This page is dedicated to those who are concerned with the ever-increasing problems of WATER, FOOD and ENVIRONMENT and their impacts on the humanity. In this page, distinction between local and global problems is completely irrelevant and absurd.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Nurturing Solidarity through Ecology: The Use of Footprint-Based Indices

Nurturing Solidarity through Ecology:
The Use of Footprint-Based Indices

Budi Widianarko
Graduate Program on Environment and Urban Studies,
Soegijapranata Catholic University
widianarko@unika.ac.id


ABSTRACT

Driven by the need for a tool to compare the extent of current depletion of ecosystem’s products or services between various human activities as well as geographical areas the past decade has witnessed a prolific derivation and utilization of footprint based environmental indices (FEIs). Scientists, activists and policy makers engaged with environmental issues are all now familiar with FEIs, such as ecological footprints, carbon footprints, water footprints and virtual water. The most distinctive feature of FEIs is their comparability. FEIs facilitate a quantitative and yet simple comparison of environmental burden of different human activities - expressed in terms of “consumption” of ecosystem’s components (water, land, carbon, etc). Although several critics have pointed out FEIs’ weaknesses, their quantitative and straight-forward nature, however, keep them exciting in practice. Ecology is not just an academic and scientific discipline. It also serves as an ethical principle. In ecology, coexistence is regarded as the most important aspect of life. One core value to support coexistence is solidarity. It is therefore imperative to promote the value of solidarity in ecological study. Comparison of one or more FEIs values among countries as well as among contrasting segments of population within a country may serve as an excellent trigger for awareness of ecological-solidarity. To optimize the nurture of solidarity through the ecological study the use of service-learning methodology is a viable option.

Keywords: FEIs - ecology – service learning - solidarity


Service Learning in Environmental Sciences: Nurturing Two Compatible Values

Service Learning in Environmental Sciences
Nurturing Two Compatible Values


Budi Widianarko

Graduate Program on Environmental and Urban Studies,
Soegijapranata Catholic University (SCU)
E-mail: widianarko@unika.ac.id


1.      Introduction
Service-learning (SL) is recently becoming an attractive learning method which has been applied across educational levels, including higher education. The growing interest on SL among universities is most likely due to its multitude promises, i.e. the learning outcomes, beyond conventional learning.  As formulated by EPA (2002) SL is a method of encouraging student learning and development through active participation in considerately organized service that is conducted in, and meets the needs of, a community. Seifer & Connors (2007) stated that SL presents the students with “transformational learning experiences” for it increases community understanding among faculty and brings new directions and confidence to the teaching and scholarly pursuits of the faculty involved; moreover it can contribute to social-economic benefits to the community partners.

SL is integrated into, and enhances, the academic curriculum and the community service program. In other words, it is a structured learning experience that combines community service with explicit learning objectives, preparation, and reflection (Seifer & Connors, 2007). Students involved in SL will not only learn a subject while providing direct community service, but they will also learn about the context in which the service is provided, the connection between the service and their academic coursework, and their roles as citizens (EPA, 2002; Seifer & Connors, 2007). A truly unique distinctive feature of SL is the provision structured time for the students to reflect on their service experience. As defined by the National Society for Experiential Education (1994), SL is a carefully monitored service experience in which a student has intentional learning goals and reflects actively on what he or she is learning throughout the experience. 

According to Seifer & Connors (2007), compared to other forms of experiential education SL has several additional learning outcomes, i.e. (1) offers a balance between service and learning objectives; (2) places an emphasis on reciprocal learning;  (3) increases an understanding of the content in which service work occurs;  (4) focuses on the development of civic skills;  (5) addresses community identified concerns; and (6) involves community in the service-learning design and implementation. In shorts, since its preparatory stage SL involves the community since it is developed, implemented, and evaluated in collaboration with the community. Moreover, SL aims to responds to community-identified concerns.
SL has proven to be a valuable pedagogical undertaking. A literature survey by MacHarg et al. (2012) showed various benefits of SL have been well documented, e.g.

(1)   SL enhances student learning outcomes (Butin, 2010; Prentice & Robinson, 2010). 
(2)   SL has positive effects on
o   personal development such as a sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual growth, and moral development among participating students (Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler & Giles, 1999)
o   interpersonal development and the ability to work well with others, leadership and communication skills (Astin & Sax, 1998; Keen & Keen, 1998).
o   reducing cultural stereotypes and facilitating racial and cross-cultural understanding (Astin & Sax, 1998; Giles & Eyler, 1994)
o   a sense of social responsibility and increased civic engagement (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Mabry, 1998), as well as later commitments to service (Astin & Sax, 1998)

(3)   Students and faculty report
o   greater learning and better academic performance when students participate in service-learning (Boss, 1994)
o   improved ability for students to apply the theory of what they have learned to the “real world” (Eyler & Giles, 1999). 

(4)   Enhances career development (Astin & Sax, 1998; Keen & Keen, 1998) and participating students report a closer relationship to faculty and satisfaction with the institution (Eyler & Giles, 1999). 

