The Jakarta Post

Most environmentalists would agree that Al Gore and the IPCC's winning the Nobel Peace Prize was also a triumph for environmental advocates working to put green issues at the top of everyone's priority list.

Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded because of "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". It does not take a math wiz, however, to figure out the correlation between peace and the environment. Tackling the world's conflicts can start with solving the root problems, such as poverty and the mismanagement of natural resources.

Settling those conflicts when they have already blown out into wars and crises is too late and too expensive. Simply put, the focus on the Nobel Peace Prize has shifted from the effects to the causes.

 I agree that environmental issues are and should be in the spotlight, but shining the spotlight on climate change is be too far from our priorities, especially in Indonesia. In a nutshell, climate change advocates play a role in shifting the world's attention to saving the environment. But on the point of substance, there are still many issues far more urgent than climate change itself. If people were to examine carefully the issues on climate change it would be on the world's commitment to cut down carbon emissions, and how political and economical those issues are.

Indonesia, categorized as a Non-Annex I country, does not have the obligation to reduce its carbon emissions but has been persuaded to participate in the carbon trade in the form of clean development mechanisms. In other words, foreign direct investments to "carbon wash" a developed country to reduce its emissions. Developed countries such as Australia and the United States, which have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, can't afford to cut their emissions, because it will be too costly for them to do so. Cutting emissions would mean shutting down factories, thus creating a loss of jobs and economic opportunities. This is why it is "cheaper" to invest their money in asking other countries to protect their forests in order to absorb the world's greenhouse gases.

Indonesia is a carbon market country. The option for industrializing Indonesia's so-called agricultural economy would not be viable because of the world's demand to protect the last remaining rainforests. In reality, Indonesia's economy is mostly dominated by exports of our natural resources -- oil and gas, minerals, timbers, and so forth. The habit of over-exploiting our natural resources however, is not equipped for the dissemination of information on what goes where and who owns what. Again, it does not take a genius to figure out why there are separatist movements in Aceh and Papua.

Among other underlying reasons are social and environmental injustices due to a lack of transparency in our natural resources management. Another case is the protracted Sidoarjo mudflow. There has been restless public bickering about who should be responsible and why it happened in the first place. If the public were informed beforehand about such projects, would it exist? It's a different story if we move to the case of illegal logging. Apprehending the culprits behind illegal logging would take an iron political will, because the real barons of the illegal timber industry of Indonesia hide behind permits issued by the Forestry Ministry, while the National Police are not saints themselves in capturing the alleged timber thieves.

Both institutions have pointed fingers at each other while the practice of illegal logging remains widespread. My point is that Indonesia still has a long list of priorities on the environment, in particular the three things that I have highlighted.

First, we need to establish a system of transparency in our natural resources management in the form of public access to environmental information. Dissemination of environmental information will create public awareness and will help the public monitor the work of the government and the private sector when it comes to utilizing natural resources. This will also curb chances for corruption but provide a fair and just distribution of revenue from our rich natural resources.

Second, illegal logging cases should be criminalized not only under the Forestry and Environmental Management Law, but also the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Corruption Law. The schemes of illegal logging are far more complex and more economically motivated than the usual environmental cases, thus law enforcers should broaden their investigations into the corruption and money laundering domains. Third, if we are to put the environment on our development priorities list, let alone climate change, then we need to take account of the market-based instruments served by the regimes of climate change. Most environmental regulations in Indonesia are still based on command and control policies, thus it will not be sufficient to fully utilize the economic benefits (or impacts) of climate change.

Command and control policies also rest with the capacity of our law enforcement, thus educating law enforcers will take another generation to fully comprehend the urgency to protect the environment. The formulation of market-based instruments into our environmental regulations will help counter this by using market power to reach environmental compliance. The issue of climate change might have put the environment issue at the fore. But now it is time to set those environmental priorities straight and put the ones that are more urgent and doable ahead. The writer is founder of Green Student Advocates at the University of Indonesia's School of Law in Jakarta. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Sumber: The Jakarta Post Thursday, 18/10/2007