Climate Change Mitigation of Indonesia and the Philippines - Coursework Example

Comparison of Climate Change Mitigation Measures of Indonesia and the Philippines Introduction Climate change is a widespread problem that calls for the concerted effort by world governments to combat (1). However, every individual country has a role to play. This paper compares and contrasts the measures of two Asian countries, namely Indonesia and the Philippines, have put in place to combat the adverse effects of climate change. The author has organized the paper as follows. First, an overview of the measures taken by each country is presented. Next, the measures of the two countries are compared and contrasted. Thereafter, the author analyzes those measures with the view to examining their effectiveness. Finally, the major points are summarized in the conclusion. Overview of Mitigation Measures each Country has taken Indonesia According to Garnaut, Indonesia is among the worlds top ten emitters of greenhouse gasses (2). The country is also among those countries that are hardest hit by the adverse impact of climate change. In a bid to mitigate those adverse effects, the country has put in place several measures: First, the country has enacted a national policy to provide a framework within which the government can address climate change issues (3). Yusuf’s research how that, prior to the enactment of the policy, Indonesia had prepared a National Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the action plan, the country aimed to reduce its emissions by 26% with local funding and 41% with international funding by 2020 (4). The country established the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) whose primary aim is to bridge sources of international finance and the country’s investment strategies (5). The country has also put in place a number of strategies to control climate change in agriculture. These include shifting consumption patterns, encouraging large-scale farming, pursuing cross-cutting interventions and adopting a more rational approach to carbon sequestration in agriculture (6). By virtue of its location and climatic conditions, Indonesia is prone to floods. Climate change has compounded the problem in recent years by raising the sea level. Consequently, the Indonesian government has adopted a policy to mitigate floods(4). The Philippines Between 1991 and now, the Philippines has taken a raft of national and international measures to mitigate climate change. The major national ones include the following: The passing of the 2009 Climate Change Act. The Act preceded a national policy on climate change mitigation and created the Climate Change Commission. The Commission was charged with coordinating, monitoring and evaluating the climate change action plans and programs of the government (7). In 2010, the country adopted the Philippine Strategy on Climate Change Adaptation (8). In the same year, they adopted the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change. The strategy had two pillars: adaptation and mitigation (9). In 2011, the Philippines adopted the National Climate Change Action Plan (10). The plan sought to enhance the capacity of communities to adapt to climate change while increasing the resiliency of vulnerable natural ecosystems and sectors. In 2011, the government of the Philippines adopted the inter-departmental cluster for the purpose of climate change mitigation (6). The cluster brought together all the Secretaries and heads of government agencies involved in the environment and climate change. The Philippines too experiences flooding. However, unlike Indonesia, which has a specific national policy on flood control, the Philippines has the Philippine Development Plan of 2011 to 2016 as their main tool for controlling floods (9). Comparison of the Measures Both countries have enacted a national policy on climate change mitigation. Garnautreveals the importance of the policy in dealing with the challenges posed by climate change; it provides a platform from which the government can mobilize stakeholders and resources for the purpose of containing climate change(2). However, like any other policies, climate policies are prescriptive in nature. They only prescribe what the various actors should do to achieve the desired goal, but lack the legal force to compel action or inaction. Consequently, it is necessary that the policy be followed by an Act of Parliament that will operationalize the recommendations contained in the policy. In the case of the Philippines, the Climate Change Act was passed into law following the adoption of the policy on climate change mitigation.As for Indonesia, the author obtained no evidence that a similar Act was legislated. Both Indonesia and the Philippines adopted national action plans on climate change mitigation. According to Granados and Oscar,an action plan stipulates a specific goal that the government intends to accomplish within a defined period (11). Indonesia, by means of the action plan, the government hoped to cut carbon emissions by 26% by 2020. That goal was to be financed locally. If international funds became available, the emissions would be reduced by 41% within the same period. The goal was relevant given that Indonesia ranks among the top ten greenhouse gas emitter countries in the world. By contrast, the Philippines action plan goal was quite vague: to build the capacities of communities to adapt to climate change and protect fragile natural ecosystems and sectors against the effects of climate change. There is an important strategy in Indonesia’s raft of strategies that lacks in the Philippines’ strategy: a trust fund for climate change initiatives. Gomez-Echeverri argues that, climate change mitigation measures are more effective if they are undertaken consistently, not on a once-off basis or intermittently (12). For consistency to be possible, there has to be a dedicated fund. On the flipside, the Philippines package has a clear advantage over its Indonesian counterpart: it is a combination of both legal and administrative measures. The cabinet cluster that brings together all State Secretaries for the collective responsibility of mitigating climate change is a powerful tool that adds impetus to the legal tools (13). It also makes a clear statement that governmental efforts at climate change mitigation need to be concerted, not left to a department or two. Effectiveness of the Measures For both countries, the national policy on climate change mitigation