopting.

Upstream screening can also be considered an initial element of an enterprise’s due diligence. In this way, the proposed holistic model intersects with the obligations of investors, proponents, and implementors of the project through company reporting obligations, ESG reporting requirements, financial covenants, or other obligations imposed as financing conditions.

In November 2021, infrastructure debt investors Aviva Investors, LGIM Real Assets, IFM Investors, Macquarie Asset Management, BlackRock, and Allianz Global Investors developed an ESG covenant package that responds to the challenging and emerging ESG obligations in the EU and the UK.108 This package applies to both primary financing for construction and refinancing of operational infrastructure. It was designed to provide “best practice” for borrowers when reporting to lenders regarding ESG matters and to facilitate lenders’ compliance with the increasing disclosure requirements under emer ging legal and financial requirements. The assumptions associated with the ESG covenant are that due diligence and risk assessment will be carried out before the financial close. This due diligence would include a review of the project EIA, environmental management plan, and monitoring reports and acknowledges that successful management of ESG factors is important to safeguarding the value of the underlying assets.109

Building on this approach, upstream screening, ESG risk assessments, and ESG covenants should be incorporated within the regulatory framework for the development of linear infrastructure in a coordinated manner.

Requiring upstream screening is a simple mechanism for defining the matters that proponents must consider when identifying projects for detailed assessment and potential implementation. This approach can help to:

• ensure there is a tangible link between the upstream (generally government-led) and downstream phases of the project development lifecycle;

• ensure key sustainability, resilience, and inclusivity considerations are applied as part of the project selection and design processes (not just the EIA and project approval phases);

• provide regulatory context for proponents’ due diligence obligations when considering potential projects for investment.

The process for project prioritization and selection should require, at a minimum:

1. Demonstration that the proponent has undertaken appropriate due diligence assessments on the proposed projects.

2. Demonstration that the proposed projects are in accordance with the landscape plan for linear infrastructure (or other strategic assessment in the absence of a dedicated plan), including an early assessment of alternative options.

3. Screening for potential project risks, including:

a) proximity to protected areas and KBAs;

b) proximity to areas at risk of natural hazards;

c) proximity to local communities, including Indigenous Peoples;

d) land acquisition requirements and potential resettlement.

4. Demonstration that the proposed projects can be designed, constructed, and operated in ways that would:

a) deliver social benefits on both economy-wide and local scales;

b) be resilient to the risks of climate change and natural hazards;

c) have minimal negative environmental impacts and, ideally, have net positive benefits (e.g., through application of nature-based solutions).

The screening checklists provided in Annex 4 and 5 can be used or adapted within the regulations to establish criteria for the project prioritization and selection process.

Regulatory mechanisms for requiring financial institutions to undertake ESG risk assessments and use ESG covenants could be included as clauses in the loan agreements, required as part of any foreign investment permit or requirement, or as a condition of project approval. A template for an ESG covenant is provided in Annex 6.

The regulations should ensure that the public has access to information about the screening criteria to possible projects, as well as any ESG risk assessments and covenants, with exceptions only covering information that is legitimately commercial-in-confidence.

The regulations may establish or link to a project bank of early-stage projects that have been identified as contributing to the long-term strategic planning objectives and that have passed pre-feasibility risk screening. Project banks are already employed by some countries, including within ASEAN, as a mechanism for encouraging foreign direct investment and public-private partnerships in major economic development projects. By linking these project banks to the regulations and requiring projects listed in the bank to a regulated selection process, including pre-feasibility screening, investors would have greater confidence in the bankability of the projects.

EIA AND STANDARD PROJECT APPROVAL CONDITIONS

The objectives of the EIA component of the proposed holistic regulatory framework are to:

• ensure the EIA is undertaken, and reviewed, in the context of the landscape-level strategic planning for linear infrastructure;

• ensure that resilience and inclusivity expectations for assessing project proposals are clearly articulated;

• establish standard conditions to be attached to project approvals;

• define expected content for environmental management and monitoring plans for approved projects.

An EIA for a linear infrastructure project proposal should be undertaken and reviewed prior to project approval with reference to the landscape-level strategic plan (or, in its absence, another strategic assessment of linear infrastructure) by:

• ensuring baseline information is aligned;

• undertaking an assessment of cumulative impacts by reference to the landscape plan;

• considering resilience and inclusivity at the project level in the same terms as the landscape level.

This approach would not require amending EIA laws, which exist in all ASEAN member states,110 but would instead involve providing detailed context and considerations for applying those laws to linear infrastructure project proposals. The regulatory framework for the holistic model complements the existing EIA laws by establishing these criteria for project proponents and EIA consultants when undertaking EIAs, and for government officials when reviewing submitted EIAs.

Approved EIAs are generally used to authorize permits that allow the project to proceed to construction, with implementation subject to compliance with the recommendations and EMP contained in the approved EIA. These recommendations are supplemented by additional conditions appropriate to the jurisdiction and project.

An EMP should be clear, concise, and—following EIA approval—updated to address all relevant conditions of approval and any related legislative requirements. For new projects, an EMP comprises a construction EMP (CEMP) and an operational EMP (OEMP). Each of these documents identifies the issues needing to be managed, who is responsible, and how the management is carried out. The EMP should address these concerns in a way that ensures that all relevant environmental and social management issues are resolved.

Adopting standard conditions for EIA approval that incorporates links between the specific project and relevant strategic landscape planning and sets expectations for inclusive approaches to project implementation–particularly through community consultation and operational grievance mechanisms–presents an opportunity to raise awareness and expectations among stakeholders in an efficient and legally binding manner. Similarly,

providing guidance to project proponents and EIA consultants on the content of both the project approval conditions and an EMP increases the likelihood that environmental and inclusivity considerations are applied consistently through the construction and operation phases. Annex 7 provides draft standard conditions for approved linear infrastructure projects and Annex 8 provides a draft checklist for preparing EMPs.

These standard conditions for project approvals and guidance for preparing EMPs can be adopted immediately, using existing EIA arrangements, and can be formally integrated into regulations adopted when establishing the holistic model for resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure development.

ROLE FOR ASEAN

ASEAN has a pivotal role in planning linear infrastructure connectivity and in supporting member states to adopt planning frameworks that can facilitate such connectivity.

ASEAN’s Charter and Vision 2025 reiterated the importance of sustainable development as a feature of ASEAN. Significant work has been undertaken to integrate the ASEAN Economic Community and to reduce trade barriers between ASEAN member states. The recommendations in this report also align with the ASEAN Connectivity 2025 master plan and the Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity.

ASEAN has also developed the Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance containing four main environmental objectives and two essential criteria.111 The objectives are: climate change mitigation; climate change adaptation; protection of healthy ecosystems and biodiversity; and promoting resilience and the transition to a circular economy. The essential criteria are to do no significant harm and to consider how to avoid impacts at the outset. The taxonomy provides a clear message for investors in ASEAN—that investment should be inclusive, resilient, and sustainable.

Through its bilateral ties with China, Japan, the EU, the USA, and Australia, ASEAN is negotiating and developing investment in linear infrastructure in accordance with ASEAN principles. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) has been working to enhance the EIA system in ASEAN for the past eight years and has adopted projects to harmonize and strengthen EIA and environmental rights in ASEAN.112

ASEAN coordinates with other institutions such as the World Bank, IFC, and ADB, as well as UN bodies such as UNESCAP, UNEP, and UNDP.

111 https://asean.org/book/asean-taxonomy-for-sustainable-finance/ (last accessed 19 September 2022)

112 https://aichr.org/news/aichr-un-discuss-milestones-towards-a-regional-instrument-on-environmental-rights-in-asean/

A truck loaded with acacia leaves a plantation in Phu Loc district, Vietnam. April 2017

Photo by James Morgan / WWF

CONCLUSIONS

This paper advocates adopting a holistic model for planning, designing, and constructing resilient and inclusive linear infrastructure in the ASEAN region. Key to the proposed approach is recognizing the significant efforts made in ASEAN to adopt a strong safeguards system and recommending a holistic model that can protect the integrity of, and further strengthen, the existing EIA arrangements in the region. The paper also advocates the need to establish this holistic model through domestic regulations to provide certainty for all stakeholders about the standards and processes, and to ensure coordination across the holistic model and at all stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle. Transitioning to this regulated, holistic model will take concerted effort from ASEAN, ASEAN member states, project proponents and financial institutions, and development partners including multilateral development banks.

Adopting the proposed regulatory framework alone will not be sufficient to ensure the successful implementation of the proposed holistic model. Strong political will, followed by establishing clear institutional arrangements for each country, is necessary to ensure coordination among all stakeholders—both within and external to government—across all aspects of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle. This includes ensuring institutional arrangements are made for monitoring and compliance. In addition, enhanced data and improved data sharing are needed to ensure inputs are incorporated into landscapelevel planning for linear infrastructure and that there is a strong evidence base for decisions made at all stages of the holistic model. Finally, strengthening the capacity of all stakeholders—governments, project proponents and financial institutions, and civil society—requires attention and continuous support to ensure the holistic model can be implemented effectively and achieve its objectives.

The following recommendations highlight actions that can be taken by various actors to support the transition to a holistic approach.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS

A. National governments should adopt a regulatory framework governing the holistic model for linear infrastructure planning, design, approval, and construction. Annex 3 provides an outline for developing the framework.

B. Where a strategic landscape plan for linear infrastructure has not been finalized, national governments should conduct an interim strategic assessment of potential linear infrastructure proposals using a SEA, sector-wide impact assessment, or another model that, at a minimum, considers:

a. climate change and disaster risks;

b. community needs and aspirations;

c. ecosystems and the services they provide;

d. potential cumulative impacts of linear infrastructure development in the landscape;

e. locations and other strategies that would avoid significant negative environmental and social impacts.

C. Where a strategic landscape plan for linear infrastructure has not been finalized, government discussions with project proponents should be informed by a preliminary risk screening. Annexes 4 and 5 provide recommended screening checklists.

D. The existing EIA system should be reinforced by using:

a. the recommended upstream screening checklists (provided in Annexes 4 and 5) to inform the formal EIA screening and scoping phases to ensure that consideration is given to issues of resilience and inclusivity in linear infrastructure projects when formalizing the scope and terms of reference for the EIA;

b. the Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Mekong Region to set expectations about public participation processes to be followed when undertaking EIAs on linear infrastructure project proposals;

c. the recommended standard approval conditions (provided in Annex 7) and EMP checklist (provided in Annex 8) for any linear infrastructure projects approved for implementation.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASEAN

E. ASEAN should support the adoption of consistent approaches to the implementation of the holistic model for linear infrastructure planning, design, approval, and construction within ASEAN member states by:

a. promoting the benefits of enhanced linear infrastructure development outcomes that can be delivered by the holistic model, specifically, increased investment certainty, increased connectivity, and reduced conflict in the region;

b. providing a forum for sharing experiences about adopting and implementing the holistic model, including using the tools it encompasses;

c. supporting the integration of due diligence, ESG risk assessment, and the use of ESG covenants in financial and feasibility considerations;

d. facilitating improved approaches to data collection and sharing among ASEAN member states to strengthen resilience and inclusivity considerations in strategic landscape planning for linear infrastructure.

