My article in the Strategic Review Journal, “Revisiting the global role of tropical forest nations”, Jan-Mar 2012 edition

Happy New Year to everyone! My article entitled ‘Revisiting the global role of tropical forest nations’ has been published in the Strategic Review Journal (Jan-Mar 2012 edition). Please find the link to the first part of this article here: http://www.sr-indonesia.com/this-months-issue/indonesia-360/131-revisiting-the-global-role-of-tropical-forest-nations (the complete article can be purchased by subscribing to the journal). It discusses and compares the roles of Indonesia, Brazil and DRC – the three largest tropical forest nations – in the global world.

The Strategic Review is the Indonesian Journal of Leadership, Policy and World Affairs with its editorial board led by Dr Hassan Wirajuda (Former Minister of Foreign Affairs) and its advisory board consists of Prof Juwono Sudarsono (Former Minister of Defense), Let Gen (Ret) Agus Widjojo (Executive Board in the Partnership for Governance Reform), Prof. John Thomas (Harvard Kennedy School of Government USA), Prof. Erhard Friedberg (Sciences Po France) and Prof Arne Westad (London School of Economics UK).

Along with my article, there are other articles published in this edition including those written by Christine Lagarde (Managing Director of the IMF), Dr Dino Patti Djalal (The Ambassador of Indonesia to the US), Dr Muhammad Chatib Basri (the Vice Chairman  of the National Economic Committee of the President  of the Republic of Indonesia) and Sydney Jones (International Crisis Group). The complete journal can be found at http://www.sr-indonesia.com/

Mixed results from Durban climate talks for Indonesia

The Jakarta Post, Fitrian Ardiansyah, Canberra | Friday, 16 December 2011 9:57 AM

Original link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/12/16/mixed-results-durban-climate-talks-indonesia.html

 

Agreements achieved in the early morning of Dec. 11 in Durban, South Africa, not only appeared to salvage the UN climate talks but have also raised further questions about the commitments and capabilities of countries around the world in urgently tackling climate change.

After two weeks and more than a day extension of difficult negotiations, governments involved in the 17th session of the Conference of Parties (COP-17) agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol and to negotiate a binding agreement for all countries to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

These agreements, known as the “Durban Platform”, also include the implementation of the Green Climate Fund, establishment of the Adaptation Committee, and further development of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation).

The results of Durban climate negotiations need to be cautiously analyzed since they have potentially different implications for the planet and developing countries like Indonesia.

For Indonesia, it is crucial if negotiations in Durban resulted in decisions which clearly translate into or present strong signals leading to global actions to cut GHG emissions and to financially and technologically support actions on mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Developing countries in Durban, for instance, managed to get developed countries to agree to the inclusion of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will commence in January 2013, in the “Durban Platform”.

This result will definitely avoid a gap at the end of the first commitment period of the Protocol, ending in 2012.

The Protocol, having set binding targets for 37 developed countries to reduce GHG emissions to 5 percent below the 1990 levels by 2012, however, may lose its significance in the second period since some countries such as Canada, Japan and Russia were reportedly unwilling to take part.

With the US still opting out of the Protocol, it is likely that the Protocol will only achieve small reductions of GHG emissions.

This situation apparently justifies the importance of another agreed decision, as included in the “Durban Platform”, which is to have a roadmap to negotiate a new global treaty covering all countries to reduce GHG emissions.

The negotiations for this treaty are expected to be concluded by 2015 and the treaty will come into force from 2020.

Many climate analysts, nevertheless, are not convinced with the possible directions of this particular agreement.

Although covering both developed and developing countries, including Indonesia, the projected emissions resulting from this possible treaty — calculated based on the current pledges made by these countries since Copenhagen COP-15 in 2009 — may likely lead to a global average temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius.

This means that the future of people living on this planet, particularly in vulnerable countries like Indonesia, is at stake. The economy and many aspects of human civilization are threatened.

Therefore, there is a need for serious new commitments and actions to address the “emissions gap” so that the planned treaty can effectively tackle climate change.

As of Durban, there were no new pledges for stronger emissions reductions.

In addition, waiting until 2020 for the treaty to take effect may also be too late. There is a huge risk that by that time, the limit of emissions in the atmosphere has been reached so that actions to stabilize the climate are next to impossible and too expensive.

Another perceived crucial agreement incorporated in the “Durban Platform” is a formal structure of the Green Climate Fund and a work plan to operate it by mobilizing funds from both private and public sources.

A number of countries signaled their readiness to contribute to the Fund but realizing the promise may prove to be a daunting task.

