Kyoto's destiny

Jonatan Lassa Banda Aceh

Indonesia ratified the Kyoto Accord on Oct. 19, 2004. A month later, Russia ratified the accord.

Therefore, the "toothless" accord has become "stronger", because with Russia's 17.4 percent contribution to global green house gas (GHG) emissions, it brings the cumulative of Annex 1 countries (industrialized ones) that have already ratified the Kyoto Protocol to 61.6 percent, or 6.6 percent more than required to take effect.

Indonesia has to comply with Kyoto without much investment and so does Russia. After the dramatic increase in world oil prices, Indonesia also increased the average price of its oil-based fuels by almost 185 percent. Hence, the use of coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, is now being pushed for the first time. This decision was based on economic considerations rather than environmental concerns.

Compared with the other Asian giants, such as India and China, Indonesia has little commitment to being proactive in climate change negotiations. Another reality is that the Indonesian public lacks understanding on climate change.

Nationally, Indonesia has not started thinking out an adaptation strategy for climate change. There are hardly any decision makers in Jakarta are aware of the climate change scenario for Indonesia by 2080. Indonesia's coastal cities from Aceh to West Papua will be prone to the effects of climate change such as tropical cyclones and El-Nino-related droughts, plus the ensuing loss biodiversity.

A small island like Savu in the southernmost part of Indonesia is predicted to have by 20-25 percent less rainfall in 2080. Even more poverty, extinction of biodiversity, repeated droughts of higher intensity and shorter return periods, and the rise of mean sea levels will be a disaster for such small islands.

Therefore, Indonesia has similar vulnerabilities to other small island countries in the Pacific and other tropical zones.

The Kyoto treaty is seen as unacceptable to certain countries such as the U.S. or Australia, which believe that it is too costly and demanding, based on flawed scientific claims and is not the only way to tackle climate change.

The U.S. believes that Kyoto is not the only way to deal with climate change because "there is no single solution to climate change" as GHG emissions come from thousands of activities; they can therefore be reduced through thousands of approaches.

The Kyoto Protocol is just a first step to tackling climate change and global warming. If there is a will to comply with it, then together the world can share "thousands of approaches" to tackle global warming.

Many experts argue that Russia's ratification will not contribute much to the success of the Kyoto Protocol. Even after Kyoto enters into force, victory for the treaty cannot be declared.

One contested argument is about "free riding" issues. For instance, "Russia has nothing to lose by ratifying, given its hot air". Russia's motive for signing the Kyoto accord has nothing to do with moral commitment as Russia has noting too lose by signing the treaty. In fact, it could gain as it could be a potential seller in emissions trading. Russia has complied and this helps Kyoto come into force, but it will not make as much difference as experts believe.

The pessimism has increased since Toni Blair finally admitted that his zeal for Kyoto is waning, despite repeated promises during the election campaign months ago in the UK to influence the Bush administration to ratify the treaty.

According to the U.S government, the administration is committed to reducing United States' greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent over the next 10 years, thus eliminating more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012.

It seems that in the near future there is no likelihood that the U.S. will be influenced by climate change diplomacy efforts within the Kyoto mechanism, unless global climate change diplomacy efforts can put significant pressure on the U.S.

Climate change is real and its danger is also very real. The question that remains is whether it will be sufficient to achieve the United Nations' Forum on Climate Change (UNFCC)'s ambitious short term goals for 2008-2012 -- to significantly cut green house gas emissions to the designated level, i.e., below the level prevailing in 1990?

If the need for a single treaty that binds all the countries together to mitigate climate change is still relevant, then all parties should be ready to renegotiate with the possibility of clausal changes and changes to the timetables and targets set by Kyoto. Otherwise, the treaty may remain ineffective, little more, in fact, that a paper tiger.

The writer is Program Coordinator, Hivos Liaison Office Aceh, and is an independent DM consultant based in Banda Aceh. This opinion is his own and does not necessarily reflect the views of his employer. He can be reached at j.lassa@hivos.or.id.