Tag Archives: Environment

流用

HOME
タグ : Environment

Report on an Indonesian Seminar on Community-based Disaster Management: “Developing Community Independence in Facing Natural Disasters”

July 15, 2008
By null

(The following is an excerpt from the SYLFF Newsletter No.17, Jan 2007)

Andri Rosadi and Jiah Fauziah

The great tsunami that hit Aceh, in Sumatra, Indonesia, and several other areas in the world on December 26th, 2004, and that killed hundreds of thousands of people, has been followed by many other natural disasters in Indonesia. Two months after the tsunami, Nias Island suffered from a big earthquake that also killed people and destroyed houses. Then on May 27, 2006, Yogyakarta, one of the most important cities in Java, was also shaken by a great earthquake from the south while people were anticipating the eruption of a volcano located north of the city. About two months later, a tsunami hit Pangandaran and some other southern areas of Java. Actually, during the above-mentioned time many more earthquakes occurred in other parts of Indonesia, but fortunately they did not cause much damage for people. Nonetheless, all these disasters made many Indonesian people aware that they live on moving lands that might experience many more such serious calamities.

The earthquake disaster that occurred in May 2006 in Yogyakarta, the city where our SYLFF institution, Gadjah Mada University is located, was the main inspiration for the seminar. That earthquake caused more than six thousand deaths and reduced thousands of houses to ruins. When responding to such a tragedy, one important thing to consider is how to develop the independence of the community for facing any future disaster it might experience. This was highlighted in the case of the aforementioned disaster because the victims had to rely on the local government of Yogyakarta, who were themselves too dependent on central government when it came to aiding victims. Moreover, although it is true that the victims needed assistance from all parts of society, when assistance from others is believed to be the only solution, the result is a mental dependence on the part of the victims, along with other consequences that negatively affect the post-disaster reconstruction process. It appears that such was the case in Yogyakarta. Several months after the great calamity, people still seem to be suffering and longing for help.

Based on this reality, the SYLFF Fellows Association of Gadjah Mada University held the aforementioned seminar regarding the problem. It is expected that the seminar results will be used as input for various relevant segments of society. The association invited two speakers to the seminar: Dr. P. M. Laksono, an anthropologist and lecturer in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences at Gadjah Mada University, and Ms. Estuning Tyas, a current SYLFF fellow and graduate student at Gadjah Mada University, specializing in disaster management.

In his talk, Dr. Laksono commented on the slow reaction of both local and central government in responding to the disaster. The local government relied on the central one, whereas in this case, disaster response was mainly the responsibility of the local government, because the impact of the May 2006 disaster was regional, in contrast to the case of the tsunami that hit Aceh, causing a disaster that was national in scope. In this situation, according to Laksono, the factor that ended up playing the most important role was the media. Thanks to their nationwide and worldwide networks, they succeeded in raising public awareness and support on a widespread level, resulting in the huge amount of help received. Nevertheless, Laksono also criticized the media for their tendency to present the news in a way that created bias and adversely influenced how people regarded the disaster.

Besides the media, there are several other elements of the community that play important roles in responding to disasters. These elements are informal and outside the governmental structure, usually offering help spontaneously and based solely on humanitarianism. Their weakness lies in lack of organizational management, which often results in many obstacles to their being able to help effectively. One of the obstacles is corruption or deviousness on the part of some parties that use the disaster situation for their own benefit.

Nonetheless, the effectiveness of certain groups in the community has proved to significantly contribute to assisting the disaster victims and lessening their suffering. Based on this fact, what needs to be done in the future is to further develop such community-based disaster response measures and to learn from past problems.

