Sustainable development puts demands on both the industrialised west and forest-rich Indonesia
Agus P Sari
Climate change is probably the most
prominent global environmental issue of the millenium. About 3000
scientists from all corners of the world associated with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that
human beings have a 'discernible' impact on climate stability. The IPCC
recommends an immediate worldwide reduction of 60 to 80 percent to
stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases at today's levels. The costs of
doing nothing can be enormous. Climate change is a global problem that
requires global collective actions. Countries around the world have
been negotiating on the best possible actions. We now have the Kyoto
Protocol, an international treaty that stipulates limitations to emit
these vicious gases.
Climate change is caused by unsustainable development processes (see
box). The term 'sustainable development' was first coined at the World
Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 in Stockholm. Climate
change was first mentioned in 1988 in Toronto, Canada. This Conference
on the Changing Atmosphere called for immediate action to develop a
'comprehensive global convention as a framework for protocols on the
protection of the atmosphere'. The participants also called for a
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions 'by approximately 20 percent of
1988 levels by the year 2005' as an initial goal.
Sponsored by the United Nations
General Assembly, the First World Climate Conference was held in
Geneva, Switzerland, in the same year. The conference mandated the
formation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. As a
follow-up, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the IPCC with a
mandate to compile a scientific assessment on climate change to be
reported at the Second World Climate Conference in 1990.
The The Hague Conference in 1989, sponsored by the Dutch government,
emphasised the desirability of negotiating 'the necessary legal
instruments to provide an effective and coherent foundation,
institutionally and financially', for 'combating any further global
warming of the atmosphere'. In the same year, the Governing Council of
UNEP requested the Heads of UNEP and WMO to begin preparation for
negotiations on a 'framework convention on climate change'. Also in the
same year, the G-7 Summit in Paris stated
that it was 'strongly advocating common efforts to limit emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which threaten to induce
climate change'. G-7 groups the seven economically dominant countries
in the world.
In 1990, the IPCC reported its findings at the Second World Climate
Conference, which led to the formation of the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change
(INC-FCCC, or INC in short). The INC had five negotiating sessions
prior to signing the convention at the 'Earth Summit', the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, in June of 1992.
Four more negotiations were needed before the convention was finally
ratified by 50 countries, which made it a legally binding international
law. The First Conference of the Parties (COP1) of the convention was
convened in Berlin in 1995. Here the Parties unanimously agreed that
current commitments by the Parties to the convention were not adequate
to meet the convention's ultimate objectives. Responding to the
findings, the Association of Small Island States proposed a protocol
based on the agreement made in Toronto in 1988 to cut carbon dioxide
emissions by 20 percent from 1988 levels by the year 2005 (the 'Toronto
Target'). The Parties also adopted the 'Berlin Mandate'.
These negotiations led to the landmark COP3 in Kyoto in 1997, where the
Kyoto Protocol was finally adopted. Far away from the original 'Toronto
target' of 20 percent of 1988 levels reductions by the year 2005, let
alone the IPCC's recommendation of 60 to 80 percent immediate
reductions, the Kyoto Protocol only commits the industrialised
countries to reduce their collective emissions by approximately 5
percent of 1990 levels in the period between 2008 and 2012.
The quantitative emissions limitation and reduction objectives range
from 8 percent reduction by the European Union member countries
collectively, 7 percent by the United States, 6 percent by Japan, to a
1 percent increase by
Norway, 8 percent increase by Australia, and 10 percent increase by
Iceland. It is important to note that emissions from the industrialised
countries were already roughly 5 percent below their 1990 levels,
making the Kyoto target merely keeping emissions at 1995 levels until
2012. The industrialised countries that made the limitation and
reduction commitments are listed under Annex I of the Climate
Convention (thus the reference to Annex I countries in the press), and
their commitments are listed under Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol.
The emissions limitation and reduction commitments can be met by
reducing emissions from their sources, or by enhancing sinks to remove
the existing greenhouse gases, which can be done domestically or
overseas. Indeed, the provision that provides for meeting commitments
overseas is a very important one in the Kyoto Protocol. There are four
of these so-called 'flexibility' mechanisms.
Emissions Trading refers to trading parts of an Annex I country's
commitments with those of another country. Joint Implementation refers
to investment by an Annex I country in another Annex I country in a
specific project that leads to a reduction of emissions. The emissions
reduced by the project are credited to the investing country. Another
mechanism is the treatment of the EU member countries as an entity with
a collective commitment.
There is also the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the only
creditable emissions trading that may involve developing countries
('Non Annex I countries'). An investment in a project in a developing
country by an (industrialised) Annex I country that leads to certified
emissions reduction can be credited to the investing country.
Unfortunately it is not explicitly clear in the Article on the CDM as
to whether enhancement of sinks, especially reduction of deforestation
and expanding forest cover, can be attributable to meeting the
commitments of the Annex I countries. It is very likely, however, that
the next negotiating session in The Hague in November 2000 will adopt a
decision to include projects in the forestry sector as part of CDM. CDM
will facilitate resource and technology transfers to developing
countries.