F. ASEAN should support the consideration of transboundary issues in linear infrastructure development by:

a. establishing guidance for landscape-level strategic planning for transboundary linear infrastructure;

b. developing a transboundary impact assessment framework, drawing on the principles of PNPCA in the Mekong River Agreement.

G. ASEAN should develop guidance on land acquisition and resettlement for linear infrastructure development, including the recognition of informal and customary land tenure, based on current best practices that can:

a. provide increased certainty for project proponents and investors on land acquisition processes;

b. assist ASEAN member states to establish expectations and processes when dealing with project proponents and investors;

c. ensure equitable opportunities and outcomes for communities across ASEAN.

H. ASEAN should adopt a regional agreement on access to information, transboundary information and data sharing, and meaningful public participation in environmental decision making that covers all aspects of the planning, design, and construction of linear infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT PROPONENTS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

I. Project proponents should employ the upstream screening checklists provided in Annexes 4 and 5 as part of corporate environmental management systems and to ensure that due diligence is undertaken at all stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle.

J. Financial institutions, including multilateral development banks, should require evidence of due diligence that considers resilience and inclusivity issues (drawing upon the upstream screening checklists provided in Annexes 4 and 5) in discussing potential financing for linear infrastructure project proposals.

K. Project proponents and financial institutions should demonstrate that they are incorporating ESG criteria, including criteria that addresses resilience and inclusivity, in the pre-feasibility, design, and construction stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle.

L. All financial institutions and legal entities providing financial guarantees, financial assurances, or loans to linear infrastructure projects should conduct an ESG risk assessment that:

a. determines if the project has fully assessed and considered potential environmental impacts in the design, construction, and operation of the project;

b. ensures that the feasibility study for the proposed linear infrastructure project has included the costs of the EIA, the ongoing costs of complying with the EMP, all liabilities for resettlement, compensation for environmental harm, and all required payments for ecosystem services, as well as sufficient financial assurances for closure, restoration, remediation, or decommissioning as may be required to meet any relevant legal requirements.

M. All financial institutions and legal entities providing financial guarantees, financial assurances, or loans to linear infrastructure projects that do not undertake an ESG risk assessment should be fully liable for damages or compensation for significant impacts on the environment or the community.

N. All financial institutions and legal entities providing financial guarantees, financial assurances, or loans (including primary financing, construction financing, operational financing, and refinancing) for linear infrastructure projects should enter into an ESG covenant to promote the borrower’s compliance in all environmental and social obligations associated with the project (see template provided in Annex 6).

O. Project proponents should be required to provide commitments that they will obtain and maintain insurance coverage for environmental harms, workers’ accident and compensation insurance, and comply with all requirements for financial guarantees or financial bonds.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

P. The development community should support the adoption and implementation of a regulatory framework governing the holistic model for linear infrastructure planning, design, approval, and construction by:

a. offering ASEAN member states technical assistance for drafting and adopting tailored regulations to govern the holistic model;

b. supporting pilot projects to demonstrate successful implementation of the holistic model, including assistance for undertaking strategic landscape planning processes and working with willing project proponents on best practice screening, risk assessment, and public participation processes.

Q. The development community should support CSOs to understand, tailor, and use the upstream screening checklists (provided in Annex 4 and Annex 5) to strengthen the capacity of local communities to understand resilience and inclusivity considerations, identify risks, and provide constructive input into the development of linear infrastructure.

R. The development community should support dissemination and encourage CSOs to use the Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Mekong Region to strengthen local communities understanding of the type of information they might seek to better facilitate their input into the development of linear infrastructure projects.

S. The development community should support enhanced generation, collation, storage, and sharing of data across all issues of relevance to the development of resilient and inclusive infrastructure and in all aspects of the holistic model.

T. The development community should support capacity-building within ASEAN, including for ASEAN member states and civil society, to enhance the effective implementation of the holistic model and recommendations.

February 2020

A Bornean elephant (Elephas maximus borneensis) herd running down a road in a plantation in Sabah, Malaysia.

Photo by Aaron Gekoski / WWF-US

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 KEY LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS UNDER THE BRI IN ASEAN

THAILAND

The government of Thailand has invested in expanding and improving its infrastructure networks in recent decades through public investment and public-private partnerships (PPP), with about THB 4,000 billion ($122 billion) invested in infrastructure between 2010 and 2019.113 Thailand planned to invest approximately THB 1.49 trillion ($45.6 billion) on 37 infrastructure projects in 2022,114 including the high-speed rail project linking Thailand with China, via Laos ($7 billion allocated). The China-Thailand high-speed railway is a flagship project promoting the BRI and for the development of regional connectivity. It will link Bangkok to Nong Khai in northeast Thailand, a northeastern border province adjacent to Laos, and subsequently connect to the China-Laos railway in Laos. Eventually, this line will provide a connection from Bangkok to Vientiane, and onwards to Kunming in China.

Thailand’s National Strategy Plan 2017–2036 includes a Thailand 4.0 policy that emphasizes the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) to boost the country’s growth and link with international initiatives including the BRI (see Figure 13).115

Figure 13 Thailand Easter Economic Corridor Projects and Initiatives116

116 Source: Park, Tritto and Sejko. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN—Overview. December 2020. https://iems.ust.hk/uob ©2020 by United Overseas Bank and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies.

LAOS

As a landlocked country, Lao PDR is targeting development to transform it into a “landlinked country.” The Vision of Lao 2030 and the National Development Strategy (20162025) both draw on the BRI to support their strategies. Investment from PRC has been increasing in Laos since the early 1990s and in 2013 it became the largest investor in Laos. In 2017, PRC became the top donor and investor and second-largest trading partner for Laos.117

The $5.9 billion, 422 km high-speed rail project connecting Vientiane to Boten Town in China is the largest BRI project in Laos. The project was started in December 2016 and operating as of December 2021. This railway facilitates a significant increase in trade, investment, tourism, and industry development. It forms part of the proposed Pan-Asia Railway Network (see Figure 14). However, critics suggest that the risks and impacts of the railway have not been explicitly or sufficiently considered, particularly issues relating to governance, corruption, pollution, and adverse social impacts.118

119

Figure 14: Pan-Asia Railway Network

CAMBODIA

PRC has been the main partner of Cambodia’s infrastructure development for some time. As of June 2021, China has built 3287 km of road and eight large bridges with a total length of about 7690m. Cumulative investment from PRC between 1994 to 2019 was $23.43 billion, accounting for 49.84 percent of total foreign direct investment in Cambodia and making PRC the top investor and donor in Cambodia. In 2017, PRC became Cambodia’s top trade partner and the bilateral trade volume reached $5 billion.120 In the same year, Cambodia received approximately $4.2 billion in official development assistance (ODA) from PRC in the form of grants and soft loans, which targeted physical infrastructure, agriculture, health, and education.121 Approximately 70 percent of roads and bridges in Cambodia have been funded by loans from PRC.122 Some local communities and NGOs have raised concerns about the investments from PRC, particularly regarding issues of land grabbing, resettlement and compensation, and environmental degradation.

The largest BRI project is the construction of a $1.9 billion, 190 km, four-lane expressway connecting Phnom Penh to Sihanoukville on the coast, in parallel to an existing highway . Construction began in March 2020 and is scheduled to be completed by March 2023. It will increase connectivity with the Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone (SSEZ), which is another key project under the BRI, and Sihanoukville Port, Cambodia’s only international deep-sea port, which handled more than 90 percent of Cambodia’s total container traffic in 2017.123 The value of imports and exports passing through the SSEZ reached $1.37 billion in the first half of 2022, up 38 percent year on year. The expressway and SSEZ projects have generated more than 20,000 jobs for Cambodians during construction. 124

120 China Daily, “Chinese Investors, Tourists Contribute to Cambodia’s Socio-economic Development: Business Leaders”, January 12, 2018 http://www. chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a584fa8a3102c394518edc0.html

121 May Kunmakara, “PM Backs China’s Key Role,” Khmer Times, April 12, 2017, https://www.khmertimeskh.com/15902/pm-backs-chinas- key-role/

122 The Cambodia Daily, “China Funded 70% of Cambodian Roads, Bridges: Minister,” July, 24 2017, https://www.cambodiadaily.com/business/china-funded70-of-cambodian-roads-bridges-minister-132826/

123 Xinhua. Chinese-invested economic zone in Cambodia registers trade increase of 38 pct in H1. 2022-07-18 20:06:12 https://english.news.cn/ asiapacific/20220718/fd7a6ce6e5464705b30603591cd30eac/c.html

124 Vannarith Chheang and Heng Pheakdey. NIDS ASEAN Workshop 2019 “China’s BRI and ASEAN”, Chapter 1: Cambodian Perspective on the Belt and Road Initiative http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/joint_research/series17/pdf/chapter01.pdf

125 HKTDC Research. Cambodia: SEZs in Focus. 12 April 2017 https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/MzgzMDUwMDI0

Figure 15: Map of Sihanoukville SEZ and existing highway to Phnom Penh125

MYANMAR

Several significant projects are under development along the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor. In 2012-13, the government of Myanmar initiated preliminary feasibility studies and site surveys for the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (SEZ) project and a consortium led by CITIC , a PCR state-owned investment group, won the tender to develop the deep seaport and SEZ. In 2018, the management committee of the SEZ and CITIC group signed a framework agreement to implement the project with two terminals under construction. The area is already an entry point for two 770 km pipelines that began transporting oil and natural gas through Myanmar to China’s Yunnan province in 2013.

A plan to build a railway connecting Ruili, China, with Kyaukphyu, Myanmar, dates to 2011. The project was suspended in 2014 because of public opposition. In October 2018, China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group (CREEG) and Myanmar Railways agreed to conduct a new feasibility study, funded by CREEG, for a 431 km line from Muse to Mandalay. The proposed line had 36 stations passing through 11 townships, with an estimated cost of $7 billion.126

Figure 16: Key Projects along the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor127

MALAYSIA

In July 2022, PRC and Malaysia agreed to foster cooperation under the BRI and advance key projects.

Since 2013, Malaysia has received substantial BRI-related funds for infrastructure, particularly railways and ports, including the Kuantan Port Expansion on Peninsular Malaysia’s east coast and the Melaka Gateway on its west coast. The Melaka Gateway mixed development, which is intended to include the largest private marina in Southeast Asia by 2025, is planned for four artificial islands with residential, commercial, cultural, entertainment, and lifestyle elements, but is facing delays because of controversy. Activists are calling for a halt to the project because neither and EIA nor a social impact assessment (SIA) was completed prior to land being reclaimed for the project.128

The Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park (MCKIP), together with its twin park, the China- Malaysia Qinzhou Industrial Park is a government-to-government project that was facilitated through the BRI. The MCKIP is a 51:49 joint venture between a Malaysian consortium and a PRC consortium.129

Another BRI flagship project is the 688km East Coast Railway Link (ECRL) which will connect Kota Baru (Kelantan) to Port Klang (Selangor) passing through four Malaysian states. As of March 2022, the $11 billion railway project was almost 30 percent complete.130

A 350 km high-speed rail (HSR) link connecting Kuala Lumpur with Singapore is part of Kuala Lumpur’s Economic Transformation Program to improve mass transport and to reduce traffic congestion in the busiest region of the country. The project started in 2013 but was suspended between 2018 and November 2020.

