IEA Training Manual - Module 1

7.3 National example – Bhutan

Figure 5: Location of Bhutan

Mandate

The Bhutan State of Environment Report (UNEP RRC.AP 2001) was prepared as a response to the recommendations in Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit. The process was initiated by UNEP in association with the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) and the Royal Government of Bhutan, with the financial support of the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD). The National Environment Council (NEC), under the Royal Government of Bhutan, was the national focal government agency for the implementation of the project. Because of lack of institutional capacity and human resources, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) from India, a GEO Collaborating Centre was involved in the preparation of the Bhutan SoE report. The report’s objective was to identify the key priority environmental issues, provide guidelines for environmental planning and policy development, and identify alternative actions as options to offset negative environmental trends.

When it was done
The IEA process in Bhutan was started in mid-1999 and the report was launched in August 2001.

Members of assessment team
Bhutan’s members of the assessment team came from the National Environment Council Secretariat and from a number of ministries. TERI was represented by 11 team members.

Major environmental issues assessed

  • Rural urban migration
  • Land degradation
  • Air pollution
  • Water pollution
  • Solid waste management

Conclusions
Bhutan has made remarkable progress in human as well as economic development. The government of Bhutan is committed to maintaining a harmony between economic forces, spiritual and cultural values and the environment through its “middle path” approach. However, with the expansion of industry, agriculture and urbanization, the country faces a number of challenges.

Land degradation is a priority issue in Bhutan. It can be attributed to deforestation, unsustainable fuel wood extraction, shifting cultivation, encroachment into forests, forest fires, overgrazing and non-adoption of adequate soil conservation measures. The strong conservation ethic of the Bhutanese people and the political will of its government are having an impact on the preservation of forests. The national assembly has mandated that at least 60 per cent of Bhutan remain under forest cover.

Deforestation is taking place mainly due to infrastructure development, expansion of industrial and agricultural activities, and increasing urbanization. The strong conservation ethics of the Bhutanese people and the political will of its government are the greatest contributing factors to the preservation of the forests. The National Assembly has mandated the country to maintain a minimum of 60 per cent of the land area under forest cover for all times. Different acts and programmes have been prescribed by the Royal Government of Bhutan to minimize the rate of deforestation.

Urbanization is another important challenge. Rural-urban migration increases pressure on urban infrastructure and services and poses environmental problems.

Air pollution in Bhutan can be attributed to rapid urbanization, increasing industrial activities and vehicles emissions. The burning of wood in bhukharis and the use of diesel vehicles are the main sources of air pollution.

Fresh water is abundant in Bhutan. At present, river water quality is reasonably good since no polluting industries are located upstream. But rapid urbanization and industrialization could create pressure on valuable water resources.

Solid waste management is an emerging issue in most urban areas in Bhutan. The magnitude of the problem is small in rural areas, but is growing significantly in urban areas. To minimize solid waste problems in the future, reduction in waste generation would be an important factor.

While economic development is important to improve quality of life, strong policies, planning and institutional mechanisms, in addition to political will, are essential to preserve socio-cultural and biological diversity. Systematic integrated planning needs to include environmental issues, policy, technological intervention and institutional mechanisms. This requires a coordinated and integrated planning process to ensure maximized positive socio-economic impacts and minimized negative environmental impacts. There is a need for an effective IEA to inform this process.

The SoE preparation process not only provided useful training on reporting and data collection for Bhutanese officials, but also helped the public in Bhutan understand the importance of SoE reports and their implications for the day-to-day decision making process.

Capacity building
The initiative has enhanced know-how in Bhutan to carry out IEA. The exercise helped pilot and formalize environmental assessment and reporting in Bhutan. The tools for assessment and reporting employed in the process were seen to have potential in the day-to-day work of public agencies and since the report was published, the Government of Bhutan has made use of these enhanced capacities.

Impact and follow-up
The IEA helped the Royal Government of Bhutan realize the importance of environmental data for the decision making. A project supported by the Danish International Development Agency was designed to establish an environment information system in the National Environment Council, intended to strengthen environment assessment and reporting. This project is currently being implemented.

In recognition of the importance of the SoE report, the Royal Government has started and is partly funding a 2nd SoE report. This time, all the resource persons and institutions involved are from Bhutan.

Discussion Question

Discuss some of the important lessons learned from Bhutan’s example of a national GEO assessment. What role do you think that government participation played in the assessment process? What do you see as the most successful elements of this assessment? Why do you feel that way?

Comments/Feedback


Write comment:

Posted by:
- - 16 Sep 2012
6wrQsk , [url=http://fzyeommffwbr.com/]fzyeommffwbr[/url], [link=http://hnmmnxenelyy.com/]hnmmnxenelyy[/link], http://seazrjislnai.com/
- - 13 Sep 2012
bSIC5T , [url=http://lirevjoztnxc.com/]lirevjoztnxc[/url], [link=http://jpgacojiwllx.com/]jpgacojiwllx[/link], http://iflhxpxpkjxu.com/
- - 13 Sep 2012
. I didn't frame the desiicon in any terms I didn't talk about any desiicon. You seem to think that I was somehow questioning mitigation policy, but I definitely was not. I just pointed out that the scientific evidence is uncertain, and this must be recognised because the same science informs more than one policy area. My key point is that dangerous climate change does not lend itself to scientific definition, which is why most climate scientists steer clear of it. It's a value judgement.You are over-stating what AR4 said about 2 degrees. The IPCC does not make specific statements on thresholds of dangerous climate change. Moreover, while WG2 made a valiant attempt to try to frame the impacts assessments in a way which spoke clearly to Article 2 of the UNFCCC by presenting a table of impacts vs. levels of global warming, everybody (including the authors) recognised that it was a gross simplification and merely a first step rather than a definitive policy tool. BTW you say my statement about most climate scientists is unsubstantiated. OK, maybe I should have said most climate scientists that I know but I bet I know more than you do! (I mean actual working-level climate scientists who crunch the numbers, plot the graphs and write the papers). However if you have evidence that most climate scientists do sign up to the 2 degrees value judgement then I'd be pleased to see it.On your last paragraph yes I know that's how it's done, because I do it! I admit it is outside my field of expertise to comment on the likelihood of success of international negotiations in achieving a global peak and decline in emissions in time to avoid the probability of 2 degrees exceeding 50:50, so I probably should have said if not when . However, let's re-cast my comment in the light of your comments about risk there is already a substantial risk that we'll exceed 2 degrees, and hence there is already a substantial risk that we will have to adapt to 2 degrees. Hence it is important that we are up-front about the uncertainties in what the impacts will be at 2 degrees so that we can be properly informed when we plan to adapt.