forms a good starting point for the effective management of the challenges presented by climate change (7). The policy defines the long-term goal the government intends to achieve in the area of climate change mitigation. The action plan breaks down that broad goal into short-term, more actionable objects while an Act of Parliament enacted pursuant to the policy gives the policy legal force. For instance, the Act creates the relevant institutions for the realization of the goal of the policy. Again, the fact that these interventions are made at the national level enhances their effectiveness (3). Unlike local governments, national governments have the necessary machinery to implement the strategies. Still, having these measures taken at the national level makes it easier for them to be integrated with similar international initiatives: effective climate change mitigation calls for joint efforts within and among nations.Even so, local governments still have important roles to play. For instance, virtually every activity that contributes to global warming is located in a local government jurisdiction. For this reason, cooperation between the two levels of government is essential if the interventions are to succeed. Certain strategies in the Indonesian package are contentious and, therefore, potentially ineffective (10). For instance, among the strategies proposed to curb climate change in the agriculture sector is one that proposes to promote large-scale agriculture at the expense of small-holder farmers. The rationale of the drafters of the strategy is that it is easier to control farm activities, especially those that emit greenhouse gases, on a smaller number of large farms than if the farms are scattered across the country as is the case today. Well-intended as it may be, the strategy is unclear on the fate of the small-scale farmers and is likely to elicit resistance from them. On the Philippines’ side, the cabinet cluster significantly improves the effectiveness of climate mitigation strategies. In many countries, efforts to deal with climate change are ineffective because different agencies try to intervene piecemeal (14). The cabinet cluster, if effectively utilized, will ensure that much-needed unity of purpose. The platform also puts across the clear message that climate change mitigation is the business of every department of government. In fact, according to the Philippines government, the government exists to deliver the social contract to the people of the Philippines. Five pillars, one of which is the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change support that goal. A major drawback of the Philippines package is the apparent overlap in some of the strategies the government has put in place (15). The boundary between the Strategy on Climate Change Adaptation and the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change, both adopted in 2010, is blurred. The national framework has two pillars: adaptation and mitigation. The long-term objective of the adaptation pillar is to empower communities so that they are better placed to adapt to climate change while protecting fragile natural ecosystems and sectors against the adverse effects of climate change. The mitigation pillar seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to promote sustainable development. By contrast, the purpose of the Strategy Climate Change Adaptation is unclear. Conclusion Managing climate change demands that governments cooperate with one another while taking national measures at the same time (5). Both governments have taken several measures to minimize the impact of climate change on their citizens. While the measures are similar in many ways, there are important differences among them. For instance, unlike the Philippines, Indonesia has a dedicated trust fund to ensure the sustainability of climate change mitigation. Similarly, the Philippines has a platform that brings together all department secretaries for the purpose of mitigating climate change; Indonesia has no such arrangement. For both countries, certain measures enhance the effectiveness of the goal of combating climate change while others compromise the same. Overall, the measures the two countries have put in place so far are satisfactory. Works cited 1. Rest A.Other International Developments: State Responsibility/Liability.Environmental Policy and Law 2010; 40(6):298-330. 2. Garnaut R. Climate change and Indonesia: in honor of Panglaykim.Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 2009;45(1): 107-116. 3. Halimanjaya A. Climate mitigation finance across developing countries: what are the major determinants?Climate Policy 2013;(online): 1-30. 4. Yusuf A A. Climate Change Issues and Mitigation Actions in Indonesia.Asia Climate Change Policy Forum. Bandung: Padjadjaran University; 2010. 5. Yusuf A, Ahmad K, Wawan H. Scenarios for Climate Change Mitigation from the Energy Sector in Indonesia: The Role of Fiscal Instruments. Working Paper. Bandung: Padjadjaran University; 2010. 6. Murdiyarso D, Boone K, Loius V. Climate change mitigation strategies should include tropical wetlands.Carbon Management 2013; 4(5):491-499. 7. Kehew R. Formulating and implementing climate change laws and policies in the Philippines, Mexico (Chiapas), and South Africa: a local government perspective." Local Environment2013;18(6):723-737. 8. Tobey J. Practicing Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change: Lessons from Integrated Coastal Management.Coastal Management 2010;38(3):317-335. 9. Button C, Maria M, Bernhard B. Vulnerability and resilience to climate change in Sorsogon City, the Philippines: learning from an ordinary city?Local Environment 2013; 18 (6):705-722. 10. Kant P, Shuirong W. Should adaptation to climate change be given priority over mitigation in tropical forests?Carbon Management 2012;3(3):303-311. 11. Granados J, Oscar C. Economic Aspects of Climate Change.Journal of Crop Improvement 2013;27(66):693-734. 12. Gomez-Echeverri L. The changing geopolitics of climate change finance.Climate Policy 2013; 13(5):632-648. 13. Nicholls R,Abiy K. Indirect impacts of coastal climate change and sea-level rise: the UK example.Climate Policy 2012;12(1):28-52. 14. Lasco R, Florencia P, Patricia J. Mainstreaming adaptation in developing countries: The case of the Philippines.Climate and Development 2009;1(2):130-146. 15. Anubhab P, Kavi K. Accounting for impacts due to climate change in GHG mitigation burden sharing. Climate Policy 2014;(0nline): 1-19. Read More