128 Predeep Nambiar. Activists call for freeze on Melaka Gateway project. FMT. August

nation/2022/08/20/activists-call-for-freeze-on-melaka-gateway-project/

129 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Malaysia, December 2020

130 Nick Augusteijn. Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Link project nears 30-percent completion. RailTech.Com. Published on 09-03-2022 at 11:50 https://www. railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/03/09/malaysias-east-coast-rail-link-project-nears-30-percent-completion/?gdpr=accept

131 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Malaysia, December 2020

Figure 17: Major Investments from PRC and Construction Contracts in Peninsular Malaysia131

INDONESIA

As the largest archipelagic country in the world and situated in a strategic location linking Pacific and Indian Oceans, Indonesia has a very important position in the BRI.

Several major BRI projects have been planned in Indonesia since 2013 .One of the most important projects is the 142.3 km Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail (JBHSR) construction on Java Island, which is estimated to cost $6.07 billion. Programed for completion in 2023, it will be the first high-speed railway project in Indonesia. PT Kereta Cepat Indonesia China, a joint venture formed in October 2015 between a consortium of Indonesian stateowned companies and China Railway International, a subsidiary of China Railway Group (CREC),132 is developing the project.

As of September 2, 2022, two China-made trains arrived in Jakarta and ten more trains are planned to be transported by early 2023.133

Unlike other Asian countries, Indonesia preferred a business-to-business approach for the financing of the BRI projects rather than direct loans from PRC, which has caused major delays to some projects. Land compensation has been another cause of delays, especially for large projects like the JBHSR. Several companies and communities have launchedlawsuits to seek compensation for land acquired by the state.134

133 Bangkok Post. 2 China-made

Jakarta. PUBLISHED: 2 SEP 2022 AT 19:32 https://www.bangkokpost.com/ world/2383040/2-china-made-trains-of-indonesia-high-speed-railway-arrive-in-jakarta

of Indonesia

134 Dr. Sebastien Goulard. China’s BRI in some ASEAN countries (2/4): Indonesia’s GMF. One Belt One Road Europe (OBOReurope) https://www.oboreurope. com/en/chinas-bri-asean-indonesia/

135 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Indonesia, December 2020. https://iems.ust.hk/publications/ reports/uob-bri-indonesia

Figure 18: Prioritized Regions for BRI Investment in Indonesia135 132 Railway Technology. Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway, Indonesia. 2 September

high-speed-rail/

trains

high-speed railway arrive in

PHILIPPINES

The Philippines’ national strategy plans called “AmBisyon Natin 2040” and “Build! Build! Build! (BBB)” aim at better connecting the Philippine islands and developing economic hubs outside of Luzon Island. The AmBisyon Natin 2040 is a twenty-five-year, long-term vision developed under the previous presidency and adopted by President Duterte’s administration. The overall objective is to eradicate poverty and make the Philippines a middle-class society by 2040.

Like the BRI, the Philippines’ national development strategy has a strong infrastructure dimension, and there is ample room for cooperation between the BRI and the BBB program. The former president of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal Arroyo strongly supported the initial launch of the BRI.136 The development of new infrastructure under the BBB will facilitate the growth of exports while improving access to many islands and opening new destinations for Chinese tourists.

In early 2021, China and the Philippines agreed to cooperate on infrastructure for the next ten years; this cooperation will very likely be accommodated within the framework of the BRI.137

BBB was launched to accelerate the implementation of AmBisyon Natin 2040 and to solve the prolonged problem of infrastructure deficit in the Philippines. Approximately $140 billion was allocated for more than 20,000 infrastructure projects between 2017-2023.138

Some of the major projects include the Bulacan International Airport near Manila, which was started in October 2020, the Mindanao Railway and the long-anticipated Manila subway. These projects will be financed through a combination of ODA, public-private partnerships, and private and public-sector investment. Some projects will also be financed through loans or assistance from PRC, such as the Binondo-Intramuros Bridge (inaugurated in April 2022) funded under the auspices of the China Aid Bridges Project.139

136 Dr. Sebastien Goulard. China’s BRI in some ASEAN countries (4/4): The Philippines’ BBB. One Belt One Road Europe (OBOReurope) https://www.oboreurope.com/en/chinas-bri-asean-philippines-ambisyon/

137 Alexis Romero. Philippines, China agree on 10-year cooperation on infrastructure. Philstar.com. November 27, 2018 https://www.philstar.com/ headlines/2018/11/27/1872201/philippines-china-agree-10-year-cooperation-infrastructure

138 Dr. Sebastien Goulard. China’s BRI in some ASEAN countries (4/4): The Philippines’ BBB. One Belt One Road Europe (OBOReurope) https://www.oboreurope.com/en/chinas-bri-asean-philippines-ambisyon/

139 Ibid

Figure 19: BRI Projects in the Philippines140

140 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: the Philippines, December 2020

uob-bri-philippines

VIETNAM

Vietnam is one of the countries receiving the most BRI investment from China, ranked 2nd after Pakistan.141 Two projects, the Kunming-Hanoi Highway and Vietnam Long Jiang Industrial Park, have been completed. Hanoi Light Rail and Vinh Tan 1 Coal-fired Power Plant are under construction and the Kunming-Hanoi Road and China-Laos-Vietnam Grid Connection are planned. Another proposed project is a rail link from Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City, which is the missing link on the eastern line of the Kunming–Singapore railway and the backbone of China-Indochina Peninsular Economic Corridor (CIPEC).

A Laos-Vietnam Railway Project (LVRP) is under consideration to extend Laos’s recently completed railway to Kunming, China, by 330 km to the border trading city of Thakhek, and then a further 140 km to the Vietnamese port of Vung Ang. In the first phase, the railway would connect Thakhek with Vung Ang; the second phase would connect Thakhek to Vientiane. Construction will involve engineering a route through the Annamite range of Vietnam. According to the feasibility study completed in 2017, the track would be 555 km and cost $5 billion.142

The new railway system plan for 2021-2030 was approved by the prime minister in 2021 and includes renovating and upgrading existing railways, connecting with international transport routes, and preparing capital and resources to start construction on new routes. Priority is given to north-south high-speed routes and those linking gateway seaports, international airports, and main railways in major cities.143

The new railway system plan includes nine new railways with a total length of 2,362 km and it includes a 1,545 km north-south high-speed route connecting Hanoi’s Ngoc Hoi station and Ho Chi Minh City’s (HCMC) Thu Thiem station, a 102 km route connecting Hanoi and northern Hai Phong Port City, a 103 km route connecting Vung Ang Port and the Mu Gia Pass along the Vietnam-Lao border, and a 84k km route connecting Bien Hoa city of southern Dong Nai province and Ba Ria-Vung Tau province. It also includes a 174 km route linking HCMC and the Mekong Delta’s Can Tho city, a 128 km route linking HCMC and Loc Ninh district of southern Binh Phuoc province, and a 38 km route from Thu Thiem Railway Station in HCMC to Long Thanh International Airport in southern Dong Nai province.144 In addition to building new railways, the seven existing routes with a total length of 2,440 km will be upgraded under the plan. The total capital needed for both upgrading and building railways will be around $10.5 billion.

141 ICLG.com. CDR—Belt and Road Initiative, Vietnam. 21/09/2021

https://iclg.com/cdr-essential-intelligence/1100-cdr-the-belt-and-road- initiative-2021/ vietnam

142 China Environment Net. Laos-Vietnam Railway Project considered. 5 July 2022

https://china-environment- news.net/blog/2022/07/05/laos-vietnam-railwayproject-considered/

143 The Phnom Penh Post. Vietnam to build nine new railways. 25 October 2021.

https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/vietnam- build-nine-newrailways

144 The Phnom Penh Post. Vietnam to build nine new railways. 25 October 2021. https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/vietnam-build-nine-newrailways

Figure 20: Mainland Chinese Investments in Vietnam145

145 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Vietnam, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/ uob-bri-vietnam

ANNEX 2 DEFINING THE LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT CYCLE

WWF’s Visioning Futures study is concerned with a holistic perspective on the project cycle for linear infrastructure—from landscape and system level planning (“upstream”) to individual project selection, design, construction and operation (“downstream”).

There is no universally accepted definition of the project cycle for developing linear infrastructure or sequencing of its phases, with different approaches providing various levels of detail and emphasis. There are, however, common features of many descriptions of the project cycle. Similarly, there is no clear delineation between upstream and downstream phases. For example, the following three diagrams depict slightly different characterizations:

Example 1: Sustainable Infrastructure Tool Navigator146

This report does not assume that a universal definition of the project cycle is necessary, nor advocate for the adoption of the sequencing employed within, but instead uses a characterization of phases that matches experience within the region and understandings of the intersection of various regulatory mechanisms with different phases. See Figure 4 in the full report for a summary of the characterization of the linear infrastructure lifecycle employed in the study.

Example 2: WWF Visioning Futures

Example 3: OECD

ANNEX 3 PROPOSED REGULATORY MODEL

LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Key provision Commentary

Purpose:

The national-level government should establish a clear process for planning, designing, approving, constructing and operating linear infrastructure.

The regulations should include clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

Process:

The process should involve the following regulated steps:

1. Government prepares a long-term strategic landscape plan for linear infrastructure.

2. In the absence of a landscape plan that clearly identifies expected linear infrastructure or development corridors, government should conduct a strategic environmental assessment for the type of linear infrastructure under consideration.

3. In the absence of a landscape plan that clearly identifies expected linear infrastructure or development corridors, project proponents should develop a baseline assessment of the potential corridors incorporating factors relevant to resilience and inclusivity.

4. As part of the project prioritization and selection process, proponents and financial institutions should undertake a preliminary screening of project risks.

5. As part of the project prioritization and selection process, proponents should demonstrate due diligence has been conducted.

6. As part of the project prioritization and selection process, project proponents and financial institutions should be able to demonstrate that anticipated costings are based on a consideration of all costs not just a least-cost alignment.

The landscape plan may be more comprehensive than just considering linear infrastructure, but must still clearly identify all the relevant information as outlined in the planning rows below.

Public participation:

The regulations should ensure that there is a coordinated approach to public participation throughout the process.

Ensuring that public participation is meaningful and contributes to inclusivity outcomes requires a structured approach. This includes coordinating public participation mechanisms at various stages of the linear infrastructure project lifecycle to maximize continuous participation of the same stakeholders and linking rights to access information and to raise grievances.

LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE LANDSCAPE PLANNING

Key provision Commentary

Purpose:

The national-level government shall lead a multi-stakeholder, participatory planning process to determine strategic objectives for linear infrastructure

The responsible government agency would need to be identified. This should be a central agency with considerable intragovernmental influence and ability to convene multiple stakeholders, such as a planning ministry, rather than a sector-specific ministry.

Objectives:

The objectives of the planning process will be to produce a plan that:

- identifies priorities for linear infrastructure development for a defined region in the medium and long-terms

- identifies areas of land (“planning corridors”) deemed suitable, unsuitable, and requiring further investigation for linear infrastructure development

- provides clear guidance for developers and communities about the type and location of anticipated linear infrastructure development

The plan may generate a series of maps for different locations, scales or timeframes.

The approach to planning transboundary linear infrastructure will require consideration when establishing the planning framework. This will require, inter alia, coordination with neighboring countries and public participation processes that enable engagement with international stakeholders.

Planning inputs:

The planning process should incorporate all relevant information, including:

- Existing linear infrastructure, along with projected lifespans and anticipated upgrade needs

- Medium and long-term climate projections

- Multi-hazard risk assessments

- Vulnerability analyses

- NDCs and other adopted climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies

- Land tenure maps, including identifying protected areas

- Key biodiversity areas (KBAs) and other important ecosystem services

- Commitments under multilateral environmental agreements

- Population projections

- Social and economic development objectives

- Community development needs and expectations related to linear infrastructure (both direct and indirect)

Any trade-offs made as part of the planning process should be made clear as part of the documentation (i.e., summary report and final plan).

Consultation:

The planning process should involve multiple stakeholders, including:

- all relevant government departments

- CSOs

- private sector

- development partners, including multilateral development banks

- academia

Draft versions of the plan should be released for consultation, including targeted engagement with key stakeholder representatives and opportunities for public input. A summary report should be prepared and publicized that documents the planning process (including inputs employed, decisions made, consultations undertaken).

The role of CSOs as conduits for identifying and articulating community needs should be formally recognized in the regulations.

There are many models of landscape, spatial and natural resources planning, including from within ASEAN, that can provide a template for the regulations needed to facilitate the planning process and obtain inputs. This may include utilizing or amending existing regulations, but it must be done to explicitly focus on linear infrastructure within the landscape.

The public participation arrangements should be consistent across all parts of the holistic model.

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND SELECTION

Key provision Commentary

Purpose:

Clear guidance should be provided on matters that must be considered by proponents in identifying projects for detailed assessment and potential implementation.

Objectives:

The objectives of establishing guidance and processes for project prioritization and selection are to:

- ensure there is a tangible link between the upstream (generally government-led) and downstream phases of the project development lifecycle

- ensure key sustainability, resilience and incluivity considerations are applied as part of the project selection and design processes (not just the EIA and project approval phases)

- provide regulatory context for proponents’ due diligence obligations when considering potential projects for investment

Considerations:

The process for project prioritization and selection should require:

- the proponent to demonstrate they have undertaken appropriate due diligence assessments on the proposed projects

- screening for potential project risks, including:

1. Proximity to protected areas and KBAs

2. Proximity to areas at risk of natural hazards

3. Proximity to local communities, including Indigenous Peoples

4. Land acquisition requirements and potential resettlement

- the proponent to demonstrate that the proposed projects are in accordance with the landscape plan for linear infrastructure (or other strategic assessment in the absence of a dedicated plan), including an early assessment of alternative options

- the proponent to demonstrate that the proposed projects can be designed, constructed, and operated in ways that would:

1. Deliver social benefits—at both economy-wide and local scales

2. Be resilient to the risks of climate change and natural hazards

3. Have minimal negative environmental impacts and net positive benefits (e.g., through application of NBS)

The regulations may establish (or link to) a “project bank” of earlystage projects that have been identified as contributing to the long-term strategic planning objectives and that have passed prefeasibility risk screening.

Public participation:

The regulations should ensure that the public has access to information about screening criteria to possible projects, with exceptions only covering information that is legitimately commercial- in-confidence.

A checklist or some other criteria should be provided in the regulations to facilitate the expected screening approach. Sample screening checklist, which could be adapted for local circumstances, are provided at Annex 4 and Annex 5.

EIA AND PROJECT APPROVALS

Key provision Commentary

Purpose:

The regulations should ensure there is an appropriate connection between upstream strategic planning for linear infrastructure in a landscape and project-specific impact assessments and approvals.

Objectives:

The objectives of the EIA component of the holistic regulatory framework are to:

- Ensure the EIA is undertaken, and reviewed, in the context of the landscape-level strategic planning for linear infrastructure

- Ensure that resilience and inclusivity expectations for assessing project proposals are clearly articulated

- Establish standard conditions attached to project approvals

- Define expected content for environmental management and monitoring plans for approved projects.

Provisions:

An EIA for a linear infrastructure project proposal should be undertaken with reference to the landscape-level strategic plan (or, in its absence, another strategic assessment of linear infrastructure) by:

- ensuring baseline information is aligned

- undertaking an assessment of cumulative impacts by reference to the landscape plan

- considering resilience and inclusivity at the project level in the same terms as the landscape level

For project proposals that have EIAs approved:

- Adopt standard conditions for EIA approvals

- Provide guidance for construction and operational EMPs

Public participation:

The regulations should ensure that the public has clearly defined rights and opportunities to meaningfully participate at all stages of the EIA and project approval process, including having access to all necessary information

The expectation is that the regulations would not amend existing EIA laws, which exist in all ASEAN member states but would instead provide detailed context and considerations for applying those laws to linear infrastructure project proposals.

Draft standard project approval conditions (Annex 7) and a checklist for preparing an Environmental Management Plan (Annex 8) are provided and may be adjusted for local circumstances.

The Guidelines on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Mekong Region provide detailed guidance that could be drawn upon to define expectations for linear infrastructure project proposals.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION

Key provision Commentary

Purpose:

The regulations should ensure that all commitments from the upstream planning and project level assessment and approvals are translated into practice during the project implementation.

Provisions:

Projects should be required to establish a community consultative committee for the life of the project (if not already established before the commencement of the EIA process).

Projects should adopt an operational grievance mechanism (OGM) for the project during the construction and operations phases. The OGM should be in line with best practice and provide clear mechanism for resolving disputes in a simple, quick and transparent manner.

The draft standard project approval conditions (see Annex 7) and checklist for preparing an environmental management plan (EMP) ( see Annex 8) include guidance for establishing these mechanisms.

ANNEX 4 LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRE-FEASIBILITY SCREENING CHECKLIST

The purpose of this checklist is to support key decision-makers and other stakeholders with the identification of information and issues that should inform pre-feasibility consideration of options for linear infrastructure projects. The process of completing this checklist should, along with other inputs (including commercial considerations), assist with:

1. Identifying and selecting appropriate concepts for linear infrastructure projects that would progress to subsequent stages, including more detailed design and finance exploration;

2. Identifying and prioritizing issues for more detailed risk assessment as part of subsequent stages of concept development.

The comments column in the checklist encourages users to explain responses to questions and/or identify further information or follow-up actions that may be required to further consider the issues involved:

A. Strategic Planning Context

B. Biodiversity and Heritage Risk

C. Climate and Disaster Risk

D. Resettlement and Tenure

E. Gender and Inclusion

F. Peace and Conflict

ISSUE A: STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT

A.1. Is there a strategic plan at the landscape level that contemplates development of the type under consideration?

A.2. If the answer to A.1 is “no” or “not known”, is there another strategic assessment of the development needs and capacity of the region?

A.3. If the answer to A.2 is “no” or “not known”, is there an assessment of existing infrastructure of the type contemplated for development that could be used to consider the cumulative impacts of development?

A.4. Is the development under consideration contemplated by a medium- or long-term socio- economic development plan for the country/region?

ISSUE B: BIODIVERSITY AND HERITAGE RISK

B.1. Would the project pass through or near areas of high conservation value (including designated protected area, public forest, marine park, a scientific reserve, wildlife sanctuary, key biodiversity area)?

B.2. Is there a national or sub-national biodiversity conservation strategy in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

B.3. Would the project pass through or near a cultural heritage area, an archaeological area or an area of historical significance?

B.4. Is there a national or sub-national cultural heritage strategy in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

B.5. Has consideration been given to the proximity of an area identified in B.1 or B.3 in the identification of the proposed project?

B.6. Has consideration been given to strategies identified in B.2 or B.4 in the identification of the proposed project?

B.7. Has avoidance of potential impacts on biodiversity and cultural heritage been a consideration in identification of the proposed project?

ISSUE C: CLIMATE AND DISASTER RISK

C.1. Has the relevant country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) been considered in the identification of the proposed project?

C.2. Are there any national or sub-national climate mitigation or adaptation strategies in place for the location where the project is proposed?

C.3. Are there any national or sub-national disaster risk reduction strategies in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.4. Has a multi-hazard risk assessment, or other identification of potential disaster risks, been prepared for the for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.5. Has a vulnerability assessment been undertaken for the for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.6. If the answers to C.3 and C.4 are “no” or “not known”, is there existing information about the potential risk of natural hazards in the location in which the project is proposed (including, for example, flooding, storm surges, cyclones, landslides)?

C.7. Is all data necessary for a vulnerability assessment identified and available, and considered as part of project identification/selection?

C.8. Has the potential for project design incorporating NBS been considered as part of project identification/selection?

ISSUE D: RESETTLEMENT AND TENURE

D.1. Is there a clear, legally recognized land tenure system that applies in the location in which the project is proposed?

D.2. Has the tenure over all land in the location in which the project is proposed been identified (including land adjacent to the proposed location)?

D.3. Is there any information available on customary land use and tenure in the location in which the project is proposed?

D.4. Has a “no-resettlement” or “minimal resettlement” alternative been considered in the identification of the proposed project?

D.5. Is there a process for obtaining free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from indigenous people with an interest in the location in which the project is proposed?

ISSUE E: GENDER AND INCLUSION

E.1. Have relevant government gender strategies been considered in the identification of the proposed project?

E.2. Have the potential positive and negative impacts, both direct and indirect, of the project on women been considered?

E.3. Is there any information available on the needs of the local communities in the location in which the project is proposed—both directly and indirectly in relation to the type of project?

E.4. Have local community needs been identified and considered in the identification of the proposed project?

ISSUE F: PEACE AND CONFLICT

F.1. Does the location in which the project is proposed include any communities or where there is, or has been recent, conflict, or where there are significant underlying social tensions?

F.2. Is there any information about the implications of other projects on community conflict or social tension in the location in which the project is proposed?

ANNEX 5 LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILED SCREENING CHECKLIST

The purpose of this checklist is to support key decision-makers and other stakeholders by identifying information and issues that should inform detailed feasibility and design consideration of options for linear infrastructure projects. The process of completing this checklist should, along with other inputs (including commercial considerations), assist with:

1. Identifying and selecting an appropriate design for linear infrastructure projects that would progress to in-principal financing and EIA assessment; and

2. Identifying and prioritizing issues for more detailed risk assessment as part of subsequent stages of design development.

