Mekong-US Partnership Track 1.5 Policy Dialogue Summary Report on Connectivity

A Note from the Conference Chairs

The third Mekong-US Partnership Track 1.5 Policy Dialogue on Connectivity was the second thematic dialogue of the Partnership Policy Dialogue series, and it took place across fourvirtual half-day sessions from March 15 to 22, 2022. The Partnership Policy Dialogues are a series of seven conferences taking place between 2021 and 2023, which explore solutions to key policy and sustainability challenges in the Lower Mekong. The first was held virtually in March 2021 and convened partners and stakeholders from around the Mekong region to explore gaps, needs, and opportunities for collaboration on addressing key challenges. This third dialogue built on connectivity concerns raised duringthose initial discussions with a deep dive into challenges related to economic, human, digital, and environmental connectivity needs.

The conference was designed to be inclusive of experts across the region and across multiple sectors, and more than 100 attendees participated in discussions across the opening plenary dialogues and parallel sessions. Over half (55%) of the conference registrants came from one of the five Mekong countries, with 33% coming from the United States. The remaining 23% were from a range of regional partners, including Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and other countries in ASEAN and Asia. While a quarter of participants didn’t want to share information on age, 19% of registrants were rising voices under 35. The majority of attendees (62%) were from non-government institutions and 38% were from government affiliated ministries or organizations. Evaluation surveys completed by conference participants show that most participants developed insights into relevant policy issues and would recommend participation in future dialogues to a colleague.

Our teams at the Stimson Center and IUCN look forward to building on the approaches from this dialogue through four additional dialogues on other topics in coming years. We deeply appreciatesupport from the U.S. Department of State and the Mekong-U.S. Partnership for this Policy Dialogue. In particular, the team would like to thank Nicole Smolinske, Rachel Rodgers, Alexandra Radu, and Elizabeth Evans of the U.S. Department of State; Terry Regan, Stephanie Fischer, and Eng Gin Moe with the Department of Transportation; Dr. Chayanis Krittasudthacheewa and Agus Negroho from the Stockholm Environment Institute Asia; and Mr. Mario Masaya from the U.S. –ASEAN Business Council for helping to coordinate speakers and pull together an impactful and interactive virtual conversation. We would also like to thank our more than 40 presenters and all our participants for engaging actively during the discussions.

Sincerely,

Summary

This third dialogue was a deep-dive into connectivity needs and challenges in the Mekong Region with particular focus on how COVID-19 has impacted human, economic, and digital connectivity. Participants explored policy challenges and best practices from the US, Mekong countries, and development partner countries such as members of the Quad (Australia, Japan, and India) related totransportation and cross-border connectivity,multi-stakeholder collaboration, migratory labor, the digital marketplace, information access, data privacy, and ecosystem connectivity, among other areas. Cross-cutting values of inclusivity, resilience (including climate), and collaboration framed presentations and discussions and were woven into the recommendations. The conference’s 11 sessions used Zoom Webinars and online tools like Mentimeter and Jamboard to maximize engagement of all participants and panelists.Priority issues and policy recommendations from the Policy Dialogue on Connectivity include:

• Chambers of Commerce, business associations, and training programs should provide greater support to managers of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) on e-commerce marketing and operations. During the pandemic, SMEswere disproportionately affected by a sharp drop in demand, supply chain disruptions, and contract cancellations. COVID-19’s impacts on domestic markets severely affected SMEs—but those SMEs thatwere able to move their marketing and operations online were resilient, and many even increased earnings and market position. However, SMEswhich did not have that capacity suffered.
  
• Civil society and think tank networksshould develop processes for enabling locally-based community groups to communicate and interact with similarly affected groups in other countries. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are generally small and operate locally, but the greatest problems are transboundary and require cross-border collaboration.There is often a lack of resources and coordination among local CSOs, which preventsthem from accessing and engaging in political dialogue at the national or the regional level.Development partners and other funders should provide flexible multiyear funding to support effective, long-term networking.
  
• Mekong governments should work with software and communication companies to sponsor equipment for online learning programs in schools and Ministries of Education should build digital skills into school curriculum. Gaps in information and communications technology (ICT) adoption, digital connectivity, and the digital divide have been further exacerbated by the pandemic. COVID-19 has supercharged online communications and hastenedICT adoption—but has also further exposed the gap between those who do and do not have access to these tools.
  