The global financial crisis was often cited as the reason behind the difficult negotiations and realization on finance.

This situation, hence, has left many unanswered questions for developing countries to fight climate change since the Fund is supposed to be used to support policies and actions in these countries.

Also, the negotiations on finance, specifically on the Green Climate Fund, have not resulted in the establishment of a specific window for REDD+. A special window funds for REDD+ at the global level, if agreed, is expected to provide significant support for tropical forest nations, including Indonesia, to advance their REDD+ development at national and local levels.

A decision coming out in Durban which can lead to financial support for REDD+ is the agreement on a variety of sources for financing ranging from public and private finance, as well as market mechanisms.

This decision will not only open the door for new and long-term investments in REDD+ but also at least help ensuring the future of investments already put in place in supporting REDD+ readiness and early actions. Other aspects of REDD+ were also agreed, among others, covering the reference levels and safeguards.

The progress made on the reference levels is necessary since establishing these levels is important not only for determining emission reductions but also as a basis for REDD+ funding mechanisms.

However, the aspect of rules on safeguards in REDD+ decision appears to be weak, especially when it comes to rules on protecting indigenous communities and biodiversity. This may undermine the credibility of REDD+ and make it unattractive in the eyes of investors.

Another positive decision reached in Durban, especially for vulnerable countries like Indonesia, is the establishment of the Adaptation Committee.

This Committee will coordinate adaptation activities on a global scale. The establishment of this Committee has put one of important the components to help developing countries confronting the increasingly dangerous impacts of climate change.

In general, the Durban climate talks have provided mixed results for developing countries like Indonesia. There was some marginal progress made but huge unanswered questions remain.

Political promises and weak agreements will hardly reduce GHG emissions. Only strong decisions and real actions can demonstrate the level of seriousness in addressing climate change.

It is therefore imperative for Indonesia, unilaterally and with other countries, to continue to work hard and show real actions on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Without these actions, the survival of the nation and the fate of the planet will look uncertain and grim.

The writer is a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of the Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.

Measuring the success of RI’s involvement in Durban

The Jakarta Post, Fitrian Ardiansyah, Canberra | Monday, 5 December 2011 8:04 PM

Original link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/12/05/measuring-success-ri-s-involvement-durban.html

 

The global climate change negotiations, underway from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9 in Durban, South Africa, once again undoubtedly highlight a fundamental question as to whether countries around the world will reach agreed solutions to tackle climate change.

It is also an appropriate event to assess the involvement of developing countries like Indonesia, and particularly to understand whether their involvement in this UN climate conference will significantly contribute to a successful outcome.

Durban, hosting the 17th session of the Conference of Parties (COP-17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), will certainly pick up what has been left at last year’s UN climate change negotiations in Cancún, Mexico, and the subsequent inter-sessional meetings.

The big remaining challenge, however, is to see whether governments involved in Durban will build on the progress achieved in Cancún or withdraw from this promising path and allow short-term national interests to shroud the already exhaustive negotiations.

The Cancún Agreements represent key steps forward, forming the basis for the largest collective effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with national plans captured formally at international levels under the banner of UNFCCC, in a mutually accountable way.

The Agreements, among other things, bring about the most comprehensive package ever agreed to by governments to help developing nations deal with climate change and lay the foundation to build their own sustainable futures.

The package encompasses finance (Green Climate Fund and fast-start financing), the Cancún Adaptation Framework, a Technology Mechanism (to support action on mitigation and adaptation, and speed up for low-emission economies) and a formal incorporation of REDD+ (stating clearly that it is not only about reducing emissions but also halting and reversing forest loss).

It is, therefore, critical for governments involved in the negotiations, especially Indonesia, to lock in the progress as stated in the Cancún Agreements and moreover push further for the agreements to be implemented.

Indonesia, as a resource-rich country striving to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and at the same time deal with climate change, has a lot at stake getting involved in these climate change negotiations.

For this country, for instance, it is critical to negotiate the further implementation of the Cancún Adaptation Framework, firstly in ensuring the establishment of the Adaptation Committee.

The establishment of this committee will send a strong signal to vulnerable countries affected by climate change, including Indonesia, that governments around the world are serious to help these countries confronting the increasingly dangerous impacts of climate change.

Indonesia needs to also work hard, with other parties, to negotiate and urge the realization of fast-start finance and Green Climate Fund.

The fast-start finance is pledges made by developed country parties to mobilize new and additional resources, amounting to US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012, to help mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The Green Climate Fund was decided in Cancún to support projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing countries using thematic funding windows.

With a short-term challenge of financial crisis being faced by a number of developed countries, negotiations on finance and its realization are highly likely to be difficult ones.

