How helping Indonesia cut emissions will benefit Singapore - and you
Today Online 5 Jun 10;
The deal between Norway and Indonesia to save Indonesian forests is a game-changer in more ways than one.
For Indonesia, it means a greener future and lower carbon emissions. Much less noticed is that it means cleaner air and sharply reduced costs here in Singapore.
The ground-breaking agreement between Indonesia and Norway, signed at a ceremony in Oslo on May 26, is designed to stop the conversion of Indonesian forests and peat lands into plantations.
Norway said it will give Indonesia up to US$1 billion ($1.4 billion) for emissions reductions resulting from forest preservation. Indonesia said it is "prepared to suspend for two years new concessions for the conversion of peat and natural forest lands" starting as early as January next year.
Mr Agus Purnomo, secretariat head at Indonesia's National Climate Change Council, said afterward that Indonesia is likely to cancel some existing concessions as well.
"Donors have been supporting improved forest management in Indonesia for decades," according to Mr Lou Verchot, a scientist with the Centre for International Forestry Research (Cifor).
"But never before has a prospective contribution been this significant in terms of both size and ambition, and never before so clearly tied to performance."
The agreement leverages the United Nations' Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (Redd) programme, which was launched in September 2008, to assist developing countries implement plans to save their forests.
So far, Redd has provided about US$42 million for pilots in eight countries around the world. This new programme gives a massive jump-start to Redd initiatives. Currently ranked as the third worst emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, Indonesia has an opportunity to become a role model for emissions reduction instead.
Some organisations do see the agreement as not going far enough. Redd-Monitor, for example, laments that the agreement only starts forest preservation next year, contains "nothing whatsoever in the Letter of Intent about the rights of indigenous peoples", only applies to new development concessions, and contains no commitment to continue the suspension beyond two years.
All may be valid concerns. Since so little has actually happened for so long despite ongoing negotiations, though, implementing this solution seems far better than waiting for something absolutely perfect.
HOW IT BENEFITS SINGAPORE
Beyond Norway's large financial contribution, reductions in the costs of the pollution from the burning can bring enormous additional economic benefits. Researchers David Glover and Timothy Jessup estimated the region-wide costs of the severe haze in 1997 at US$4.5 billion, for example.
Even in 2006, when the haze was not as severe, Professor Euston Quah of the Nanyang Technological University estimated the costs to be at least $50 million in Singapore alone. Reduced emissions can mean substantial savings in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and beyond.
Even without being a party to the agreement, Singapore stands to benefit in more ways than one.
Once the burning stops, the skies here that have so often been spoiled by pollution from burning forests should be far clearer. Singaporeans and tourists alike can look forward to cleaner air and better health.
And as air pollution continues to become a more important factor when people choose where to live, Singapore can become an even more competitive destination for top talent.
Clearer skies will also bring major economic savings. The annual loss of tens of millions of dollars from higher health costs, fewer tourists, lower corporate productivity and other expenses resulting from the haze would drop tremendously. Long-term health benefits from less pollution, though hard to calculate, will likely be substantial too.
There are still some uncertainties about the deal. This year is the preparation phase, when the strategy will be developed. The transformation phase that's targeted to stop the burning only begins next year, and is dependent on the preparations this year.
With all the advantages the agreement brings, and with some of the timing potentially uncertain, the surrounding countries would benefit from doing everything they can to support implementation.
While change is obviously most dependent on work by Indonesia and Norway, anything Singapore can do to assist - whether it's technical expertise, assistance with monitoring or other assistance - could have major benefits for all the parties.
The net results of the agreement and forest preservation are manifold, as we can look forward to reduced emissions, clearer skies and even financial benefits. Faster implementation is to the benefit of all.
The writer is a consultant who has lived in Singapore since 1992.
Not quite yet a breakthrough
Letter from Kwan Jin Yao Today Online 7 Jun 10;
MR RICHARD Hartung's commentary, "Adding firepower to the fight for our forests" (June 5-6), gives a brief summary of the "groundbreaking" agreement between Indonesia and Norway to place a two-year moratorium on new logging concessions.
Indeed, other than the direct financial benefits for the Indonesian administration if the commitment is adhered to, serious environmental challenges such as air pollution, desertification and deforestation would be simultaneously tackled as well.
The two-pronged approach - enhancing technology and tracking systems, as well as addressing institutional challenges such as under-development and corruption -would appear to many observers as a significant breakthrough for Indonesia.
However, the fact is that the United Nations and the Association of South-east Asian Nations have been working in the past decades to achieve the aforementioned - albeit not of such scale and publicity - to little or no avail.
Considerable sums of money and resources have been pumped into the region - with the active harmonisation of national, regional and international policies - but the ends do not justify the means. There is little reason to think that the current letter of intent would be any different. Even if any short-term success is achieved, the sustainability of the policies would be in question given that the moratorium only grants delays and temporary suspensions.
The problem at hand is a structural one. Geographically, the practices of deforestation, logging and primitive "slash-and-burn" are hard to track and control because of the sheer number of individual islands and forest cover.
Having developed the wood-processing industries as a key driver of its economic growth, Indonesia has no choice but to maintain its production capacity for fiscal development. The assortment of conservation efforts have failed miserably because they have ignored the composition of the Indonesian system, mistakenly adopting generalised plans and ignoring the root of the challenges.
Enforcement measures on collective, small-time farmers consistently backfire because they have little choice but to resort to primitive methods to efficiently clear land for plantations. Even with subsidies, they simply cannot afford new technology, and see no incentives to do so. Rather, the administration should bring the involved stakeholders together at grassroots level to comprehend their concerns and sensitively address issues of concern.
For the corporations that exploit the resources and farmers, the authorities should step up efforts to curb their expansion, and ensure that they adhere to the respective legislations. Stem corruption and strengthen initiatives to get rid of officials who selfishly decide to do otherwise. Transmigration should also be better managed.
It goes beyond the haze and air pollution: Indonesia currently is the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. If the status quo is allowed to manifest, our future generations might no longer have an Earth to safely inhabit.