• Governments and private investors should reduce over-exploitation of rivers and recognize the value of keeping rivers free-flowing. River fragmentation is often a by-product of water resource infrastructure development, particularly hydropower. The economic benefits of water infrastructure are concentrated and easily quantifiable—for instance, income from energy generation or irrigated agriculture—whilst those from free-flowing rivers, particularly sediment and nutrient transport and fisheries, are disperse and can be difficult to quantify. As a result, cost-benefit analyses tend to systematically overemphasize the benefits and underestimate the costs from irrigation and hydropower projects.

Agenda

Day 1: March 15, 2022 from 8:30 – 10:00 AM ICT (March 14, 2022 from 9:30 PM – 12:40 AM EST)

Day 2: March 16, 2022 from 8:30 – 10:00 AM ICT (March 15, 2022 from 9:30 PM – 12:40 AM EST)

Day 3: March 18, 2022 from 8:30 – 10:00 AM ICT (March 17, 2022 from 9:30 PM – 12:40 AM EST)

Day 4: Closing Synthesis and Plenary

March 22, 2022 from 8:30 – 10:00 AM ICT (March 21, 2022 from 9:30 PM – 12:40 AM EST)

Thematic Areas and Recommendations

The key concerns and recommendations in each thematic section below were drawn from the session presentations and discussion and then prioritized during the synthesis workshop. Throughout the conference the organizing team tracked the specific concerns, key actors, and recommendations that were raised during session discussions. These were each formatted into an interactive Jamboard template which tracked the broad Issue, Contextual Notes, Key Actors, and Policy Recommendations that had emerged from the discussions. 

Using an interactive live-ranking poll via Mentimeter, participants in the Synthesis Workshop identified the top three priority issues for each of the four sub-themes at the dialogue: economic connectivity, human connectivity, digital connectivity, and environmental connectivity. The following issues and recommendations emerged from the in-depth workshopping process. The brainstorming sessions often identified a wide range of relevant recommendations; the top policy recommendations as finalized and identified by votes of support from participants are included in this summary report. 

Economic Connectivity

While Mekong countries have established many mechanisms to increase connectivity and move towards shared economic growth, such as the GMS Economic Corridors Program, the Cross-Border Transport Agreement (CBTA), and ASEAN Economic Connectivity, regulatory and institutional hurdles still pose challenges. Such obstacles limit the safe and efficient mobility of people and goods. Migratory labor cohorts actively move across borders seeking work and are a driver of regional economic development. However, the pandemic’s impacts on the regional economy and migratory laborers reveals rapid changes to the economy that will particularly impact unskilled laborers, and which hinder equitable access to the benefits of regional economic growth.

Sessions at the Dialogue explored challenges and regional initiatives related to cross-border transport and security and the way that labor and migration in the Mekong region is challenged by disruptive factors. Both sessions considered the lessons learned through the COVID pandemic such as impacts to supply chains and migrant laborers.

Priority Issues and Policy Recommendations

During the pandemic, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were disproportionately affected by a sharp drop in demand, supply chain disruptions, and contract cancellations. SMEs account for more than 90% of enterprises in the region and generate approximately 70% of employment but are only responsible for a small portion of exports.¹For more information on SMEs and micro SMEs in ASEAN, check out Giulia Marsan and Lina Sabrina, ASEAN MSMEs in a COVID-19 World: Lessons from ERIA MSMEs Talks 1-5, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, https://www.eria.org/uploads/media/Event-Reports/2020-November-ERIA-Event-Report-ASEAN-MSMEs-In-A-COVID-19-World-Revised.pdf.  COVID-19’s impacts on domestic markets severely affected SMEs—but those SMEs that were able to move their marketing and operations online were resilient, and many even increased earnings and market position. However, those which did not have that capacity suffered.