Until today, however, the Kyoto Protocol - and all of the flexibility
mechanisms it allows countries to meet their obligations - is just a
piece of paper that binds no country. It can only bind the signatories,
thus 'enter into force', after 55 countries have not merely signed but
also ratified it. Moreover, the Annex I country Parties that ratify it
must represent 55 percent of Annex I emissions in 1990.
This last condition is the tricky part. The United States represent
about 36 percent of Annex I emissions in 1990 - the largest emitter
globally. The member countries of the European Union collectively
represent roughly 25 percent, Russia 18 percent, Japan 8.5 percent, and
the rest of the Central and Eastern European countries 7.5 percent.
These figures suggest that at least two of the three major emitters -
the United States, the European Union collectively, and Russia - should
ratify.
Knowing a little bit of its domestic politics, where its
Republican-dominated Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol with
an overwhelming vote of 95 to 0, there is only a very slight
possibility that the United States will ratify the Kyoto Protocol any
time soon. The only possibility for the Protocol to enter into force
without the United States is if Russia and Japan can break out of the
'Umbrella Group' (referring to countries that have similar negotiating
positions with the United States) and join the European Union to ratify
the Protocol early enough. This situation is as difficult to imagine as
the European Union taking action without the United States. That is why
it remains crucial that the United States must ratify to make the Kyoto
Protocol work. Until the United States gets its act together, there
will be no legally binding Kyoto Protocol, there will be no CDM, and
hence no transfer of resources to developing countries.
Indonesia
In Indonesia, climate change will alter the daily lives of millions.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is expected to
double to about 550 parts per million by the middle of this century. In
that case the mean temperature in Indonesia is predicted to increase by
approximately 3 to 4.2 degrees Celsius. Changed rainfall patterns,
prolonging droughts and floods, will threaten food security. This is
probably the most devastating impact of climate change.
While the correlation between the El Nino and La Nina climatic events
and long-term climate change is still debatable, the impacts of these
events have demonstrated how vulnerable Indonesia's agriculture and
ecosystem is. In the early 1980s an increase in the average temperature
of the ocean water of between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius caused massive
coral bleaching that killed about 80 to 90 percent of corals.
Rainforests are prone to fires when precipitation is less than 100 mm
per year, such as has happened during El Nino events. The 1997 forest
fires were as devastating as forest fires in 1982 and 1983, when
precipitation was only 35 percent of the usual level. On each occasion,
the Kutai National Park in Kalimantan was totally damaged. Secondary
forests were more heavily damaged than primary ones. In the logged
areas, literally no trees survived the fires. Forest fires deemed the
worst in history took more than 10 million hectares of productive
forests in just the three years 1997-99, with a socioeconomic toll of
billions of dollars.
Sea level rise is another prominent impact of climate change. Hosting
the largest number of islands, more than 17,000, and a total coastline
exceeding 81,000 kilometres, the second longest after Canada, Indonesia
will suffer significantly even from a small rise in sea level.
Industrial infrastructure and population are concentrated in low-lying
coastal areas. Four-fifth of Indonesians live in coastal areas.
Approximately 2 million lived in places less than 2 metres above sea
level in 1990.
In crisis-laden Indonesia, however, all environmental issues are still
considered a luxury, let alone climate change. Indeed, the 700 million
tons of carbon dioxide that Indonesia emitted in 1990 were only 2.5
percent of the global emissions of 28 billion tons that year. The 3
tons per person were still lower than the 4.5 tons per person global
average and only one-sixth of the average American emissions of 18
tons.
More than four-fifths of the emissions came from land use change and
deforestation. Nevertheless, some of the emissions were not
unavoidable. In the forestry sector, for example, limiting forest
degradation will help limit the effect on greenhouse gas emissions from
the sector. It will also reduce local impacts and preserve
biodiversity. Sure enough, the strongest opponents of reducing forest
degradation in Indonesia are either logging companies who have already
gained too much from the corrupt sector full of crony-capitalists, or
the corrupt bureaucrats themselves.
Indonesia will benefit from reduced deforestation. But so will the
whole of humanity. The demand at international negotiations that
Indonesia should preserve the so-called 'lungs of the world' should be
compensated. The emissions offset mechanism, especially the Clean
Development Mechanism CDM, can do just that. If Indonesia can prove
that the efforts that it makes beyond its normal obligations to slow
down deforestation can benefit the world in slowing down climate
change, then Indonesia may be able to claim some - if not a large
amount - of the funds that could potentially flow in through the CDM.
Agus P Sari (apsari@pelangi.or.id)
is executive director of Pelangi, a Jakarta-based environmental think
tank. He has followed the climate change negotiations since their
inception and has been part of the Indonesian official delegation the
last three years.
|