Indonesia and other developing countries thus have a challenging task to remind developed countries about their promise, the progress made in achieving the goal of this financing and procedures to access these resources.

Specific to the Green Climate Fund, it is necessary for Indonesia to work together with other tropical forest nations as well as like-minded countries to lobby for a special window for REDD+ under this fund.

REDD+ has been initiated and piloted in tropical forest nations such as Indonesia. In fact in this country the government has produced several policies and strategies to guide REDD+ development and implementation, including the introduction of the moratorium of new permits to convert forests and peatlands to other land uses.

Such policies, strategies and relevant regulations may not be sufficient to transform current land use changes and practices, which result in the reduction of deforestation.

Tackling deforestation involves different actors, sectors, as well as layers of governments. These entities are known to have competing interests over land use. Without the provision of clear incentives, it is a Herculean task to persuade them to change the patterns of land use in Indonesia.

A special window of funding for REDD+ at a global level would certainly provide more than a moral boost for tropical forest nations to advance their REDD+ development at a national level and on the ground.

Adding to already tough negotiations on finance, Indonesia and other developing countries are required to advocate parties at the Durban conference not to forget the importance of identifying the sources for long-term finance, which are needed to cut GHG emissions and to support adaptation efforts of vulnerable countries.

Climate change is going to be a long-term phenomenon and countries like Indonesia will indeed suffer if actions in mitigation and adaptation are formulated only for a short time frame. If there is no indication in which resources are allocated to fight climate change over a long period, reducing carbon emissions and creating a sustainable future will be merely a dream for global communities.

With discussions on the need for long-term commitments and actions on climate change, Durban is seen as crucial to produce an agreement or at least a convincing direction toward a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.

The first commitment period of the Protocol, which regulates the commitment of developed countries to cut their GHG emissions, will end in 2012. Hence, it is urgent for Indonesia and other countries to achieve real progress on this matter.

The agreement on second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol is not only important to demonstrate a strong commitment among developed countries in significantly reducing their emissions, but it can also help persuade big emerging economies and other countries to set out a clear mandate for a comprehensive legally binding
agreement.

In Durban, the climate talks are at a crossroads, and governments, including that of Indonesia, and other parties have a lot of work to do to demonstrate to the world that they are serious about addressing dangerous climate change.

The costs of climate change, socially, environmentally and economically, are high and will be higher for the world and this country. A delay to act will prove costly.

Therefore, Indonesia’s delegations have no choice but to commit to continuous hard work and provide real leadership to guarantee a successful outcome in Durban’s climate negotiations.

The writer is a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of the Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+)

Panelist: Fitrian Ardiansyah, ANU (10 minutes)

 

From ANU CAPPE (Australian National University – Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics) Workshop on “Designing just institutions for global climate governance”

(Canberra, ANU, 30 June -1 July 2011)

 

Original link:

http://www.cappe.edu.au/docs/Climate%20governance%20workshop%20docs/Ardiansyah_paper.pdf

 

Good afternoon Colleagues,

 

First of all, I’d like to thank the organiser, particularly Jonathan, for setting up this important panel discussion and allowing me to discuss before you about one of the heated topics in the realm of climate change negotiation as well as the nexus of climate change and development, which is REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus).

 

Before I move on, I’d like to present this slide, containing a picture which I believe often reflects on the view of some if not the majority of people living in tropical developing forest nations when they try to grasp the idea about REDD+. As we may have known, the governments of some tropical forest countries have been struggling to address deforestation for decades. If we take into account emissions resulting from LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry), Indonesia and Brazil and some other countries can be considered as major emitters.

 

On the other hand, addressing deforestation means changing, altering, adjusting their development paradigms and pathways, and this definitely is not easy for these governments. As you also may have known, deforestation and forest degradation have been mostly caused or driven by the development of at least four influential sectors, namely forestry, plantations/agriculture, mining and infrastructure. These sectors have significantly contributed to economic development of these countries as well as the global market. Timber, paper, soya bean, palm oil, sugar cane are to name few commodities which have provided an increase in the level of wealth in these countries. Hence, without a provision of economic alternatives or other positive incentives, it would be a herculean task for governments of developing countries to change their development patterns by stopping or reducing deforestation, which eventually reducing emissions.

 

When, at COP-11 in Canada, a proposal was tabled for the provision of incentives and other forms of support to avoid deforestation to be part of the climate agreement by Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea, and this proposal, after reframed, debated, negotiated and refined, was incorporated in the Bali Action Plan at COP-13 in Indonesia, and recognised as one important building blocks at the last COP in Mexico, many tropical forest nations see this as a hope to both tackling deforestation and promote economic development of the countries.

