From my own experience working with Thailand?s government agencies for environmental management and implementation of the Rio Conventions, I feel that (1) ?budgetary allocation? and (2) ?prominence of relevant institutions? are extremely important and useful as ways of measuring political commitment. The agencies which I worked with suffered from lack of budget to implement their mandate, as well as lack of influence with other national agencies. This led to a number of objectives not being implemented and general implementation of the Rio Conventions falling short (see Thailand?s National Capacity Self-Assessment published by UNDP and Thailand?s ONEP agency).
?Level of media interest? is not an appropriate indicator because media can be (and are) influenced in many countries by political pressure and power from special interest groups; media coverage can also be bought. The amount of ?new legislation enacted? is also not appropriate as an indicator. Thailand, for instance, has enacted a number of new laws throughout its history to address perceived gaps. However, these new laws suffer from the same institutional shortfalls as previous laws: a lack of budgetary funding for implementing / enacting agencies and weak institutional capacity and prominence to garner buy-in from other stakeholders.

Lack of budget has been and continues to be a serious issue. This can be seen in general within the UN system, as the attendees described during the MDG meeting at the September 2010 UN Summit in New York. There was much discussion surrounding Member States? failure to fund the requisite amount equal to 0.7% of national GDP. The trickle down effect is that UN agencies dealing with environmental and social issues related to the CSD are underfunded, and in turn the national agencies responsible for implementation of international conventions are underfunded. This is as true for Thailand as it is for other countries in the region.

There are certainly difficult economic and environmental trade-offs among the Southeast Asia countries which comprise the Greater Mekong Sub-region. The most apparent is the need for increased power generation and the threat that hydropower dams pose to the natural environment and the livelihoods of people living along the Mekong River. The proposals to establish mainstem hydropower dams in Laos are particularly concerning and could place millions of people?s food security at risk. See, for example, WWF?s concerns about the impacts from the Sayabouly Dam proposal. http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/laos/?195111/WWF-calls-for-a-transparent-and-rigorous-assessment-of-the-Mekong-river-Sayabouly-dam
While hydropower dams may provide short-term relief of energy requirements in the region, they potentially threaten the mid-term and long-term health and safety of both environment and society and therefore require increased scrutiny through strategic environmental assessments and greater levels of regional dialogue.