• International businesses and business associations should provide consumers with digital skills to better use e-commerce.
• Relevant ministries—such as Ministries of Investment and Trade—should investigate the current challenges in the region related to e-commerce and improve baseline understanding among policymakers of what needs to be done to capitalize on digital opportunities.
• Chambers of Commerce, business associations, and donor-supported training programs should provide greater support to managers to SMEs on e-commerce marketing and operations. Successful U.S. businesses can be used as case studies in training programs.
• Government ministries should provide new businesses with training and resources on managing disruptions when they register.

Most of the Mekong countries did not invest sufficiently in pandemic research and prevention given pressures to invest in more recurring development needs. There was already a significant infrastructure gap of billions of dollars annually prior to the pandemic, and COVID-19 has led to less financial resources for infrastructure as countries reprioritized resources to combat the pandemic. 

• Regional governments and international development partners should encourage greater involvement of the private sector in the implementation of connectivity programs and projects.
• The United States and other development partners should actively coordinate to provide funding for infrastructure to avoid overlap in some areas and failure to fill gaps in other areas. When appropriating and allocating funding, development partnres should  consider the needs on the ground in prioritizing assistance.
• The CLV countries (Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam) should enhance trilateral cooperation mechanisms, focusing on plans and programs which benefit all three countries and could identify attractive infrastructure investments.
• In the long-term, each Mekong government should allocate sufficient funds for research and prevention of future pandemics.

Trade benefits from multilateral Cross Border Trade Agreements are not spread equitably across countries. In volume, most trade in the GMS takes place in China and Thailand, and there are concerns that other countries would not gain equitable benefits from CBTAs.

• National government should promote cross-border economic zones to encourage investments that link across the value chain and help ensure broad access to benefits of increased trade.
• The region should promote investment collaboration and Cross Border Trade Agreements to strengthen e-commerce through connecting transboundary infrastructure such as fiber optics and 5G to enhance digital connectivity 
• Regional government should develop high-quality, parallel investment regimes.
• Mekong countries should collectively clarify what distribution or sharing of benefits should look like, what is acceptable, and what is the right approach to growth, in order for development partners to effectively provide assistance in this space.

Human Connectivity

Many of the greatest economic and policy challenges facing the Mekong region are inherently multi-sectoral in nature, requiring a cohesive and coordinated approach between independent groups of stakeholders. Building bridges between government, private sector, civil society, and academic actors who have historically worked in isolation is crucial to ensure long-term buy-in and success. 

U.S. programming for people-to-people connections runs deep in the Mekong region, spanning several decades. Notable programs include the Young Southeast Asia Leadership Initiative (YSEALI) program, International Visiting Leadership Program, Mississippi-Mekong sister river programming, among many others. While participants often find these capacity building experiences both life-changing and enriching, the range of outcomes after the program ends is varied. Some participants put their experiences to effective use translating to measurable impact, and others having a less successful experience. 

One session explored existing successes and challenges in collaborative efforts between government and civil society stakeholders in the Mekong region. The second session discussed best practices from both a participant perspective and programmatic perspective achieving higher levels of long-lasting impact with people to people programming.

Priority Issues and Policy Recommendations:

Civil society organizations (CSOs) are generally small and operate locally, but the greatest problems are transboundary and require cross-border collaboration. There is often a lack of resources and coordination among local CSOs, which prevents them from accessing and engaging in political dialogue at the national or the regional level. Governments lack trust in transnational non-government organization (NGO) networks and sometimes view their activities as a threat to national sovereignty.

• The U.S. Department of State, USAID, and international development partner institutions should deliver capacity and exchange programs for a range of stakeholders who come from different backgrounds in order to facilitate cross sector connections. These programs should focus on effective international communication through providing language training in English as well as the social and physical sciences.
• Civil society and think tank networks such as SUMERNET, the Mekong Environment Forum, and Mekong People’s Forum should develop processes for enabling locally-based community groups to communicate and interact with similarly affected groups in other countries. Development partners, international non-governmental institutions, and other funders should provide core flexible and multiyear funding to networks and convening institutions to support effective, long-term networking.
• Stakeholders should replicate and support regional networking initiatives for CSOs and facilitate opportunities for cooperation between governments and CSOs to improve trust between these key stakeholder groups.