 

However, in my view, there are at least 3 (three) crucial aspects if REDD+ wants to be effectively workable addressing both emissions reduction and economic developing in developing countries. These are governance, financing, and implementation capacity.

 

Let’s look at the first important aspect, which is governance. Governance performance is important, since it helps stakeholders and actors determine whether their efforts would reach the desired objectives and goals. REDD+ from its early days has gone through and under a ‘multi-level governance’ process. At the multi lateral arena, it has, among others, the UNFCCC REDD+ related negotiation, the UN REDD Programme (UN-REDD) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). Although, REDD+ has been incorporated as part of the Cancun Package, and widely recognised that without REDD+ the 2 degree Celsius climate stabilisation goal will not be reached, the faith of this initiative still depends on the entire negotiation to reach an agreement in a bigger context of UNFCCC. A tricky part of the REDD+ in the negotiation is that it does not only include deforestation and forest degradation, but also conservation, sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of carbon stock. The inclusion of these is believed to have been done to incorporate the interests of India, China and other similar countries. Widening the scope means widening the participation of countries, although this may not necessarily widen the actions to reduce emissions and this may complicate the methodologies for carbon accounting which could also mean undermining the credibility for emissions reduction.

 

Other levels of governance that is crucial for REDD+ are the national and local levels. At these levels, issues that can be highlighted include what sort of benefit-sharing or revenue-sharing mechanisms which are going to be developed and selected and whether these mechanisms reach those actors who are really protecting and managing forests, including indigenous people; what sort of policies put in place to address deforestation as well as drivers of deforestation. Also, the high likely debates are over baseline development, transparency, corruption, the involvement of wider actors, stakeholders, forest dependent people, indigenous people, etc. As you may have known, many developing countries have issues surrounding unclear laws and policies, overlapping of policies among sectors and layers of governments resulting in deforestation and land use change.

 

The second important aspect that I would like to discuss is about the financing side, again. There is a huge question about what consider sufficient and adequate when it comes to addressing deforestation, and, whether this money is compatible with money or investment coming in from other sectors which could lead to further deforestation. Just to provide you with a good example. The bilateral agreement of Indonesia and Norway as well as Norway and Brazil each provides the possibility of funds for REDD+ US$1 billion. Is this sufficient when at the same time, for instance, there is US$8 billion available from the Chinese Development Bank for the development of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. And, unlike REDD fund, where the money will come later one, the money for oil palm development is already available.

 

Hence, there is a serious issue of opportunity costs. Countries embracing REDD+ surely need to address the interests of sectors, actors, regions, etc., who have been left out or maybe negatively impacted by the decision of the countries to have REDD+ policies. For example, economic alternative or different types of financial support may be needed so that these parties would support REDD+. Non-state actors, namely the private sector and/or financial institutions play a crucial role, first, to add to the public fund. However, their involvement would depend on whether there is certainty about a scheme that will guarantee the future of REDD credits.

 

Otherwise, demand for REDD financing, and if this only depends on public funds, risk placing pressures on donor government aid budgets as well as budgets of developing countries, resulting in the potential redistribution of funds from existing development programs that may jeopardise progress made of countries’ development. Although, the continued investment in conception phase or early actions is critical to ensure that REDD+ initiative is well designed and administered.

 

At multi-lateral arena, the challenge of financing is also clear especially when it comes to the choice of the scheme for REDD+. There are at least 3 (three) schemes proposed, which are fund-based mechanism, market-linked scheme, and the hybrid model. Under a market based scheme, countries that reduce REDD emission below a set of a pre set baseline would receive credits that could be sold in the market and used by purchasing nations to meet their international mitigation obligations. Fund based scheme involves the establishment of international funds to finance REDD activities or to provide incentives for countries to address REDD issues. There are pros and cons about consequences of either scheme. Among others, these include the leakage issues, additionality, permanence, fungibility, sovereignty, property rights, representativeness, etc.

 

My last important aspect is the capacity to implement REDD+. The capacity that I mention here includes capacity to develop baseline or reference level, to monitor, report and verify the reduction of emissions, develop and manage an institution, to develop just and fair distribution mechanism, to engage with wider actors who directly on the ground dealing with deforestation as well as at other arena. Also, which is rather more important, is the capacity to enforce or willingness to enforce any given policies or schemes that involved REDD since enforcement or lack of it may be viewed as one of the major obstacles in addressing land use change and deforestation in developing countries.