This detailed checklist involves a more detailed consideration of the issues that are likely to be relevant to linear infrastructure projects, compared to the pre-feasibility checklist, with additional issue areas identified and increased specificity in the questions for all issue areas.

Summary of issues:

A. Strategic Planning and Design Context

B. Biodiversity and Heritage Risk

C. Climate and Disaster Risk

D. Resettlement and Tenure

E. Gender and Inclusion

F. Peace and Conflict

G. Pollution and Chemicals

H. Waste

I. Workers and Occupational Health and Safety

J. Operational Grievance Mechanism and Community Consultations

The comments column in the checklist encourages users to explain responses to questions and/or identify further information or follow-up actions that may be required to further consider the issues involved.

ISSUE A: STRATEGIC PLANNING AND DESIGN CONTEXT

A.1. Does the project location and design conform to any landscape planning for the linear infrastructure corridor area?

A.2. Does the project location and design comply with any recommendations of a Strategic Environmental Assessment applicable to the linear infrastructure corridor area?

A.3. If the proposed project is a road, has the project been assessed for road and pedestrian safety based on industry best practice?

A.4. Has the potential for project design incorporating nature based solutions been considered as part of project design?

A.5. Has the proposed project design and location considered relevant vulnerability or adaption frameworks (e.g., US Department of Transportation Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework)?

ISSUE B: BIODIVERSITY AND HERITAGE RISK

B.1. Would the project pass through or near areas of high conservation value (including designated protected area, public forest, marine park, a scientific reserve, wildlife sanctuary, key biodiversity area)?

B.2. Is there a national or sub-national biodiversity conservation strategy in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

B.3. Would the project pass through or near a cultural heritage area, an archaeological area or an area of historical significance?

B.4. Is there a national or sub-national cultural heritage strategy in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

B.5. Has consideration been given to the proximity of an area identified in B.1 or B.3 in the identification of the proposed project?

B.6. Has consideration been given to strategies identified in B.2 or B.4 in the identification of the proposed project?

B.7. Has avoidance of potential impacts on biodiversity and cultural heritage been a consideration in identification of the proposed project?

B.8. Has the project developed a biodiversity protection plan to ensure protection of animals and plants during construction?

B.9. If there are migratory species, has the design of the project taken into consideration ways to avoid impacts on these animals?

B.10. Has the cost of the designs to avoid impacts of migratory animals been included in any feasibility study?

B.11. Have the proposed avoidance or mitigation measures for animals considered the impacts of climate change over the lifetime of the project?

ISSUE C: CLIMATE AND DISASTER RISK

C.1. Are there any national or sub-national climate mitigation or adaptation strategies in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.2. Are there any national or sub-national disaster risk reduction strategies in place for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.3. Has a multi-hazard risk assessment, or other identification of potential disaster risks, been prepared for the for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.4. Has a vulnerability assessment been undertaken for the for the location in which the project is proposed?

C.5. If the answers to C.3 and C.4 are “no” or “not known”, is there existing information about the potential risk of natural hazards in the location in which the project is proposed (including, for example, flooding, storm surges, cyclones, landslides)?

C.6. Is all data necessary for a vulnerability assessment identified and available, and considered as part of project identification/selection?

C.7. Has the potential for project design incorporating NBS been considered as part of project identification/ selection?

C.8. If the project is located in the coastal zone, has consideration been given to coastal erosion, storm surges, sea-level rise, coastal inundation?

C.9. Is the project likely to be impacted by flooding, soil erosion, or landslides or landslips?

C.10. Is the project likely to be impacted by forest fires during the lifetime of the project?

C.11. Has any disaster risk reduction assessment been conducted on the design of the project?

C.12. Has there been an assessment of anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation of the project?

C.13. What measures will be provided to reduce or offset GHG emissions from the project?

C.14. What measures will be provided to reduce or offset GHG emissions from the project?

ISSUE D: RESETTLEMENT AND TENURE

D.1. Is there a clear, legally recognized land tenure system that applies in the location in which the project is proposed?

D.2. Has the tenure over all land in the location in which the project is proposed been identified (including land adjacent to the proposed location)?

D.3. Is there any information available on customary land use and tenure in the location in which the project is proposed?

D.4. Has a “no-resettlement” or “minimal resettlement” alternative been considered in the identification of the proposed project?

D.5. Is there a process for obtaining free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from indigenous people with an interest in the location in which the project is proposed?

D.6. Have all costs associated with potential land acquisition, compensation and resettlement been incorporated into any feasibility study?

ISSUE E: GENDER AND INCLUSION

E.1. Have relevant government gender strategies been considered in the identification of the proposed project?

E.2. Have the potential positive and negative impacts, both direct and indirect, of the project on women been considered?

E.3. Is there any information available on the needs of the local communities in the location in which the project is proposed—both directly and indirectly in relation to the type of project?

E.4. Have local community needs been identified and considered in the identification of the proposed project?

E.5. Has the design of the project been subject to a road or rail safety assessment (of relevant) to minimize risk to humans along the site of the project?

ISSUE F: PEACE AND CONFLICT

F.1. Does the location in which the project is proposed include any communities in which there is, or has been, recent conflict or significant underlying social tensions?

F.2. Is there any information about the implications of other projects on community conflict or social tension in the location in which the project is proposed?

ISSUE G: POLLUTION AND CHEMICALS

G.1. Will the project produce or emit high levels of pollution?

G.2. Has the project considered how to reduce the production of pollution?

G.3. Will the project use chemicals?

G.4. Has the project considered how to reduce the use of chemicals?

G.5. Has the design of the project incorporated best practice into the storage and management of chemicals?

G.6. Will the project need any pollution permits or approvals?

ISSUE H: WASTE

H.1. Has the project considered how to manage and dispose of waste impacts and how to reduce the production of waste?

H.2. Is there a waste and plastic plan to minimize or reduce waste and plastics during construction?

H.3. Has the project developed a plan to manage, store, handle and transport hazardous waste or toxic waste?

H.4. Are all waste disposal contractors licensed and with appropriate insurance to cover accidents and spills?

H.5. Will there be a publicly available annual independent audit of the waste, pollution and chemical management plan?

ISSUE I: WORKERS AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

I.1. Will on-site worker accommodation be required during construction or operations?

I.2. Is the design of any worker accommodation (either during construction or operations) in accordance with IFC Worker Accommodation Guidance?

I.3. Is the worker accommodation protected from extremes of heat or extreme weather events?

I.4. Is there a plan to ensure that construction workers will be protected from extremes of heat or extreme precipitation events?

I.5. Is there a commitment by the project to provide and implement an operational health and safety plan?

I.6. Will the project provide workers compensation, disability and death insurance for all workers?

ISSUE J: OPERATIONAL GRIEVANCE MECHANISM AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

J.1. Is a grievance redress mechanism or project dispute resolution process proposed for the project for stakeholders?

J.2. Is a grievance redress mechanism or project dispute resolution process proposed for the workers?

J.3. Will any project grievance redress mechanisms or dispute resolution processes comply with best practices of operational grievance mechanisms established by the IFC and World Bank?

J.4. Will the project establish a community consultation committee for construction and operation?

J.5. Has the proponent and contractors developed a community consultation plan for the duration of the project?

J.6. Does the community consultation plan provide for communication and disclosure to the community?

ANNEX 6

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE COVENANT

This Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Covenant is designed to promote the financial sector’s engagement in promoting inclusive, resilient and sustainable linear infrastructure planning and construction. This ESG Covenant aims to clarify financial institutions’ obligations in the feasibility studies, design and construction of linear infrastructure projects. It is recognized that the responsibilities of financial institutions will differ between primary financing and refinancing of operational linear infrastructure. Primary financing will require an assessment of compliance with mostly procedural commitments (such as EIA laws and regulations). Refinancing will be based on compliance with the EIA, EMP, compliance with conditions of project approvals, including community engagement, grievance mechanisms and any breaches of these regulatory obligations.

ESG COVENANT

IMPORTANT NOTICE: To avoid doubt, this document is in a non-binding, recommended form. The intention is that this document be used as a starting point for negotiations.

FOR LENDERS

The lender warrants that before financial close, it will conduct an ESG due diligence and risk assessment based on the relevant environmental information. The lender shall determine if the project has fully assessed and considered potential environmental impacts in the project’s design, environmental management, operation, and closure. This assessment shall consider any landscape plan, strategic environmental assessment (SEA), cumulative impact assessment (CIA) and other planning or biodiversity assessments.

The lender warrants that it has been provided with the following environment information from the borrower:

1. Environmental Impact Assessment Report

2. Environmental approval or other permit, including conditions of consent

3. Environmental Management Plan

4. EMP monitoring reports, including any reports of grievance mechanisms or reports from community consultations

5. Any Environmental Audits and responses to these Environmental Audits (if conducted)

If the linear infrastructure project involves any resettlement or livelihood assistance, the lender warrants that it has been provided with the following additional information:

1. Resettlement Action Plan

2. Livelihood Restoration Plan

3. Monitoring and Management Reports on the Resettlement Action Plan

FOR BORROWERS

The borrower warrants that it will comply with the obligations under the ESG covenant and undertake due diligence and risk assessment during the pre-feasibility, design, construction and operation of the linear infrastructure project.

The borrower warrants that the information and disclosures are accurate and not misleading.

The borrower warrants that it will [it is] operating in compliance with relevant environmental legal requirements. It has obtained all required permits and consents for the construction or operations of the linear infrastructure.

The borrower warrants that it will [it has] complied with the conditions of the environmental approval or other permit and the EMP.

The borrower warrants that it will [it has] complied with the recommendations and conditions under any:

1. Resettlement Action Plan

2. Livelihood Restoration Plan

3. Recommendations from any monitoring reports on the Resettlement Action Plan or Livelihood Restoration Plan

The borrower warrants that it has disclosed to the lender any complaints received under the project grievance mechanism, investigations, breaches of any conditions of approval, and any other material issues.

ANNEX 7 DRAFT STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR APPROVED LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The project proponent shall bear full legal and financial responsibility for all adverse impacts and all actions and omissions of itself and its contractors, subcontractors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and consultants employed, hired or authorized by the project proponent acting for or on behalf of the project proponent, in carrying out work on the project.

2. The project proponent shall fully implement all environmental and social measures, and is liable for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors comply fully with all relevant environmental and social standards and measures, and other requirements.

3. The project proponent shall carry out the Project in accordance with the documents submitted to government including the EIA, environmental management plan (EMP) and environmental monitoring programs submitted to the government, resettlement action plan (if required), conditions of approval contained in this project approval, and any Ppoject commitments.

4. The project proponent shall ensure that all bidding documents and contracts for project works contain provisions that require contractors to:

i. Comply with the measures relevant to the contractor set forth in a project EMP, and any corrective or preventative actions set forth in an environmental monitoring report;

ii. Make available a budget for all such environmental and social measures

5. Prior to the commencement of construction, the project proponent shall ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors are aware of the measures and requirements in the project approval to avoid or minimize environmental and social impacts caused by the project.