Meaningful participation by non-government stakeholders is lacking in the policy decision-making process. Many governments claim to welcome multi-stakeholder engagement and local participation, but it is often limited to a practical level and doesn’t reach policy making levels. Regional disparities exist: non-urban areas often have low levels of accessibility for public engagement, and the civic landscape varies widely by country.

• Non-government stakeholders should encourage governments and private sector to actively participate in CSO-led forums. The four Water, Land, and Environment Forums between 2014 and 2018 was highlighted as a particularly valuable starting example for effective government and non-government dialogue.
• The region should establish a Lower Mekong Basin NGO Forum that can effectively bring common local but transboundary issues to the attention of all regional governments. This provides a safe space for sharing concerns and can help amplify the voices of CSOs.
• Stakeholders should provide support to intergovernmental platform to review operational guidelines and legal framework to include gov-CSOs dialogues.

Notably, one policy recommendation was echoed as a preferred solution to both of the priority issues above: regional governments should create active public participatory mechanisms within policy formulation processes. Attendees suggested that this could involve integrating CSOs into local committees and/or national and regional-level steering groups, effectively institutionalizing their participation in policy-making.

Insufficient linkages between civil society and academic projects and government ministries, leading to less-than-optimal developments. It is worth recognizing that CSOs, academic institutions, and governments may have differing priorities. Many scientific research projects have long term horizons that both NGOs and government agencies do not see as relevant. In some cases, there may be competing interests between stakeholder groups. Within that context, policy recommendations include:

• Aid agencies and donors should encourage research project designers to support policymakers through co-identifying problems, co-designing theories of change, as well as co-production of knowledge. This should be followed by clear communication of research and policy engagement approaches.
• Investors and researchers should ensure meaningful multi-stakeholder consultation by ensuring that materials and proceedings are provided in local languages and that invitees can participate without fear of harm or retribution. Donors should encourage local language and localization for supported projects.
• The region should Develop a regional standard on meaningful CSO and academic participation looking at criteria like governance, prior consent, evidence-based decisions, etc. 
• Stakeholders should facilitate interaction so that government, CSOs, and academic stakeholders are all speaking the same language. Build capacity of government officials to understand why academic projects are important and how they can work towards synergistic goals. 

Digital Connectivity

The pandemic has caused skyrocketing growth in Southeast Asia’s digital economy, with the internet economy growing from $72 billion in 2018 to more than $170 billion in 2021. In addition, there has been a massive growth in digital consumption through food and grocery delivery, digital financial services, and online shopping. Yet not all in the Mekong region have equal access to digital services, and relative fragmentation across markets and regulations in terms of data protection, consumer protection, data-sharing, and privacy inhibit e-trade among those stakeholders who do have access. And while digital technology and social media drive economic growth, they also serve as increasingly important platforms for expressing views. Regulators and industry often struggle for balance over information access, freedom of expression, and content control. 

Digital connectivity sessions explored recent national and regional efforts to grow and regulate the digital space, including opportunities and risks related to increased information access and inappropriate regulation of digital technology, marketplaces, and social media.

Priority Issues and Policy Recommendations:

Users lack trust in online platforms and governments have not yet implemented regulations to ensure data protection for users and data providers. Perceptions of trust and concerns differ between social media, online businesses, and other data platforms and services. However, across the board legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding data protection and customer privacy are still limited in most ASEAN countries and are not standardized.

• Data projects should facilitate the dissemination of tools, platform and services that embed data protection and ownership by design. Examples include tools like Mapeo and HydroShare. Mapeo allows communities to document, monitor, and share data in an offline manner which allows control over datasets. HydroShare shares information on what data is available while still allowing users to manage direct access to the data.
• Educators should build media literacy resources and trainings for school curriculum to train social media users and citizens for detecting fake news. 
• The mass media, social media influencers, and other public commentators should promote dialogue about the extent to which data protection matters and understand the concerns and requirements between different actors, governments, making sure to include vulnerable and/or marginalized groups.
• Government and intergovernmental bodies must establish national and international laws that ensure personal data protection and enforce digital security measure. The United States and other development partners can share best practices.