In regard to community-based disaster response measures, one thing that must be emphasized in advance is the empowerment of the overall society in the handling of a disaster. This must be based on the ability and potential of the society. The main obstacle in this regard is that a society usually breaks apart when a disaster occurs, making it impossible for the full ability and potential of the society to be utilized to solve problems. Another obstacle is that the people tend to forget the disaster very quickly, so that they do not anticipate future disasters. If disasters are experienced so frequently, a society should realize that it needs to formulate a model for handling disasters in ways that rely mostly on the society’s own capabilities and potential. However, this is still yet to happen.

The other speaker, Estuning Tyas, emphasized the need to socialize disaster knowledge in the community. It is a fact that people in Indonesian villages, who generally have a low level of education, do not have enough knowledge about disasters. This limits both their view of disasters and their ability to handle their own problems in a disaster situation.

To increase the ability of a community to handle a disaster, Estuning discussed several steps that Eko Teguh Paripurno, a disaster-relief/crisis-management expert, has suggested: (1) Identify potential disaster areas; (2) Map these disaster areas; (3) Identify specific danger-areas and the possible risks associated with them; (4) Identify the socio-cultural characteristics of the communities in the danger-areas; (5) Formulate procedures and identify steps to be taken in dealing with the disasters; (6) Develop the social systems to help people to learn how to anticipate and handle disasters, based on the potential and strengths of their community; and (7) Develop natural-disaster prevention and response technologies. In order to make all these steps community based, they must include the involvement of the community: together by and for the members of the community, not only by experts and the government.

An additional important point to be considered here is that disaster education is still not included in schools’ curricula in Indonesia. Similarly, at the family level, children have not been taught to recognize, understand, and deal with disasters. Therefore, the first and most important step to implement all the following steps, is to educate people, especially villagers, to make them aware of the socio-geographical condition of their locales in regard to possible disasters. To be effective, this educational model must use many kinds of engaging media, such as films, to deliver the message.

In brief, both Estuning Tyas and Laksono emphasized the need for disaster education in order for a community to increase awareness of its own strengths and weaknesses so that it can handle its own problems if a disaster occurs. As a follow-up to the discussion, the SYLFF Fellows Association of Gadjah Mada University plans to organize some social action projects aimed at educating people in villages around Yogyakarta so that they can recognize their own potential for handling any disasters that might befall them. Fortunately, the SYLFF fellows of Gadjah Mada University have different academic backgrounds: economics, cultural studies, political science, geography, and conflict resolution. Such a combination of multi-disciplinary backgrounds holds great potential for engaging in a variety of actions reflecting different approaches.

The actions are planned to involve formal and informal measures. Formally, the association will provide disaster education in schools and for some small community groups. Informally, it will hold some community entertainment programs that will indirectly educate a larger number of people. It is hoped that these actions will greatly contribute to the communities’ ability to effectively deal with disasters.

Andri Rosadi

Andri graduated with a major in Islamic civilization from the University of Al-Azhar, Cairo, in 2003, and received an MA in anthropology from Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, in 2006, in which he was supported by a SYLFF Fellowship. He has worked in several organizations, including Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim Indonesia and Muhammadiyah Student, both based in Cairo, as a coordinator. He was a teacher in Medan, North Sumatra, in 1996, in Kediri, East Java, in 1997, and in Yogyakarta, in 2003–04. Since 2004, he has been involved in community development work in Ngaglik Village, Sleman, Yogyakarta.

Jiah Fauziah

Jiah graduated with a major in English from Gadjah Mada University in 1999, and earned a master’s degree in linguistics from the same university, for which she was awarded a SYLFF Fellowship.

HOME
タグ : Environment

Climate Change Response at a Crossroads

July 14, 2008
By null

CER-based trading of emissions rights has long-term implications for global political and economic power distribution and raises ethical questions about ownership of the right to use the atmosphere.

Globally as well as nationally, we are all at a crossroads. From Rio to Bali, we made efforts to build alternative institutional arrangements for international cooperation to address the problem of climate change. Over these years several positive steps have emerged, but real-world action is still far from the desired level (IPCC 2007, Stern 2007). There has been a marked jump in media coverage on climate change since 2007, but there is a need for further action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) suggests differentiated responsibilities in mitigation due to differences in levels of fossil-fuel-based economic activity.