 

In brief, I would say that REDD+ provides good opportunity for developing countries to reduce emissions, contributing to mitigating climate change. However, there are crucial aspects which need to be strengthened or reformed before REDD+ becomes operationalised and reaching its goals. I thank you.

Magsaysay and the environment

The Jakarta Post, Fitrian Ardiansyah, Canberra | Sunday, 7 August 2011, page 4, 3:26 PM

Original link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/08/07/magsaysay-and-environment.html

The Ramon Magsaysay Award, considered Asia’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize, recently given to two Indonesians, clearly acknowledges that there are leaders in this country who significantly bring about positive changes to the environment.

Indonesia is a resource-rich country but is striving to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and at the same time secure energy, reduce deforestation and tackle climate change.

One of the two award recipients was Tri Mumpuni, acknowledged for her work leading IBEKA (the People-Centered Business and Economic Institute) in building community-run hydropower plants in rural Indonesia.

The award for Tri would offer a sense of optimism, particularly to approximately 70-80 million people, or almost one-third of Indonesia’s population, who currently lack access to electricity. These people mostly live in rural areas and the outer islands.

Developing micro-hydro power plants as a renewable energy resource serves the objectives of advancing this country’s economy, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and alleviating poverty (for example by providing basic access to electricity).

IBEKA has demonstrated that by building 60 micro-hydropower plants with a capacity to generate 5 to 250 KW of electricity and provide electricity to 500,000 people in rural Indonesia, it has contributed to achieving these objectives.

This organization works closely with local communities to ensure that projects are sustainable in the long term and that electrification will have a maximum impact on the development of the communities. This success gives true hope to millions of Indonesians, in that such a complex challenge can be overcome.

The award is also expected to convince the government to intensify its current work in renewable energy development.

The central government has already had a general energy policy that advocates the diversification of energy sources and conversion from coal and petroleum-based fuels to renewable energy sources in a bid to reduce emissions.

However, the promotion of renewable resource development over the last five years has moved at a snail’s pace. At present, renewable energy production (hydropower, geothermal and biomass) makes use of only 3.4 percent of total potential reserves.

This is rather ironic, considering that this massive archipelago possesses a variety of renewable energy resources, including geothermal, solar, micro-hydro, wind and bio-energy.

Further breakthroughs are urgently required such as by reforming and correcting policy and pricing incoherence (for example by phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels), removing structural impediments and promoting investments in renewable energy.

The success story of IBEKA and others who are harnessing renewable energy, therefore, needs to be magnified and/or replicated.

The other award recipient is another source of inspiration of similar magnitude. Tuan Guru Haji Hasanain Juaini, has made his mark, not only through establishing a progressive Islamic boarding school, but also in motivating and organizing students, community members and fellow Indonesians to actively contribute to forest and water conservation.

Tuan Guru, meaning “esteemed master”, is an honorific title used by Muslim leaders in Lombok Island (east of Bali), West Nusa Tenggara. As a local religious leader, Hasanain is a key non-state actor of considerable influence in Lombok society.

Hasanain and his progressive Narmada Islamic School gained great respect by advocating the importance in preserving the remaining forests and water catchment areas in Lombok. They also demonstrated that conservation can start with a school.

Lombok has experienced the worsening seasonal water crisis. Droughts have brought misery to many and clean water is still a luxury only available to some. During the rainy season, some parts of the island suffer from flooding and landslides. With a majority of Lombok’s people still living in poverty, deforestation and the water crisis have worsened local people’s livelihoods.

A collaborative action plan — between governments, local communities, NGOs, the local public water enterprise (PDAM) — was formulated to show that there are solutions to this resource problem, and Hasanain has been lending his voice to support it since.

The solutions include forest restoration in upper catchment areas, payment for watershed services, river conservation and social economic development for local communities.

To back up his call for conservation, starting from Narmada, his students and teachers have established a number of nurseries providing approximately 1.5 million seeds and seedlings, and are also involved in restoration activities that have successfully rehabilitated 36 hectares of degraded forests.

His own house also provides a good example of conservation, which can start from each individual household. A semi-structured nursery and a humble green garden clearly symbolize the intentions of the owner.

Verses from the Koran on the house wall, including the first revelation (i.e. Iqra! or Read, Recite!), appear to reaffirm the commitment of Hasanain and his school to learn more and understand many things, including from nature.

These two Indonesian winners of this year’s Magsaysay Award have shown that ordinary Indonesians can overcome big challenges. Amid negative political, economic and environmental issues faced by this country, their leadership and success are a demonstration of the confidence, strength and capabilities of our people.

These two figures show that there is in fact a bright light of hope for this nation to prosper.

The writer is a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.