THE DILEMMA OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

THE DILEMMA OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Budi Widianarko

Graduate Program on Environmental and Urban Studies,

Soegijapranata Catholic University

widianarko@unika.ac.id

ABSTRACT

As environmental problems is becoming more and more globalized, accordingly the use of global environmental measures (GEMs) are also increasing. The past decade has witnessed a prolific utilization of such global measures. Scientists, activists and policy makers engaged with environmental issues are usually familiar with GEMs, such as ecological footprints, carbon footprints, water footprints and virtual water. The derivation of of a GEM is usually driven by the need for a tool to compare the extent of current destruction or depletion of a ecosystem’s product or service between various geographical areas or human activities. By doing so, environmental  burden of different human activities  or cities (or countries),  in terms of “consumption” of ecosystem’s  components (water, land, carbon, etc) can then be compared. While they are conceptually exciting, over-emphasis on GEMs, however, might present a dilemma, i.e. complying global environmental responsibilities versus neglecting local “conventional” environmental problems. So far, GEMs have been derived mostly by scientists or organizations in developed nations who are, of course, hardly free from bias.  Furthermore, as elucidated by several studies GEMs are not necessarily representatives of good science. Ironically, environmental actors in developing countries often act as strong and enthusiast promoters GEMs.  

Keywords: GEMs, over-emphasis, dilemma, bias

Introduction

As environmental problems is becoming more and more globalized, accordingly the use of global environmental measures (GEMs) are also increasing. The past decade has witnessed a prolific utilization of such global measures. Scientists, activists and policy makers engaged with environmental issues are usually familiar with GEMs, such as ecological footprints, carbon footprints, water footprints and virtual water. In practice, a GEM is attractive because its single value can describe a complex phenomenon, i.e. human consumption.   However, the underlying concepts or theories of these indices need to be scrutinized, before they are employed extensively. The risk of over-emphasis on GEMs by environmental stakeholders should not be overlooked, especially in the light of local environmental challenges. The fact that most of GEMs developed by scientists or organization residing in developed countries might carry intrinsic bias toward a hegemonic implication.

Climate Change: Rationales for a GEM

Anthropogenic or man-made climate change, or simply known as climate change has become a catchword, not only among scientists, but also in the conversation of lay persons across communities and nations.  It has become common knowledge that the uncontrollable emission of green house gases (GHGs), i.e. carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) by various human activities are the culprits of climate change. Over the last 250 years, human activities such as deforestation, burning of fossil fuels and intensive agriculture have significantly elevated concentrations of GHGs. In 2005, concentrations of CO₂ (379 parts per million, ppm) and CH₄ (1774 parts per billion, ppb) in the atmosphere have exceeded the natural range of the last 6500 years (IPCC, 2007).

In its fourth evaluation report (2007), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that temperature rise since the mid of twentieth century is very likely due to the elevated level of GHGs concentrations. In the same report, the  IPCC also showed that the increased emission of GHGs have been associated with an average global temperature rise of 0.3°C-0.6°C since the end of the nineteenth century; at the end of twenty first century the emission of GHGs will further induce global average temperature rises of 1.4°C-5.8°C.

The rise in average global temperature has been projected to induce a range of environmental and health impacts, such as water scarcity as well as water destructive redundancy (e.g. flood), ecosystems destruction, degradation of coastal areas, health problems and food shortages. It is commonly projected that food production will be impacted particularly by the shift in the planting season. Sea water rise will threaten human settlements and agricultural activities along coastal areas, leading to numerous economic and health problems. Increased frequency of extreme weather events may also threaten agriculture and food production, as well as human health.

The impact of temperature rise is beleived by many to has been realized already.  Oxfam International, for example, reported that between 1998 and 2007 on average 250 million people were affected by “natural” disasters each year, and 98 % of them were victims of climate-related disasters, such as droughts and floods (Schuemer-Cross & Taylor, 2009). The same report also projected that by 2015 the average number of victims will reach an annual rate of 375 million.