In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, countries were grouped into Annex I and non-Annex I countries. Annex I are the OECD countries with high emissions, which were asked to meet reduction targets. Developing nations with lower fossil fuel consumption were grouped as non-Annex I countries and exempted from meeting targets. This arrangement recognized the reality that GHG emissions stay in the atmosphere for more than 100 years; Annex I countries, which have been using fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, have largely been responsible for the stockpiling of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Though the Kyoto arrangement seemed logical, it was not ratified by such large emitters as the United States and Australia. And the free-riding attitude of the big emitters failed to induce cooperative solutions to the problem. To prompt action, there must be promises of a reward for the actions taken.

Reassessment of the CDM

The Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol is probably the only platform to coordinate the actions of both developed and developing countries toward a common cause by accommodating differentiated responsibilities and the need for incentives. Under this mechanism, an Annex I country is allowed to locate mitigation projects or buy emission reduction credits from developing countries to achieve its Kyoto emission reduction target. Developing countries, meanwhile, benefit from investment and technology transfer, helping their economies to grow on a low carbon pathway - a characteristics of sustainable development. A reassessment of this mechanism makes good sense, as the Kyoto negotiated period will be reviewed from 2009 with a view beyond 2012.

The CDM requires that greenhouse gas reductions from mitigation projects be calculated using a counterfactual baseline that approximates emissions levels without the project. Estimating GHG reductions is a multiple-step process (Sathaye et al. 2003), including (1) determination of additionality or eligibility of a project, (2) construction of a baseline approximating emissions levels that would have occurred without the project, (3) adjustment of the baseline to account for free riders, (4) calculation of project emissions, (5) adjustment of these calculations for potential leakage, and finally, (6) estimation of GHG reductions relative to the baseline.

Additionally, the estimated baseline may be subject to adjustment periodically to reflect changes in business-as-usual conditions. In order to receive credits for reducing GHG emissions within a given carbon trading scheme, a project may be subjected to additionality or eligibility tests (step 1) before being accepted as a qualified project. These tests are designed to ensure that a proposed project will result in real emission reductions.

Trading of CERs

This reassessment of the CDM will not discuss in detail the actual mechanism of certified emissions reductions or challenge its concept. Here, the objective is to highlight two issues associated with CERs that are not well understood, discussed, or researched. When CERs are introduced to an existing socio-political-economic landscape, they represent a completely new "good." It follows from the basic concept that if emissions are "bad" and impose costs on the society, then emission reductions are good and produce benefits. The production of such "good" primary products as power, steel, cement also leads to the generation of undesired emissions.

Suppose a 6 MW power generation project in India proposes to use rice husks as a new fuel by taking advantage of new technology. The goal of the project would be to replace coal, a fuel with high carbon content. Suppose, this project can reduce 40,000 tons of CO2 annually compared to a coal-fired plant. The project would then be eligible for 40,000 CERs while producing 6 MW of power. Like power, CERs can be exchanged and traded on the market. However, given the location of the project in developing countries with no Kyoto-related constraints, the 40,000 CERs generated by the project can now be sold to Annex I investors (although this is not automatic and requires a lengthy process, as mentioned above).

Under the Kyoto regime, Annex I countries with binding reduction targets may require such CERs to achieve their goals. Thus the Annex I countries represent the demand side of the CER market and non-Annex I countries the suppliers. The price of CERs will be determined by the relative market supply and demand. Given the voluntary nature of participation under the Kyoto regime, at present the size of the market is small. With the nonparticipation of large emitters, moreover, the demand is extremely small, keeping the price of CERs at very low levels. As of March 2008 total CERs issued globally were 121,122,134 metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and the price varied from 7 euros to 22 euros per metric ton. This is not to argue how the price situation can be improved but rather to show the implications of owning CERs.

