Page 34 - ASEAN-EU Dialogue 2018: Regional and Inter-Regional Economic Cooperation: Identifying Priorities for ASEAN and the EU

Coordinating actor and managing trade-offs
Achieving sustainable and equitable development requires not only the government but all
possible stakeholders in both public and private realms to take part. State spearheaded policies
and action, these can be inadequate when view in light of the numerous SDGs. Recognizing
the complexity of development needs, the SDGs present a holistic and flexible approach that
address the broader concerns of today’s world. Its formulation includes the participation of
United Nations’ member states as well as other major groups and civil society (UN, 2014).
However, the same inclusivity in goals means more complex and diverse goals. This also
means that there needs to be a more dynamic approach to achieving these goals. The challenge
lies in engaging the various stakeholders to work together “at the right time and place to solve
complex poverty and sustainability problems” (Patterson, 2015).

Not all countries can, and will, be able to prioritize all seventeen goals of the SDGs. In order
to make progress on the SDGs, countries will need to make trade-offs. As pointed out by James
Patterson, “it is crucial to recognise that difficult choices will also need to be made that may
involve winners and losers, at least in the short term” (Patterson 2015). For example, some
countries benefit from continued urbanisation in order to address income inequality (Kanbur,
Zhuang and Rhee 2014). Rapid industrialisation and urbanisation were crucial in the increase
of income and living standards for East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

However, unchecked urbanisation can, if not always, result in unsustainable development
practises. In the case of Malaysia, although poverty level is low, rapid urbanisation in Malaysia
can increase economic and social cost such as ballooning real estate value, pressure on
employment and increases the vulnerability of marginal groups which include low income
families, the handicapped and the elderly (Siwar et al., 2016). Vietnam is also experiencing
rapid urbanisation which contribute to increasing transport and land cost, congestion and
distortion of land market around the two main urban areas, Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi (World
Bank, 2011).

Another example of trade off would be the need to prioritise long-term preservation of natural
resources. The EU’s consumption pattern needs to be scaled down drastically. It has been
reported that “by 2050 a European lifestyle would require, under present production and
consumption patterns, natural resources of at least two Planet Earth” (European Commission,
2016b). At the end of the day, equity and sustainability serves a larger purpose beyond a
country’s economic growth.

Conclusion
Although ASEAN and the EU differ significantly in their form and function, both organisation
play an important role in supporting their member states in the issue of sustainable and
equitable development. The experience of both regional organisation shows that while there
both organisations have placed priority on both issues of sustainability and equity, there is still
much that needs to be done. Disparity between and within member nations need to be addressed
as well as the growing rural-urban divide. Growth should be supplemented with policies to help
those most likely to be left behind and social security also has to take into consideration
circumstances that could create vulnerable groups such as the elderly. Like the rest of the world,
both regions also need to tackle the issue of resource consumption, pollution and environmental
degradation.

28