One way to measure an individual, organization or nation’s contribution to climate change is by calculating its “carbon footprint”. It has become a widely used term and concept in the discourse on global climate change. The term carbon footprint is rooted in the concept of an ecological footprint. The Ecological Footprint concept was established by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees at the University of British Columbia in the early 1990’s. The Ecological Footprint calculation is designed to embody the human consumption of biological resources and the generation of waste in terms of a utilized ecosystem area, as compared to the biosphere’s productive capacity in a given year (Ewing et al., 2008).

As the commonly accepted basic definition, the carbon footprint stands for a certain amount of gaseous emissions that are relevant to climate change and associated with human production or consumption activities (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). While its baseline definition is widely accepted, so far there is no consensus on how to quantify a carbon footprint - ranging from direct CO2 emissions to full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions - and no standard unit of measurement agreed upon.

Regardless its limitation, however, the carbon footprint accounting is now serve as a tool for identification and comparison of carbon contribution by individuals, organizations or nations (see e.g. Table 1). Recently, Hertwich & Peters (2009) invented a new calculation method which is based on a single, trade-linked model of the global economy. The model is claimed to offers the most consistent global comparison across countries currently available.

Table 1. Per Capita GHG Footprint of a Selection of Asian Countries in 2001

(Widianarko, 2010 adapted from Hertwich & Peters, 2009)

	Hong Kong	Japan	Taiwan	Korea	Thailand	Indonesia	Philippines
Footprint [tCO2e/p]*	29.0	13.8	11,3	9.2	3,2	1.9	1,9
Domestic Share	17%	68%	68%	75%	78%	89%	76%
Population(million)	7.2	126.8	22.3	47.6	62.8	213.3	79.9
Construction	13%	14%	10%	11%	11%	8%	8%
Shelter	8%	12%	17%	15%	12%	20%	13%
Food	7%	11%	14%	12%	21%	28%	36%
Clothing	28%	4%	2%	3%	4%	1%	1%
Manufactured products	20%	15%	16%	12%	8%	4%	5%
Mobility	11%	22%	21%	32%	25%	22%	17%
Service	9%	18%	15%	19%	17%	16%	17%
Trade	7%	8%	7%	7%	2%	1%	4%

*) tCO2e/p = tons of CO2 equivalent per capita

Based on Hertwich & Peters (2009) calculation, we can see that there is a great variation of per capita GHGs footprint between countries in Asia (Table 1). The Per capita carbon footprint of Hong Kong, for example, is about 14 times higher than those of Indonesia and the Philippines. Globally, carbon dioxide emissions per person are also very unequal and the gap is widening. According to the concept of equitable ecological space the “per capita right to emit carbon dioxide” for a sustainable carbon future is estimated at 1.8 tons CO₂ (MacGregor & Vorley, 2006). This estimate represents the estimated absorptive capacity of natural carbon sinks, both on land and at sea.

GEMs: Bad Science?

As briefly mentioned above, the ecological footprints (EF) was proposed by Wackernagel and Rees as a measure of the sustainability of consumption by human population (Ewing et al., 2008).  EF converts all human consumption into land used in production, along with the hyphotetical land area needed to assimilate the wastes produced. The use of EF is attractive due to the fact that it condenses a complex array of consumption down into a single number. However, the assumption behind EF calculations have been extensively criticized (Fiala, 2008).

            When analyzing the  the connection between development and environmental impact using EF, Moran et al. (2008) found that there is a striking relationship between the countries’ stage of development and their footprints. The finding of this analysis that Cuba is the only country which has a minimally sustainable footprint along side with its minimum level of development, has trigerred many criticisms.

            One of the problem with EF calculation related to the dominance of energy which typically constitutes more than 50% of the footprints of most high and middle income countries. This dominance is due to the land area needed to sequester greenhouse gases. While there is an actual need to assimilate greenhouse gases, from an environmental standpoint it is unclear whether all greenhouse gases should be assimilated or eliminated (Fiala, 2008).