Ownership of Global Natural Capital

CERs may be owned by any party. A unique characteristic of CERs is that their ownership effectively provides ownership over global natural capital, that is, the right to use the atmosphere. In simple terms, a new capital good is being introduced, ownership of which will result in global market power in the near future, not unlike knowledge capital and physical capital. Creation of such rights or ownership has both long-term implications for global political and economic power distribution and crucial ethical implications. Unless regulated within a target emission level, the creation of CERs will distort climate stabilization, market power and world order.

Non-Annex I countries like India and China that are market leaders with large supplies of CERs and no binding mitigation target under the Kyoto Protocol have little incentive to hold onto their CERs and may wind up squandering ownership over natural capital now and forever. There may even come a time when they will have to buy back those same CERs at a higher price at a later date.

No study exists to show whether countries lose or gain as late entrants in the market. But it can be predicted that they will forfeit an early mover's advantage despite their high potential. In the longer run this is going to be an issue of ownership of natural capital and global commons. Under the circumstances it makes good sense for non-Annex I countries to take up binding emission targets both from an efficiency and equity point of view.

Ethical Issues

But deeper issues must also be discussed. One is the ethical question of managing a global common property through inappropriately defined private ownership. Who will own the rights to a global common good? Should it be individual investors, banks, financial institutions, governments, or all future generations of humans on Earth? Ownership by one group, by definition, excludes that by others for the same resource. So under current CDM arrangements, the sellers of CERs are by implication selling off their rights to use a global common property without any institutional arrangement with symmetric information on defined ownership.

High transaction costs, limited market size due to the absence of a cap for non-Annex I countries, large-scale uncertainty on ownership type, lifetime of the market, and what happens beyond Kyoto are all inviting attention to reassess the CDM and CER market. The current state of affairs can be considered a period of learning and experimentation. Asymmetry in information and the ethical issue of providing a "global good" for private trading is bound to generate global conflict sooner or later unless the CDM is crafted properly. The learning process combined with new knowledge can pave the way toward global target setting and a binding target for all whereby each player can choose its role on a level paying ground. This will ensure efficiency as well as equity, but ethical questions will still remain unresolved. Neither does it solve the problem of free riding in the Kyoto regime. There is thus still a long way to go in finding a nondistorting solution.

Concluding Remarks

It is time to understand that GHG emissions reduction is an economic activity. It makes good business sense to invest in the low-carbon development pathway. However, without a limit to emissions generation, the CDM will limit participation and distort the situation. A new regime is needed to replace the emphasis on voluntary action. Binding targets needs to be taken up by each emitter, however small or large, from the viewpoints of efficiency and equity.

Targets may be decided by nation-states and negotiated within the global goal of stabilizing emission levels. Under any circumstances, there is a need to coordinate national priorities and goals with those of the international community. Although nation-states are free to decide their own national policies, it can be predicted that those who benefit will be those who can best coordinate national and global goals.

The views presented in this article are of the author and in no way represent those of her country of origin, India, or the IPCC.

References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change." Working Group III contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press.

Sathaye, J., Scott Murtishaw, Lynn Price, Maurice Lefranc, Joyashree Roy, Herald Winkler, and Randall Spalding-Fecher (2003). "Multiproject Baselines for Evaluation of Electric Power Projects," Energy Policy, Vol. 32/11 pp 1303-17.

Stern N. (2007). "The Economics of Climate Change." The Stern Review. London: Cambridge University Press.

Message from the Tokyo Foundation:Why don't you write an article too?

“Voices from the Sylff Community” is a space showcasing the activities and opinions of Sylff fellows and faculty members. We have received contributions from fellows and faculty members all over the world.　We are looking forward to sharing YOUR voices with people around the world, including global issues with local perspective, grassroots issues requiring global attention, and your first-hand experience.
For further details, please click here