6. The project proponent shall provide all necessary budgetary and human resources to

fully implement the EMP and sub-plans and monitoring provisions (referred to in this project approval); and fulfil all project commitments set out in this project approval.

7. The project proponent shall submit semi-annual environmental monitoring reports to the government, and promptly publicly disclose such reports on a project-specific website and to the local office.

8. The project proponent shall make all reporting in compliance with this project approval available to the government and to the public. This information shall be available at the local government or departmental office or other location with the consent of the government, and electronically on a project proponent’s or project website.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

9. Prior to beginning construction, the project proponent shall ensure that the project team has reviewed all recommendations from landscape-level assessments and SEAs and addressed or incorporated those recommendations in the design of the project.

10. Prior to beginning construction, the project proponent shall ensure that any wildlife protection measures, including avoidance and minimization measures such as design features, are assessed against the landscape-level assessment and current information about species, including migratory species, that may be impacted by the project.

RESETTLEMENT

11. If the project requires the resettlement or relocation of any people, the project proponent shall comply with a resettlement action plan that has been assessed and approved by the government and follows good international practices.

12. The project proponent shall bear full legal and financial responsibility for implementing the resettlement action plan and livelihood restoration.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

13. If during construction or operations, an object of cultural heritage is discovered or found, the project proponent must take all reasonable action to protect the object until the relevant ministries have the opportunity to assess its value and determine actions to protect it.

FINANCIAL GUARANTEES

14. The project proponent shall provide financial guarantees in accordance with the conditions of this project approval and in accordance with directions from the government.

15. The project proponent shall provide a financial guarantee in the form of a performance bond in favor of the government in the event of an incident causing actual or potential environmental harm or harm to human health. The government shall be able to use this financial guarantee to take immediate action to remedy the actual or potential damage to the environment or human health.

16. The project proponent shall provide a financial guarantee in the form of a

performance bond in favor of the government to ensure compliance with the conditions of this project approval and the EMP.

17. All financial guarantees shall be in a form agreed between the proponent and the government and shall be provided by the proponent on or before the agreed date.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

18. The project proponent shall undertake, if the government requires, an independent environmental audit of the project or any part of the project. This independent environmental audit shall be paid for by the project proponent, submitted to the government, and made public 60 days after submission to the government.

UNANTICIPATED IMPACTS

19. If any unanticipated environmental and social risks or impacts arise during construction, operation, closure, or decommissioning of the project that was not considered in the EIA report or EMPs, the project proponent shall promptly inform the government of the occurrence of such risks or impacts, with a detailed description of the event and a proposed corrective action plan.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS REPORTING

20. The project proponent shall assess and calculate the GHG emissions from the project in accordance with relevant guidelines and submit an annual report to the government on GHG emissions.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS MITIGATION

21. The project proponent shall, if required by the government, review GHG emissions and propose mitigation measures to be implemented by the project.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

22. Before beginning construction, the project proponent shall establish a project website or use the project proponent’s website to disclose information. This proponent shall regularly update the status of the project, copies of all approvals, plans and reports and permits required for the project, and any details of compliance reviews and audits for the project.

23. The project proponent and consultant will disclose information, including the EIA report, the project approval, and the EMP on a publicly accessible website one month after issuing the project approval.

ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OFFICE

24. The project proponent or contractor shall establish an Environment, Social, Health, and Safety Office responsible for implementing the EMP and monitoring and compliance with the construction EMP and the operational EMP.

POLLUTION PERMITS, LICENSES OR APPROVALS

25. The project proponent shall apply for any pollution permits or licenses, as required when a pollution control system is established. Nothing in the project approval exempts the project from compliance with a requirement in the future for pollution control or pollution management permits, licenses, or approval. The project proponent shall comply with all conditions of such permit, license or approval.

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

26. The project proponent shall take appropriate measures to ensure the Project’s efficient use of raw materials, energy, and water. The project proponent shall maintain records of raw materials and water used in Project Activities and shall review and record at least every three (3) years whether there are suitable alternative materials that could reduce environmental impact or opportunities to improve the efficiency of use of raw materials and water. The project proponent shall take any further appropriate measures identified by such review.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

27. The proponent will establish a community consultation committee during the operation of the project in consultation with the relevant government.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION PLAN

28. Before the commencement of construction, the proponent shall prepare and implement a community information plan that sets out the community communication and consultation processes to be implemented during the construction and operation of the project.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONDITIONS

Complaints and Operational Grievance Mechanism

29. The project proponent shall establish an operational grievance mechanism (OGM), including a tracking and documentation system. The project proponent shall establish a complaint and problem management mechanisms in compliance with Article 31 of United National Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business and, where necessary, a community consultative committee is functioning effectively to:

a. review and document eligible complaints of project stakeholders;

b. proactively address grievances;

c. provide the complainants with notice of the chosen mechanism or action;

d. prepare periodic reports to summarize the number of complaints received and resolved and final outcomes of the grievances and chosen actions, and make these reports available to the government upon request.

30. Eligible complaints include those related to the project, any contractor or subcontractor, any person responsible for carrying out the project, complaints on misuse of funds and other irregularities, and grievances due to any safeguard issues, including resettlement, environment, and gender.

PROJECT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

31. Prior to the commencement of construction, the proponent shall make the following available for community complaints for the life of the project (including construction and operation) or as otherwise agreed by the government:

a. a 24-hour telephone number on which complaints about construction and operational activities at the site may be registered;

b. a postal address to which written complaints may be sent;

c. an email address to which electronic complaints may be transmitted. The telephone number, postal address and e-mail address shall be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area on at least one occasion before the commencement of construction, at six-monthly intervals during construction, and for a period of two years following start of operation of the project. The proponent shall also provide these details on an internet site as required by the ECC. The telephone number, the postal address and the email address shall be displayed on a sign near the entrance to the site(s) in a position that is visible to the public.

WORKER GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

32. The proponent shall establish a mechanism to resolve workers’ complaints during the project’s operation, including responding to any complaints arising from accommodation conditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

33. The project proponent will ensure that the project complies with the following environmental standards during all stages of the project.

EMISSION STANDARDS

• Any additional proposed project environmental quality guidelines and standards, described in the EIA Report, as accepted by the government

• Other international standards or guidelines

• Industry good practice

AMBIENT STANDARDS

• Any additional proposed project environmental quality guidelines and standards, described in the EIA report, as accepted by the government.

34. The project proponent shall use the best available techniques in complying with these environmental conditions unless otherwise specified in the project approval.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

35. The project proponent shall ensure that waste, including hazardous waste and chemicals, is managed in accordance with IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines and the EIA report.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING CONTAMINATED WASTE)

36. The project proponent shall ensure that hazardous materials are handled, stored, and transported to avoid leaks, spills, or other types of accidental releases into soils, surface water, and groundwater resources and ensure that a hazardous waste management plan is prepared and implemented in compliance with the IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines and the Guidelines on Hazardous Materials Management 1.5. Hazardous waste must be documented and all records on the location disposal must be available for inspection by the government and must be included in the semi-annual and annual report.

The project proponent is responsible to ensure that hazardous waste does not cause harm to the environment or people.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

37. During construction, the site will operate under a construction environmental management plan (CEMP), comprising various environmental and social management plans required by the project approval.

38. During operation, the site will operate under an operational environmental management plan (OEMP), comprising various environmental and social management plans required by this project approval.

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

39. If there are impacts on threatened or endangered species, a qualified consultant shall prepare a biodiversity protection plan in accordance with the details in the EIA report and EMP.

• The project proponent shall ensure that the Biodiversity Management Plan is updated on a regular basis to ensure that all endangered and threatened species are protected

• The biodiversity management plan shall prohibit taking or killing endangered or threatened species in the area.

WORKERS ACCOMMODATION

40. Prior to beginning construction, the project proponent shall submit to relevant approval authority complete details, including layout and location and detailed designs, of the worker accommodation and all facilities proposed for the workers.

41. All worker accommodation must meet minimum standards under national law and all occupational health and safety standards, including IFC Guidance on Workers’ Accommodation according to process and standards and IFC Performance Standard 2.

42. The project proponent shall complete and submit to the government the checklist attached to the IFC Guidance on Workers’ Accommodation: Process and Standards.

MONITORING AND REPORTING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROJECT APPROVAL

43. The project proponent shall monitor the project for compliance with this project approval.

44. The project proponent shall notify and identify in writing to the government any breaches of its obligations or other performance failures or violations of the project approval or EMPs as soon as reasonably possible and not later than 24 hours in respect to any breach which would have a serious impact or where the urgent attention of the government may be required. In all cases, the project proponent shall notify government within seven days of becoming aware of such incident.

45. Possible breaches of the project approval and EMPs that should be reported to the government without delay include:

a. Any malfunction, breakdown, or failure of equipment or techniques;

b. Any accident, or emission of a substance not controlled by an emission limit that hs caused, is causing, or may cause significant pollution;

c. The breach of a limit as specified in this project approval;

d. Any significant adverse environmental and health effects. The notification shall contain a description of the mitigation measures already undertaken and proposed changes to project operations.

MONITORING REPORTS

46. The project proponent shall submit semi-annual environmental monitoring reports to the government within 30 days of the end of the reporting period. The monitoring reports shall include:

a. Documentation of compliance with all conditions of this project approval;

b. Progress made to date on the implementation of EMPs against the submitted implementation schedule;

c. Difficulties encountered in implementing EMPs and recommendations for remedying difficulties and steps to prevent or avoid similar future difficulties;

d. Number and type of non-compliances with EMPs and proposed remedial measures and timelines for completion of remediation;

e. Summary of site inspections by the Project Environmental Safety Office;

f. Summary of self-monitoring reports including explanatory remarks;

g. Summary of accidents or incidents relating to occupational and community health and safety;

h. Summary of complaints and grievances;

i. Community relations;

j. Monitoring data for environmental parameters and conditions as committed in EMPs or otherwise required.

47. Within ten days of completing a monitoring report, the project proponent shall make such report available on their website or the project website, at public meeting places (e.g., libraries, community halls) and at the project offices. Any organization or person may request a digital copy of a monitoring report and the project proponent shall, within ten days of receiving such request, submit a digital copy via email or as may otherwise be agreed upon with the requestor.

Aerial view of the Dawei Road, Tanintharyi River and surrounding forests in the Tanintharyi region of Myanmar. February

Photo by Adam Oswell / WWF-Myanmar

ANNEX 8 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST AND PREPARATION GUIDANCE

The environmental management plan (EMP) should be clear, concise, and address all relevant conditions of consent and any related legislative and compliance requirements, including commitments or conditions attached to the environmental permit or approval, as well as all relevant environmental and social management issues. Separate EMPs should be developed for both the construction and operation phases of a linear infrastructure project to reflect the different impacts.