            Another strong criticism is related to the fact that EF calculation is based on ex-post static input-output analysis, while what is needed is an ex-ante scenario (Ferng, 2009).  Moreover, Ferng (2009) asserted that EF calculation failed to take into account the land multipliers factor. The relationship between the level of output of a sector and its land requirement may differ between sectors. Crop production is usually proportional to the cultivated land, assuming similar fertility and cultivation practices. However, the same does not hold for manufacturing, commercial buildings and infrastructures usually do not necessarily change proportionally with the output.  In short, GEM actually still suffers from a number of scientific drawbacks.

However, the popularity of GEMs is still high, not only in developed countries but also in developing countries. In Indonesia, for example, carbon footprints and water footprints have gained a popularity in recent years (see e.g. nation-wide water footprints assessment report by Bulsink et al., 2009). While focus on GEMs is on rise, the country actually facing more pressing environmental challenge which can not be solved simply by the application of these indices.

Local Environmental Challenges: Indonesian Case

Most of environmental stakeholders in Indonesia agree that climate related environmental problems have taken place in the country.  Since 2002 - 2007 floods, landslides and drought alternately occurred in many parts of Indonesia. In 2002, Jakarta was struck by a flood that nearly paralyzed the activities of entire inhabitants. There was another flood in 2007, with a larger affected area. In 2003 the public was startled by Mandalawangi landslide incident in West Java.  West. In the years 2006-2007 a series of disasters, i.e. droughts, floods and landslides occurred in many areas across the country, such as in Bantul, Yogyakarta Special Territory; District Morowali, Central Sulawesi; Jember, East Java; and Solok, Padang, West Sumatra.

Based data from Bakornas PBP in 2006 195 disasters have occurred. Of the total disaster events, flood happen the most (22%), followed by landslides (15%) and drought (14%). The most unbearable natural disaster in Indonesia was the Aceh’s Tsunami in December 26, 2004.  A most recent (September 30, 2009) disaster took place in Indonesia was an earthquake in West Sumatra with the dead toll of more than one thousand people.

While global environmental problems seem to have been taken place in Indonesia, most of pressing environmental problems in Indonesia are, actually, still local in nature. These local environmental problems have been ever increasing at a threatening pace, in parallel with the implementation of local autonomy (i.e. decentralization). In other words, exploitation of natural resources, pollution and degradation of ecosystems have been exacerbated by the shift toward the decentralized government (Widianarko, 2012).

Environmental degradation in Indonesia is mostly caused by pollution and environmental destruction. In 2006, results of monitoring of 35 rivers in Indonesia by 30 Provincial Environmental Impact Management Agencies (Bapedalda) showed that water of these rivers are categorized as polluted based on the criteria of second-class water quality, i.e. drinking water source (Anonymous, 2009). Sources of surface water pollution and groundwater include the industry, agriculture, and households.

Measurements in major cities Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan, Bandung, Jambi, and Pekanbaru showed that in one year good air quality was only found in 22 to 62 days. The level of air pollutants in these cities is, in average, 37 times as higher as standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO). In Jakarta, the inhabitants can only breathe in good quality air only 22 days in one year (SMERI, 2006). This condition has been continued until now. In this year, together with Bangkok, two Indonesia’s metropolitans are among the top three most polluted cities in Asia, in terms of air quality. Jakarta and Surabaya is the first and third polluted cities respectively (ANTARA, 2009).

In several big cities, garbage production in 2005 and 2006 tended to increase with an average of 20.9% (SMETRI, 2006). In 1995 average waste generation in Indonesia is 0.8 kg per capita per day. In 2000, it increased to 1 kg per capita per day, and in 2020 is expected to reach 2.1 kg per capita per day. 

Based on data from the Ministry of Industry, in 2006 industrial activities generated 26,514,883 tons of hazardous wastes scattered in various industrial sector (SMETRI, 2006).  Hazardous wastes generated at the downstream and upstream chemical industry were 3,282,641 tons and 21,066,246 tons, respectively. Indonesia also has been and still importing hazardous wastes from several countries, like Japan, China, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, Korea, England, Australia, and Singapore. 

Depletion of natural resources is mostly due to over exploitation and, to a lesser extent, due to the decline of environmental quality.  The condition of coral reefs Indonesia has declined dramatically to 90% in the last 50 years due to environmentally hostile fishing, sedimentation and coastal pollution and reef mining.  Meanwhile, the area of mangrove forests in Indonesia has also been reduced substantially, from 3.7 million hectares in 1995 to only 1.5 million hectares in 2005. 