A governmental culture of data secrecy and non-sharing inhibits reforms to the data landscape. Traditionally and in a non-digital setting, data is kept proprietary and is not shared because it provides power and benefits, which has led to a system where data access requires negotiation and time investment. Even when government agencies are willing to share data there is often no mechanism to do so. A history of departmental and/or ministerial silos has led to contrasting policies on data, which can carry over into a digital context. Modern technologies such as satellite imaging or mapping can move control over certain types of data beyond the government’s capacity to control.

• Government actors should provide legal clarity and guidance on what data can be shared and how to share it, making it easier and safer to share data. Ideally this would be done at the national level, but could be done at the ministerial or departmental level. Such policies could have cascading effects.
• International NGOs and development partners should investigate the motivations, institutional constraints, risk aversion, objectives, strategies and wills behind limited sharing and lack of will to reform in order to better understand how to work through constraints on data sharing. This could be used to help worth through constraints for regional organizations such as the Mekong River Commission.

Gaps in information and communications technology (ICT) adoption, digital connectivity, and the digital divide have been further exacerbated by the pandemic. COVID-19 has supercharged online communications and in many cases has helped ICT adoption—digital learning, meetings, entertainment, online buying/selling, etc. While this has provided flexibility and economic growth in many cases, it has also further exposed the gap between those who do and those who do not have access to these tools. Internet access varies widely among countries and even between rural and urban areas inside each country.

• Mekong governments can work with communication device companies to sponsor schools with their physical or software products to support online learning.
• Digital platforms such as Facebook and other social media companies should provide small-business oriented training seminars and workshops and/or dedicating a point of contact for SMEs.
• Stakeholders should use the transparency that comes with the digital economy for empowerment–for instance, to track fair payment for suppliers or track support for women-owned businesses. Governments and the private sector should create public-private partnerships opportunities that support provision of digital training and equipment support for women entrepreneurs and other underserved groups. International development programs should prioritize training for these groups.
• Ministries of Education should consider building digital schools and training into educational curriculum.

Environmental Connectivity

Over the last 30 years, the natural habitats of the Mekong region have been increasingly fragmented and degraded, a process that has resulted in the extinction of many species and has brought humans closer to wildlife, with increased potential for zoonotic disease transmission. This fragmentation applies to both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, and fragmentation threatens the region’s agriculture and fisheries by disrupting the flood and nutrient cycles that form the basis of the Mekong’s extraordinary natural productivity.  Maintaining the Mekong’s integrity, including conserving its remaining large free flowing tributaries, is central to food security, adaptation to extreme weather events, and regional stability.

Sessions in this track looked at best practices and practical ways to connect fragmented habitats. For land habitats discussion focused on connectivity as a means to allow species to disperse naturally and at new approaches to expanding conservation outside of the national protected area system, including in cities, through the use of nature-based solutions. A river connectivity session explored pressures on the region’s major rivers including the Mekong and Salween and discussed policy responses.

Issues and Policy Recommendations:

The true value of free-flowing rivers needs to be better recognized by governments and private sector actors in order to reduce over-exploitation. River fragmentation is often a by-product of water resource infrastructure development. The economic benefits of water infrastructure development are concentrated and easily quantifiable—for instance, income from energy generation or irrigated agriculture—whilst those from free flowing rivers are disperse and can be difficult to quantify. The environmental and cultural benefits of various resources are even hard to account for, especially when they are not commercially exploited.

Cooperative management, the involvement of multiple sectors of stakeholders, is required to effectively manage the pathway of infrastructure development on and around rivers. Rivers provide multiple benefits to both nature and people which cannot be represented by a small number of stakeholders. Policymakers often have limited incentive to co-manage infrastructure processes when different stakeholders have competing interests, and only in some countries are institutional actors strong enough to reconcile these interests and coordinate development.

• Project funders and NGOs should use existing case studies of co-management processes to show how multi-stakeholder engagement can lead to more effective outcomes in capacity building with government and non-government stakeholders. Development partners should promote programming that increases opportunities for multi-stakeholder dialogue.
• National governments should legislate the role of co-management and multiple stakeholder involvement in water resource development with an emphasis on preserving free flowing rivers. This may require improving transparency and accountability of the policy process.
• Project funders—whether government or private sector—need to recognize that co-management includes long term goals and outcomes and not just immediate commercial gain.
• Project funders should prioritize engaging and incorporating the expertise of indigenous populations into infrastructure planning processes while ensuring they feel safe and receive no negative repercussions. 