AN INITIAL CHECKLIST FOR A CONSTRUCTION EMP OF A LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) should be prepared to deal with the environmental and social impacts of the project. The CEMP and sub-plans shall address the relevant management issues and monitoring. The EMP can be incorporated into a company-wide environmental management system (EMS).

The EMP shall include but not necessarily be limited to:

• identification of all statutory and other obligations that the Proponent is required to fulfil in relation to the operation of the development, including all consents, licenses, approvals and consultations;

• a management organizational chart identifying the roles and responsibilities for all relevant employees involved in the operation of the project;

• overall environmental policies to be applied to the operation of the project;

• standards and performance measures to be applied to the project and means by which environmental performance can be periodically monitored, reviewed and improved, (where appropriate) and what actions would be taken in the case that non-compliance with the requirements of this approval are identified. In particular the following environmental performance issues shall be addressed:

- wildfire hazard, flood management and disaster risk management;

- management and maintenance of any biodiversity offsets;

- management measures for easement areas, including management of vegetation, soil erosion, weed control and landholder liaison.

• the environmental monitoring requirements outlined under the ECC; and

• management policies to ensure that environmental performance goals are met and comply with the conditions of this approval.

• energy usage

• fuel usage and emission source together with existing mitigation measures

• water usage and supply system

• wastewater emission and existing mitigation measures

• raw material usage and storage system

• use of chemicals and chemical storage and disposal measures

• source of odor emission and existing mitigation measures

The following checklists identify significant matters that should be addressed in any EMP:

A. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

These are relevant to IFC Performance Standard 2, World Bank Environment and Social Standard 2, ADB Social Protection Strategy 2001 and Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), andJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations.

Occupational Health and Safety Management Plan

Has a worker been seriously injured at the facility?

Monitoring plan for biodiversity protection

Does the facility carry workers compensation insurance?

Is there a worker complaints mechanism?

B. WORKER ACCOMMODATION

If there are workers living on the site then the facility must ensure that the accommodation meets the minimum requirements for human health and wellbeing.

Check if these have not been addressed

Worker Accommodation Plan meets the IFC Guidelines as a minimum

Certification of safe construction of all habitable buildings

Provision of all amenities for safe human occupation— cooking, electricity, toilets, showers, storage, recreational rooms.

Showers, clean drinking water available for all workers

Cooling and heating including mechanical ventilation or a/c

Emergency response plan in place

Take account of possible extreme heat and other weather conditions

Check if correct

C. FIRE AND BUILDING SAFETY

This is a very important issue for the ongoing protection of plant and equipment and the safety of the workers.

Building safety

Has an engineer certified the construction of all buildings to be safe and sound construction

Fire safety plan

The facility has been reviewed for fire safety

Fire equipment is maintained and in good condition

There is an annual fire safety assessment

Workers and staff receive regular training on fire safety and the fire evacuation plan

Other natural disasters are also addressed

D. WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste management should be carried out in accordance with the relevant standards and the EMP. All waste must be managed in accordance with national laws and the conditions of the environmental approval permit and the EIA. It is also very important to engage with affected stakeholders and community members and make an assessment on the level of impact from the use o and exposure to toxic and hazardous waste.

Solid waste—provide detailed description of key waste

Recycling or separation of waste

Waste Water—treated on-site or off-site

Hazardous waste tracking in place

Materials and plastic waste management

Chemicals and other substances stored safely from accidents and extreme weather events

E. RESOURCES EFFICIENCY

The construction contractors should consider being efficient in resource use. This can include developing approaches to minimize material use, water conservation, and energy conservation. None of these approaches should cause or increase environmental impact. All plans and strategies should be in compliance with operational health and safety obligations.

Raw material conservation strategy

Energy conservation plan

Water conservation, reuse, reduction strategy

F. FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AND INSURANCE

The project proponent should also provide details of any financial guarantees and insurance for the project. The financial guarantee should cover possible impacts from noncompliance with any approval permits or EMP. Not

Notes

Financial Guarantee

General insurance coverage

Environmental accident insurance

Worker compensation insurance

G. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

The project proponent should provide a plan for continuous community engagement and for an operational grievance mechanism that will be in place for the life of the project.

Not Established/ Not satisfactory

Community engagement plan

Community consultation committee

Operational grievance mechanism

Operating Satisfactory Notes

H. BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

Biodiversity protection and management will be key issues during construction of the linear infrastructure project. The proponent and contractor will be required to ensure that all steps are taken to avoid harming animals on or near the construction site, and that workers are informed of the need to avoid taking or harming any wildlife that may be protected or endangered.

Not Established/ Not satisfactory

Biodiversity protection plan

Clear training and rules to avoid animals and hunting

Monitoring plan for biodiversity protection

Operating Satisfactory Notes

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS

The EMP and sub-plans should incorporate the following plans and mechanisms:

• Site management plan to show how the site will be managed during operation in accordance with the CEMP and the other conditions required in any approval documentation.

• Waste management plan to show that the proponent will minimize and manage the waste generated by the project through avoidance, resource recovery and disposal.

• Water management plan to help individual facilities set long and short-term water conservation goals. This also assures the equipment is run correctly and maintained properly to help prevent water waste from leaks or malfunctioning mechanical equipment.

• Stormwater management plan to accommodate drainage from the approved development and to protect other property during construction.

• Emergency response plan to provide details on the handling of emergencies and incidents.

• Air, odor, and dust monitoring and management planto ensure compliance with the emission standards and that all construction, operations and activities occurring at the project site, and construction traffic to the site, are carried out in a manner that minimizes dust, including the emission of wind-blown or traffic generated dust.

• Chemicals, fuels and hazardous materials management plan dealing with the Storage and Handling of Dangerous Materials. This will demonstrate the storage, manage, handle all chemicals, fuels and oils used on-site in accordance with all standards and good practice.

• Noise and vibration management plan to manage noise impacts during operation and to identify all feasible and reasonable noise mitigation measures.

• Traffic and pedestrian management plan to manage traffic conflicts that may be generated during construction both on-site and from construction traffic off-site. The plan shall address the requirements of the relevant road authority and shall also limit the potential for harm to pedestrians and workers through good planning.

• Water quality, soil, erosion, sediment management plan—An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared in accordance with good industry practice to prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the site, including from trucks and other vehicles entering and leaving this site with all relevant standards and good practice.

• Water use and energy management plan to help define and regularly review water and energy performance targets, which are adjusted to account for changes in major influencing factors.

• Operational grievance mechanism to establish a way for individuals, groups or communities affected by your business to contact you if they have an inquiry, a concern or a formal complaint.

• Community engagement management plan to identify external communication strategy to help the affected community access valuable information such as suggestions on project progress, advance warning in critical situations, feedback on interactions, and comments from regulators and individuals regarding your project’s environmental and social performance.

• Worker accommodation management plan to enable an employee to do his or her job in clean and healthy environment.

• Cleaner production plan to improve design by using clean energy and raw materials and clean technology and equipment to reduce pollution from the source and eliminate harm caused to human health and environment.

• Occupational health and safety management plan to provide details of worker and site safety and worker grievance and complaints mechanism.

• Detailed biodiversity plan that is site-specific and details immediate and long-term commitments to manage planting, protecting, and enhancing biodiversity in and around a new development site. In preparing the plan, the proponent shall consult with the local community and surrounding residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN

This checklist can be used to assist in developing a monitoring plan that matches the EMP and sub-plans. Each issue should have a specific requirement that should be matched to the responsible person with the enterprise or industrial zone management committee. For larger enterprises the environmental manager of the site or the operational health and safety manager can be responsible for many of the issues. The annexure is designed to assist in developing the monitoring plan.

ANNEX 9 REFERENCE LIST

ADB (2017) Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs

ADB (2019) Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: A Road Map to Protecting Asia’s Wildlife Biodiversity.

ADB (2022) Operations Manual Policies and Procedures (Section A1)—Classification and Graduation of Developing Member Countries (issued on 1 January 2022).

AECOM (2017) Review of Screening Tools to Assess Sustainability and Climate Resilience of Infrastructure Development, prepared for WWF.

Alexis Romero. Philippines, China agree on 10-year cooperation on infrastructure. Philstar.com. November 27, 2018

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/11/27/1872201/philippines-china-agree-10-year-cooperation-infrastructure

ASEAN Capital Markets Forum, (March 2019), Roadmap for ASEAN Sustainable Capital Markets

ASEAN Community Vision 2025, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/2015/November/aec-page/ ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf

ASEAN Secretariat (2017) Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025, p7.

ASEAN Secretariat (2020) Framework for Improving ASEAN Infrastructure Productivity, p14. Baird and Thomas, Greening the BRI in ASEAN, CJEL 4 (2020) 217-234.

Baird, M. (2020) Environmental Impact Assessment in Southeast Asia,

https://th.boell.org/en/2020/05/12/eiasoutheast-asia (last accessed 1 July 2022)

Bangkok Post Graphic: Bangkok Post. From Bangkok to Beijing. 7 July 2019

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/ general/1708122/from-bangkok-to-beijing

Bangkok Post. 2 China-made trains of Indonesia high-speed railway arrive in Jakarta. PUBLISHED: 2 SEP 2022 AT 19:32

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2383040/2-china-made-trains-of-indonesia-high-speed-railway-arrive-in-jakarta

Bartlett, R. (2019) Visioning Futures: Improving infrastructure planning to harness nature’s benefits in a warming world, WWF.

Bon, E. T. S. (ed.) (2022) Business and Human Rights in Southeast Asia: A Practitioner’s GuideKit for SMEs on Human Rights Compliance regarding the Environment and Labour, Kuala Lumpur, p54.

CEPF (2020) Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot Ecosystem Profile Technical Summary—2020 Update.

Chheang, V. (2021) “BRI Projects in Cambodia and Laos Roll On Despite Covid-19”, ISEAS Perspective, 2021/99, ISEA Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles- commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-99-bri-projects-incambodia-and-laos-roll-on-despite-covid-19-by-vannarith-chheang/

China Daily, “Chinese Investors, Tourists Contribute to Cambodia’s Socio-economic Development: Business Leaders”, January 12, 2018 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a584fa8a3102c394518edc0.html

China Environment Net. Laos-Vietnam Railway Project considered. 5 July 2022 https://china-environment-news.net/ blog/2022/07/05/laos-vietnam-railway-project-considered/

CMS Secretariat (2020) Fact Sheet: Addressing the Impact of Linear Infrastructure on Migratory Species, p2.

Data from the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council.

Dr. Sebastien Goulard. China’s BRI in some ASEAN countries (2/4): Indonesia’s GMF. One Belt

One Road Europe (OBOReurope) https://www.oboreurope.com/en/chinas-bri-asean-indonesia/

Dr. Sebastien Goulard. China’s BRI in some ASEAN countries (4/4): The Philippines’ BBB. One Belt One Road Europe (OBOReurope) https://www.oboreurope.com/en/chinas-bri-asean-philippines-ambisyon/

Eckstein et al (2021) Global Climate Risk Index 2021, Germanwatch.

