Some LSM (Non Governmental Observers) had different views of the Initial Conference of Climate Change in Bangkok (5/9) some were optimistic while some were pessimistic. But nearly all NGO (LSM) saw there was a tendency of justification of the climate issue, which created fear among 6,973,738,433 (data 2011) of the world’s population. “Climate crisis was of the industrial to little doomsday, while financial crisis of the industrial states was the bigger doomsday which was ever dreadful” Sri Ranti of WALHI disclosed to Business News (10/9).
The conference was participated by delegates from Indonesia, i.e. Chairman of the Fiscal Policy Board of the Ministry of Finance and four NGO’s i.e. WALHI, CSF and KIARA. WALHI (the Environmental Organization) among other admitted there were two main differences among LSM/NGO in regard to the effort to reduce the earth’s temperature. “Some LSM were avocation oriented, some were conservation oriented. In fact all LSM were not overlapping in voicing emission reduction, but there was simply no common ground especially in regard to Green Climate Fund (GCF)” Sri Ranti remarked.
Meanwhile at global level, LSM were broadly divided into poles, i.e. those who focused on justice network and those who focused on negotiation, they and those who focused on negotiation, they were bringing messages from the people of the respective countries not just by way of report but also negotiations. WALHI who joined the Climate Talk for the past three years saw the need for a more definitive target in strengthening the climate issue. “All LSM who joined the conference were financed by certain delegation. We are also busy with certain activities, but we from Indonesia have our target which must be synchronized first with other LSM” she remarked.
Beside WALHI, KIARA (people’s coalition for Fishery justices) and KAU (the anti-debt coalition) and Civil Society Forum (CSF) were voicing the same opinion. The activists, before embarking on the main agenda of the conference had their pre-briefing. “We must stipulate a common ground before underscoring the main agenda”.
GCF was an idea or proposition which was only set forth this year. There four LSMs we also seeking for a common platform for GCF was already at regional level, but had not arrived at national level in Indonesia. “NGO are voicing the same opinion because they set forth the same case including this GCF” However, LSM could not always be directly involved in negotiations. There were some parts of discussions which were closed for NGO, only state observers were involved. “Sometime we wasted a lot of time the way it happened in Bangkok. We were often confused because one NGO form abroad came up with one proposition while another NGO came up with another since there was no common ground” Sri Ranti remarked.
Meanwhile KAU saw that the Bangkok conference ended up with less gladdening result. Industrial countries did not make any clear commitment to definite emission reduction, while developed nations, including Indonesia, had no fangs to make any pressure. Indonesia’s leader position as the biggest country in South East Asia should have been more daring and aggressive at that conference. “The faith of the Conference on Climate Change had only to months left, but it seems to still to leave a big question mark” Dani Setiawan of KAU told Business News (11/9).
The COP outcome 16 in Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011) evaded industrial countries away from their historical responsibility as main contributor of gas emission to the glass house effect. They also dominated the conference to re-route the course of discussion to opposite direction, away from the original track to overcome climate change effect.
Commitment of the industrial states was not strong enough to lower gas emission till 2020 as increase of global temperature had come to above 4 degree celcius. “The future of mankind is gloomy, since industrial states easily delay time and came up with excuses like financial crisis keep them from being consistent about reducing gas emission” Dani Setiawan was quoted as saying.
At the climate talk, pollutant countries: the USA, Uni Europe, China, India so freely influenced the discussions. The result was that negotiations were losing their meaning, way beyond the limit of tolerance. America used their political power to influence the meeting nor did America national corporations give their commitment to lower emission seriously. China as one of the top contributor of emission, was advantaged by the powerless negotiations. Uni Europe’s true colors showed in their diplomacy, who persisted to the promise to reduce emission by 20 percent, was now clearly visible. “The deal was even exercised through carbon trading and carbon absorption and storage. A list of solution on climate change was also not clear. They did not do anything to control economic growth and reduce consumption” Dani Setiawan remarked.
The world needed act of rescue at once. Monitoring by NASA satellite was showing melting process of ice in Greenland and high speed, much wider than a few months ago, which was beyond scientist’s calculation. They noted expand of Greenland ice melting widest since satellite monitoring 33 years ago. In tandem with that, report of the National Board of Disaster Management (BNPB) detected increase of tropical cyclone of 878 percent in the past six decades. “The world was tormented by landslides and flood continuously in the past three months. Hundreds of people died and millions of them live in a state of emergency” Dani reported.
In Indonesia, dry season that lasted longer than usual and had brought harvest failure to farmers. In addition to that, many regions in Indonesia, farmers feared shortage of clean water. The syndrome was equally felt in all of the islands. Meanwhile farmers suffered due to extreme climate. “In addition to that many fishermen died in stormy seas. Our record has it there were 86 fisherman who died at sea. The number increased to 149 in 2011 and by August 2012 the victms were chalked up at 186 people” Dani said.
While there was lack of commitment to emission reduction, industrial states were also less supportive to fund raising for adaptation in the post GCF establishment perioed in COP 17 in Durban, which was aimed at mobilizing fund raising for climate change was getting less and less clear. Up till now the mechanism of GCF management was still vague, including the aspects of funding, allocation, direct access mechanism of GCF management was still vague, including the aspects of funding, allocation, direct access mechanism for people, fragile communities, regulations and proper spending of fund.
Rich, industrial countries especially America and Uni Europe only made promises. So far not a single dollar was allocated for GCF While an archipelago country like Indonesia, which was vulnerable to anomalous climate, did not take any initiative to mobilize APBN budget to support people’s adaptive capacity to climate change. Low commitment and global and national level would hindrance effort to step up adaptation capacity of people among developing nations “They are countries vulnerable to climate change”.
Business News - September 14, 2012