Based on data from the Ministry of Forestry, in 2007, forest destruction has reached 59.2 million hectares with the rate of deforestation approximately 1.19 million hectares annually. Critical lands also continued to increase to reach 23.2 million hectares in 2000 and reached about 74 million hectares in 2004 (excluding Aceh, West Sumatera, Jambi, Bangka Belitung, Jakarta Special Territory, Banten, West Java, Gorontalo, and Central Sulawesi provinces). 

A oceanological survey revealed that in 2005 only 6% of the country’s marine biodiversity was considered as very good, while 25%, 27% and 31% were considered as good, reasonable and bad respectively (Anonymous, 2009). Equally, Indonesia’s mining resources has also been declined substantially, leaving the country with a stock which will last just in 18 years.

From 1998 to present time, there are a number of environmental incidents which worth noted due to the magnitude of their impacts as well as the level of public attention paid to them. The year 1998 recorded high magnitude forest fires with impacts spread over Indonesia’s neighbor countries, i.e. Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia. Since then, forest fires are continued to repeat every year. 

In 2000, landslide was occurred in mining area of PT. Freeport Indonesia in Lake Wanagon, Papua causing overflow of materials (sludge, overburden, and water) into the River Wanagon and Banti village located downstream of the lake. In 2001 a tank explosion happened at the Petrokomia Gresik, one of the country’s largest chemical industries, resulted in health disturbance of local residents.

In 2004-2005, two most noted environmental events were mining permit in the protected forest and the Buyat Bay pollution case. A mudflow disaster due to imprudent gas exploration in Sidoarjo, East Java, took place in 2006 is still unsolvable until this date. The mudflow has forced thousands of inhabitants to leave their settlements. The estimated total economic cost of going during 2006-2015 caused by this man-made accident is around 33 trillion IDR, or close to 33 billion USD. Sixty percent of this cost (+ 19 billion USD) is attributed to the direct damage, e.g. lost of assets and income of the inhabitants.

The Dilemma of GEMs

In the light of more globalized media, highlighting comparative countries’ GEMs are attractive news. Take for example, a news from Reuter entitled “Indonesia world's No. 3 greenhouse gas emitter: report” looks more eye catching than news on solid wastes disposal into a river. However, when there is only a few conventional environmental news it does not necessarily mean that no more challenge presents. Over-emphasis towards GEMs will divert stakeholders’ attention from local conventional environmental problems.  

The commitment of Indonesia as stated by the President to reduce 26% of the total carbon emission, will not automatically correlated with the management of conventional environmental problem, such as water pollution, urban sanitation and food safety. Lomborg (2012) in his critical remarks on the Rio ‘Earth Summit” recently stated that 

“Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. Even if we assumed  that it caused all deaths from floods, droughts, heat waves and storms, this total would amount to just 0.06 percent of all deaths. In comparison, 13 percent of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution”.

In this case, Lomborg stresses the risk of underestimating local conventional environmental challenge faced by developing countries. Following, Lomborg’s line of reasoning there is certainly a developed country’s bias in the whole discourse of global environmental problems.  Accordingly, the derivation of GEMs, such as virtual water, water footprints, carbon footprints and and ecological footprints suffer from a bias toward the interests of developed countries.

Virtual Water (VW) is a perfect example of  biased GEM. The VW concept was introduced by water and food international institutions since the Third World Water Forum (WWF) in Kyoto (2003),  which then resonates louder during the Fourth WWF in Mexico City (2006), and the following WWFs. Actually, the concept of “virtual water” has been in place since 1996 initiated by Profesor J.A. Allan (Qadir et al., 2003; SIWI, IFPSRI, ISUCN, IWMI, 2005). In essence, the VW’s concept is based on a premise: “Trade in food is literally also trade in water”. Water is needed to produce food, accordingly SIWI, IFPSRI, ISUCN, IWMI (2005)stated that “The total amount of water used to produce a crop is referred to as “virtual water”. The international food trade can consequently be equated to virtual water flows”.