EIA Guidelines for Business Project Development in ASEAN Economic Community, Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand, 2018

EIA in the Mekong Region, Materials and Commentary, Edited Matthew Baird and EarthRights International, 2016

EMAS User’s Guide (https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/tools-and-standards/eu-taxonomy-sustainableactivities_en).

ESG Today (2022) Investor Group Including Aviva, BlackRock, Macquarie Draft ESG Covenant Package for Infrastructure Finance, https://www.esgtoday.com/investor-group-including-aviva-blackrock-macquarie-draft-esgcovenant-package-for-infrastructure-finance/ (last accessed 6 Jul 2022)

Espoo Convention, Article 2.

Fazekas, M. et al (2019) Analytics for Integrity. Data-Driven Approaches for Enhancing Corruption and Fraud Risk Assessments, OECD.

Global Infrastructure Hub (2021) Global Infrastructure Outlook, https://outlook.gihub.org/ (accessed 18 September 2022).

Hallegatte, S. et al. (2019) Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity, Sustainable Infrastructure Series, World Bank, doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1430-3.

HKTDC Research. Cambodia: SEZs in Focus. 12 April 2017 https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/MzgzMDUwMDI0

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Myanmar, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/uob-bri-myanmar

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Malaysia, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/uob-bri-malaysia

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Indonesia, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/uob-bri-indonesia

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: the Philippines, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/uob-bri-philippines

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Vietnam, December 2020 https://iems.ust.hk/publications/reports/uob-bri-vietnam

Hoong Chen TEO et al., ‘Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Development under the Belt and Road Initiative’ (2019) 6 Environments 72

https://aichr.org/news/aichr-un-discuss-milestones-towards-a-regional-instrument-on-environmental-rights-in-asean/ (viewed 14 September 2022)

https://asean.org/book/asean-taxonomy-for-sustainable-finance/ (last accessed 19 September 2022)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainableactivities_en

https://greenfdc.org/interpretation-2022-guidelines-ecological-environmental-protection-of- foreign-investmentcooperation-and-construction-projects/

https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/green-development-guidelines-for-overseas-investment-andcooperation-english-translation/

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/hydro+advisory/news/ press+releases/cia+in+lao+commences

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/hydro+advisory/news/ events/inception+workshop+for+the+cia+of+renewable+energy+in+the+myitnge+river+basin

https://www.mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/consultations/pnpca-prior-consultations/

Human Rights Council resolution, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, 48/13, A/ HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1 (8 October 2021), available from https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/48/13.

Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/HRC/37/59 (24 January 2018), available at https://digitallibrary.un-.org/record/1474985?ln=en.

IAIA (n.d.) Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management, https://www.iaia.org/wiki-details.php?ID=9 (accessed 18 September 2022).

ICLG.com. CDR—Belt and Road Initiative, Vietnam. 21/09/2021 https://iclg.com/cdr-essential-intelligence/1100-cdrthe-belt-and-road-initiative-2021/vietnam

IFC (2002) Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan. IFC (2021) IFC ESG Guidebook, p14.

IFC (n.d.) Environmental, Social and Governance https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_ external_corporate_site/ifc+cg/resources/guidelines_reviews+and+case+studies/ifc-esg-guidebook (last accessed 6 July 2022).

IFC ESG Guidebook, p.27

ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use

ISO 14004:2016 Environmental management systems — General guidelines on implementation; ISO 14001: Environmental management systems — A practical guide for SMEs (https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100411.html)

Le Cornu, E. Review of Screening Tools to Assess Sustainability and Climate Resilience of Infrastructure Development. (2017)

May Kunmakara, “PM Backs China’s Key Role,” Khmer Times, April 12, 2017, https://www.khmertimeskh.com/15902/ pm-backs-chinas-key-role/

Mekong Agreement. https://www.mrcmekong.org/publications/agreements/

Mekong River Commission (2018) Guidelines for Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TbEIA) in the Lower Mekong River Basin: A Working Document, https://www.mrcmekong.org/resource/ajg6hp

Mekong River Commision, Frequently Asked Questions about MRC Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement process, https://www.mrcmekong.org/news-and-events/consultations/pnpca-prior-consultations/faqsto-the-mrc-procedures-for-notification-prior-consultation-and-agreement-process/

Monetary Authority of Singapore (2020), Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management (Banks), https://www. mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/Regulations-and-Financial-Stability/Regulations-Guidance-and-Licensing/CommercialBanks/Regulations-Guidance-and-Licensing/Guidelines/Guidelines-on-Environmental-Risk---Banks/Guidelines-onEnvironmental-Risk-Management-for-Banks.pdf.

NASA (n.d.) World of Change: Amazon Deforestation, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/ Deforestation (last accessed 2 September 2022).

National Strategy (2018—2037)

NGFS (2021) NGFS Glasgow Declaration, https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/ngfsglasgowdeclaration.pdf (last accessed 15 September 2022).

Nick Augusteijn. Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Link project nears 30-percent completion. RailTech.Com. Published on 09-03-2022 at 11:50 https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/03/09/malaysias-east-coast-rail-link-project-nears30-percent-completion/?gdpr=accept

OECD (2011) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, pp42-3.

OECD (2018) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, pp16-19.

OECD (2022) Trends in ESG Investing and Quality Infrastructure Investment in Asia-Pacific, OECD Paris.

OECD Centre for RBC (2021) Policy Trends in Environmental Due Diligence, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/policytrends-in-environmental-due-diligence.pdf.

Predeep Nambiar. Activists call for a freeze on Melaka Gateway project. FMT. August 20, 2022, 7:30 AM https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/08/20/activists-call-for-freeze-on-melaka-gateway-project/ Railway Technology. Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway, Indonesia. 2 September 2022 https://www.railwaytechnology.com/projects/jakarta-to-bandung-high-speed-rail/

Regional Guidelines on Public Participation in EIA, Mekong Partnership for the Environment, PACT, 2017.

Ruza, S. (2010) “Presentation on Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991)”, Workshop on Multilateral Environmental Agreements Tirana, Albania, 22-24 June 2010.

Shahar HAMEIRI, ‘Debunking the myth of China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”’, Lowy Institute, September 9, 2020, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy (last viewed 19 September 2022)

Singh, S. and Gulliya, D. (2021) Integration of Environmental Risks in Infrastructure Investments in India: A Business Case for Financial Institutions, WWF-India.

Sustainable Infrastructure Tool Navigator, https://sustainable-infrastructure-tools.org/, last accessed 28 April 2022.

The Biodiversity Consultancy (2015) A Cross-Sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy, Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative.

The Biodiversity Consultancy (2022) Mitigation Hierarchy, https://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/our-work/ourexpertise/strategy/mitigation-hierarchy/ (last accessed 17 August 2022).

The Cambodia Daily, “China Funded 70% of Cambodian Roads, Bridges: Minister,” July 24, 2017, https://www. cambodiadaily.com/business/china-funded-70-of-cambodian-roads-bridges-minister-132826/

The Nation Thailand, September 15, 2022, https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40012017

The Phnom Penh Post. Vietnam to build nine new railways. 25 October 2021. https://www.phnompenhpost.com/ international/vietnam-build-nine-new-railways

Tritto, A. et al. (2020) The Belt and Road Initiative in ASEAN: Overview, United Overseas Bank and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies, p3.

UN General Assembly resolution, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/RES/76/300 (28 July 2022), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3983329?ln=en.

UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

UN Global Compact (n.d.) The Ten Principles, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (last accessed 11 September 2022).

UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Critical infrastructure, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/critical-infrastructure (last accessed 17 February 2022)

UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Resilience, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience (last accessed 17 February 2022).

UNDRR (n.d.) Terminology—Vulnerability, https://www.undrr.org/terminology/vulnerability (last accessed 17 Februar y 2022).

UNECE (n.d.) Environmental Assessment, https://unece.org/environment-policy/environmental-assessment (last accessed 19 September 2022).

UNESCAP (2021) Technical Report and Recommendations to Strengthen Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures in ASEAN.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I (Aug. 12, 1992), Principle 15.

USAID (2021) “Annex 3: Existing Capacity and Constraints to Undertake Wildlife-Friendly Linear Infrastructure in Asia”, Building a Foundation for Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia, pp17- 18.

USAID (2021) Building a Foundation for Linear Infrastructure Safeguards in Asia.

USEPA’s Environmental Management Systems: An Implementation Guide for Small and Medium- Sized Organizations (https://www.epa.gov/ems/environmental-management-systems-implementation-guide-small-and-medium-sizedorganizations)

Vannarith Chheang and Heng Pheakdey. NIDS ASEAN Workshop 2019 “China’s BRI and ASEAN”, Chapter 1: Cambodian Perspective on the Belt and Road Initiative http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/joint_research/ series17/pdf/chapter01.pdf

Webb, B. et al (2019) Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience: An Implementation Guide, Federal Highway Administration.

World Economic Forum (2021) A Leapfrog Moment for China in ESG Reporting, White Paper, March.

World Bank Environmental and Social Framework, World Bank, 2017, p. 11 and IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, IFC, 2012, p. 15

World Health Organization (2021) Health Topics. https://www.who.int/health-topics/#B Accessed 30 July 2021.

Wu, S. and B. V. Li (2022) “Sustainable linear infrastructure route planning model to balance conservation and socioeconomic development”, Biological Conservation 266:109449, p2.

WWF (2017) The Belt and Road Initiative: WWF Recommendations and Spatial Analysis, pp3-4.

WWF (2022) Access to Information in the Lower Mekong, forthcoming.

Xinhua. Chinese-invested economic zone in Cambodia registers trade increase of 38 pct in H1. 2022-07-18 20:06:12 https://english.news.cn/asiapacific/20220718/fd7a6ce6e5464705b30603591cd30eac/c.html

Yang, T. (2019) “The Emergence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Duty as a Global Legal Norm and General Principle of Law”, Hastings Law Journal Volume 70:525 at 527 (February 2019)

Zoltán, V. and Somsack, P. Laos and the Belt and Road Initiative https://doi.org/10.47706/KKIFPR.2020.13.24-38

Zurita, P. et al. (2022) The Measurable Nature Positive Goal for the CBD Mission, submission to the parties negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, 17 March 2022, https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/ NDNP/PDFs/Measuring%20Nature%20Positive%20Goal_Final_2022.pdf (last accessed 13 September 2022).

Road, Dawna Tenasserim, Myanmar. November 2018

This report was conceptualized by Urvana Menon (WWF) and developed by Martin Cosier (ARIEL) and Matthew Baird (ARIEL), with assistance from Sai Nay Won Myint (ARIEL) and Roger Joseph ‘Rocky’ Guzman (ARIEL). Special thanks to Sai Than Lwin (WWF), Stefano Zenobi (WWF) and the Asia Research Center for Migration, Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University for their contributions, review and support throughout the development of this report. This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of USAID Mekong for the Future.

The contents are the responsibility of WWF and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Dawei

Photo by Hkun Lat for WWF-Myanmar