Resources are needed to protect loss of income, livelihood, and heritage and avoid, mitigate, or compensate riverine communities or losses. Riverine communities that rely on natural resources from the river are most impacted by river fragmentation, and those relocated for infrastructure development often wait well past guaranteed timelines for reparations. An unanswered question is where the resources will come from and who will manage and implement compensation programs when multiple actors are involved in resource losses.

• Decisionmakers should mandate stronger protection clauses for local communities and include a range of community stakeholders and not just leaders through all stages of the life-cycle of project design and implementation.
• CSOs and researchers should circulate major study results in multiple languages to key stakeholders in the basin. 
• Riverine development projects should recognize that the loss of traditional livelihoods cannot be simply replaced with economic and physical translocation.

• Governments should mandate that indigenous values are mainstreamed into accounting processes and develop methods to mitigate the loss of indigenous values. This requires identifying and working with qualified intermediaries and translators who can translate local values for external stakeholders. 

Word Cloud from Policy Issues & Recommendation

Feedback

Attendees participated in a survey following the dialogue, and feedback indicates that most attendees felt that the dialogue was successful in introducing new information on various aspects of connectivity. Of the anonymous evaluation surveys from attendees:

• 90% of attendees indicated that they learned some or a lot of new information through participating in the Dialogue
• 65% indicated that they would definitely or probably use the knowledge gained in their work
• 85% would recommend participating in the Dialogue to a colleague
• 80% felt that they developed insight into a relevant policy or sustainability challenge facing the region
• 90% said that the Dialogue helped them identify a local Mekong stakeholder(s) with whom they shared common interest

Many participants noted in comments that they felt the Policy Dialogue was very useful for getting insights into U.S. engagements and approaches; valued the approach that convened experts across sectors and bridged stove pipes; and enjoyed the interactive approach.

Some participants did identify some areas for improvement for future dialogues: a number of participants emphasized that they hoped the next Dialogue could be in-person. One participant mentioned that it would be useful to deliberately set up some commentators to question the status quo on specific issue sets in order to have a more thought-provoking discussion. A few participants suggested having more government officials in attendance. 

The participatory aspects of the workshop were largely popular: 80% of survey respondents said that they felt that the polls and synthesis workshop were organized in a way to maximize participation. One respondent noted that there was still relatively limited participation from some attendees during the synthesis workshop. A number of respondents applauded the use of online tools like Mentimeter and Jamboard to engage participation, although a few respondents noted that they felt it was confusing to have to learn to use new tools and then use them quickly. 

Next Steps

This was the third of seven Mekong-U.S. Partnership Track 1.5 Policy Dialogues. The final four thematic workshops will be held at roughly four-to-five month intervals through 2023. Barring unexpected changes in travel requirements, it is expected that the fourth Dialogue will be held in person in Cambodia during the summer of 2022. While future themes are subject to change, the fourth workshop will be on Human Resources Capacity, and it is likely that the following three conferences will focus on non-traditional security, water governance, and nature-based solutions. All future discussions will be designed as opportunities for stakeholders from the region, the United States, and development partners to identify lessons-learned, build collaborative partnerships, transfer best practices, and identify joint-pathways to meeting policy needs.

As a Track 1.5 dialogue series and as a best practice to strengthening the Mekong-US Partnership at large, participants to these thematic conferences will continue to be drawn from government and non-government sectors and emphasis will be placed on gender balance, youth participation, and the under-represented stakeholder groups. When these workshops move to an in-person format, all attendees will also be presenters and will be asked to actively contribute to the discussions and breakout activities. The in-person conferences will include complementary side events to actively engage rising voices and youth on the relevant issue set and in the host country.  

Notes

• 1
  For more information on SMEs and micro SMEs in ASEAN, check out Giulia Marsan and Lina Sabrina, ASEAN MSMEs in a COVID-19 World: Lessons from ERIA MSMEs Talks 1-5, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, https://www.eria.org/uploads/media/Event-Reports/2020-November-ERIA-Event-Report-ASEAN-MSMEs-In-A-COVID-19-World-Revised.pdf.