Table 1. Virtual Water contents of several food-stuffs and products

Product/Foodstuff	Virtual Water (liter/kg product)	Product/Foodstuff	Virtual Water (liter/kg product)
Wheat	1150	Beef	15977
Rice	2656	Chicken meat	2828
Corn	450	Egg	4657
Potato	160	Milk	865
Soybean	2300	Cheese	5288

 FAO & IFAD (2006)

The trade of “virtual water” may reduce the utilization of water for agriculture, if the exporting parties can perform a better water efficiency or productivity. (liter of water per kilogram foodstuff) thanthe importing parties. Generally, major food exporting countries like US, Canada and European Union do have a high water productivity due to rain water (green water) (SIWI, IFPSRI, ISUCN, IWMI, 2005). The implementation of such concept may lead to a risk of food dependencies, especially when water resource utilization for food production is considered to be inefficient.

Conclusion

As environmental problems is becoming more and more globalized, accordingly there is an increasing trend for using global environmental measures (GEMs). While GEMs are conceptually exciting, over-emphasis on GEMs, however, might present a dilemma, i.e. complying global environmental responsibilities versus neglecting local “conventional” environmental problems. Furthermore, as elucidated by several studies GEMs are not necessarily representatives of good science. In the light of more globalized media, highlighting comparative countries’ GEMs are attractive news. However, when there is only a few conventional environmental news it does not necessarily mean that no more challenge presents.

While global environmental problems seem to have been taken place in Indonesia, most of pressing environmental problems in Indonesia are, actually, still local in nature.Over-emphasis towards GEMs will divert stakeholders’ attention from local conventional environmental problems.  In this case, Lomborg stresses the risk of underestimating local conventional environmental challenge faced by developing countries. There is certainly a developed country’s bias in the whole discourse of global environmental problems.  Accordingly, the derivation of GEMs, such as virtual water, water footprints, carbon footprints and and ecological footprints suffer from a bias toward the interests of developed countries.

References

Anonymous (2009). Academic Manuscript of Environmental Protection and Management Law. State Ministry of Environment Republic of Indonesia.

ANTARA (2009). Surabaya ranks third among polluted cities in Asia. ANTARA NEWS 19 October.

Bulsink,F.,  A.Y. Hoekstra & M.J. Booij (2009). The Water Footprint of Indonesian Provinces related to the Consumption of Crop Products. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 37. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, University of Twente and Delft University of Technology.

Ewing B., S. Goldfinger, M. Wackernagel, M. Stechbart, S. M. Rizk, A. Reed & J. Kitzes (2008). The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008. Global Footprint Network. Oakland.

Ferng, J-J (2009). Applying input-output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints. Ecological Economics 69: 345-354

Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics 67: 519-525

Hertwich, E.G. & G.P. Peters (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 6414-6420.

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Lomborg, B. (2012). Wrongheaded in Rio ‘Earth Summit’. The Jakarta Post, June 19. p. 7

MacGregor, J. & B. Vorley (2006). Fair Miles? The concept of “food miles” through a sustainable development lens. Sustainable Development Opinion. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). London

Schuemer-Cross, T. & B.H. Taylor (2009). The Right to Survive: The humanitarian challenge for the twenty-first century. Oxfam International. Oxford.

SMERI (2006). State of the Environment 2006. State Ministry of Environment Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta.

Widianarko, B. (2010). Paving pathway to sustainable Asia: Enhancing the roles of Christian Higher Education Institutions. Keynote Speech at the Biennial Conference, General Assembly of ACUCA. Keimyung University, Daegu, 1 Nov 2010.

Widianarko, B. (2012). Democratization, Decentralization and Environmental Conservation in Indonesia. In A. Mori (ed.):  Democratization, Decentralization and Environmental Governance in Asia. Kyoto University Press. Kyoto.

Wiedmann, T. & Minx, J. (2008). A Definition of 'Carbon Footprint'. In: C. C. Pertsova, Ecological Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1, pp. 1-11, Nova Science Publishers. Hauppauge NY.