Each country in the LMB is in early preparatory stage of mainstreaming SDGs into the national policy. Although UN has agreed on official indicators, they are not necessarily readily monitored and countries will have to innovate nationally appropriate approaches to monitor the progress of each target. In this sub‐region, countries have adopted an approach of localizing SDGs in line with national circumstances and developmental priorities. Vietnam has adopted Vietnam SDGs (VSDGs) in its draft action plan for 2030 Agenda, while Thailand is proposing the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) for the implementation of SDGs. Cambodia Sustainable Development Goals (CSDGs) are the nationalized framework to localize Global SDGs into Cambodia’s context. Similarly, Lao PDR also stresses on localising SDGs from the early stage of implementation. For instance, both Cambodia and Lao PDR has introduced additional SDG 18 on addressing negative impacts from unexploded ordnance (UXO), explosive remnants of war (ERW) or landmines.
In the case of MRC, SDGs are not explicitly reflected in IWRM‐Based Basin Development Strategy 2016–2020 or Strategic Plan 2016–2020 (MRC, 2016a, MRC, 2016b). However, MRCs mandate, procedures and programmes already addresses multiple SDGs, and SDG6 in particular. The MRC Strategic Plan 2016–2020 has identified four basin wide result areas (basin wide perspectives, regional cooperation, better monitoring, and efficient organizations) that directly complement Targets 6.5 and overall monitoring of SDG6. Similarly, MRC has approved a set of procedures (and guidelines) on data and information exchange and sharing, water use monitoring, maintenance of flow in the mainstream, notification, prior consultation and agreement for water utilization and inter‐basin diversions, and water quality (MRC, 2011). Further, MRC Indicator Framework, consisting of 15 Strategic Indicators across 5 dimensions, provides a direction on monitoring and evaluation of changes on MRC by adopting a consistent and streamlined approach of data collection (MRC, 2019). The MRC Indicator Framework, already incorporated into Basin Development Strategy and Strategic Plan, is also aligned with key water‐related aspects of SDGs such as water security, water‐related health security, ecological health, and compliance of water quality or benefits derived from cooperation to total economic value of all LMB water‐related sectors. Although it is still early to figure out a detail strategy on SDGs, the LMB could be a model case, with obvious role of MRC, for implementing SDGs, SDG6 in particular, by following a basin‐wide approach. MRC is one of the few international organizations that is governed by a specific set of rules developed to coordinate technical cooperation among its members centred on water related issues. Important question however is how and in what areas MRC role should be strengthened?
Table 2.2 The most recent state of SDG6 in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) countries.
| Issues | SDG 6 Targets | Indicator and units! | Lower Mekong Basin Countries | Data Source | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cambodia | Lao PDR | Thailand | Vietnam | ||||
| USE | Access to improved drinking water sources (6.1) | % population | 75.54 (2015) | 75.66 (2015) | 97.81 (2015) | 97.61 (2015) | SD, 2017 |
| Access to improved sanitation facilities (6.2) | % population | 42.43 (2015) | 70.89 (2015) | 92.97 (2015) | 77.99 (2015) | SD, 2017 | |
| Hygiene (6.2) | Diarrhea DALYs per 100,000 people | 35 (2012) | 83.9 (2012) | 2.9 (2012) | 9.5 (2012) | WHO, 2017 | |
| Water use efficiency (6.4) | US$/m3 withdrawal1 | 7 (2014) | 3 (2014) | 7 (2014) | 2 (2014) | ADB, 2017 | |
| Water Stress (6.4) | % withdrawal from the total available | 0.5 (2006) | 1 (2005) | 13.1 (2007) | 9.3 (2005) | ADB, 2017 | |
| MANAGEMENT | IWRM implementation (6.5) | Yes3 | Yes3 | Yes3 | Yes3 | ||
| Transboundary cooperation (6.5) | % transboundary basin under water cooperation2 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | MRC, 1995 | |
| International cooperation and capacity building support (6.a) | Annual WASH expenditure, million US$ (% external contribution) (year) | 180 (98%) (2016) | 90 (61%) (2015) | 1406 (total, 2016) | 1690 (18%) (2015) | WHO, 2017 | |
| Community participation (6.b) | Yes4 | Yes4 | Yes4 | Yes4 | |||
| ENVIRONMENT | Wastewater treatment (6.3) |
Treated wastewater (% sewerage treatment coverage)
|