In short, service-learning assists students with personal, social and learning outcomes in addition to their career development and relationship with the institution (Eyler et al., 2001).  For that reason SL is certainly be a justifiable field of study. 

2. Environmental Service Learning (ESL)

Despite of its multitude pedagogical advantages, it is only quite recently that SL has been applied in natural science education. SL has, for quite a while, been associated merely with social sciences and underrepresented in natural sciences (Curry et al., 2002).
However, when it comes to environmental studies (ES) SL seems to be the perfect match. Ward (1999) even stated that these two fields have a natural fit. The combination of these two is frequently referred to as environmental service-learning (ESL) (Madigan, 2000). Through this amalgamation, the notion of community is broadened, not only limited to human community but also embracing natural community.

Both SL and ES are two value laden domains. Interestingly, these values are compatible. As mentioned earlier, through SL students will not only learn a subject while providing direct community service but they will also learn their roles as citizens. In fact, SL promotes good citizenship values, in terms of rights and responsibilities of individual in his or her community (Madigan, 2000).

Ecology as the main pillar of ES is not just an academic and scientific discipline. Ecology also serves as an ethical principle. Ecological ethics is part of applied ethics which looks at the moral basis of our responsibility toward the environment. Several thinkers, e.g. Capra (1982, 1996, 2002); Goldsmith (1998); Cairns (2002) and Bordeau (2004) put their hopes on ecological world view as a way to get out of the environmental crisis deadlock. Ecological world view was seen as a new paradigm to solve public problems (Capra, 1982; Goldsmith, 1998). As a substitute for mechanical world view, ecological or system paradigms place the total above the parts, process above structure, and relativity above the absolute understanding of external world, knowledge network and information and acclaim.

 

Assumptions in system paradigm require new set of ethics, which are more supporting of life instead of destroying, recognizing interconnectedness of every objects and knowing of humans’ place in the network. According to Merchant (1994) human perspective is shifting from mechanistic reductionist – as the product of the ethics of domination of nature of the Enlightenment – towards an ecological world view which is based on interconnectedness, process, and open system.


As defined by Kinne (1997, 1998, 2001, 2002) in Cairns (2002)  eco-ethics refer to the principal importance of ecological dynamics for all forms of life on earth. Without natural environment, no human will be able to survive. Rigoberta Menchu, a Nobel Peace Laureate from Guatemala, once said that “nothing is larger than life coexistence” (see Widianarko, 2007). Everyone would agree that in their entire history Homo sapiens depend entirely on the biosphere as a life support system, either as natural capital or ecosystem service (Hawken et al., 1999). The 20th century was a moment of awakening for humanity from its long sleep of environmental ignorance, after witnessing the worst natural and environmental damages in the history of humanity (McNeill, 2000 in Cairn, 2002).

Along with the spirit of life coexistence, each human person has responsibilities toward his or her immediate as well as larger community, i.e. global ecosystem. To protect global ecosystem a collaborative global response is required. Leadership and acceptance of differentiated responsibilities must be at the heart of any global environmental agreement (see e.g. Widianarko, 2010). In the case of climate change, for example, Stern & Noble (2008) endorsed three basic criteria of global action, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. To respect the value of life coexistence, equity should be in the heart of all environmental decision making. Wealthy countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions. The same holds true for wealthy families or individuals in a country. The deficiency of the global agreement of on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution (Widianarko, 2010). In other words, the fight against climate change is more a problem of ethics rather than merely a technical obstacle.

Flemming (2009) stressed the importance of the so called, “shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”. Flemming (2009) further asserted that such a vision can be found in the Earth Charter which provides sixteen “interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and trans-national institutions is to be guided and assessed”.

Principle 14 of the Earth Charter emphasizes the need to “integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life” (Hessel, 2002). According to Flemming (2009) education is critical in the promotion of sustainable development and improving the capacity of people to address environmental and developmental issues. Education is also critical in achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior coherent with sustainable development, and for effective public participation in decision-making.

Considering the above context, ESL certainly finds its niche. The combination of ES and ESL will, in fact, nurture two compatible values, i.e. societal and ecological citizenships.

Ward (1999) further notes that through ESL students can see more clearly the impacts of environmental negligence and witness policy implications at a grassroots level.  Moreover, environmental studies require an outlook beyond students’ immediate or local community but should also incorporate international engagement to promote significant learning in higher education (Parker et al., 2004).  As suggested by Madigan (2000) promising practices of ESL may include: (1) encourages youth leadership and decision-making; (2) integrates and values the community voice; (3) fosters civic stewardship; (4) provides opportunities for cross-cultural connections; and, (5) plans for the long-term sustainability.

3.      ESL at Soegijapranata Catholic University (SCU)
In order to implement ESL at SCU a project (funded by UB) was conducted by moving students from the classroom to the real world setting as required by service-learning methodAs descibed by Ward (1999) ESL particularly lends itself to students in the discipline, most particularly noting that environmental studies largely focuses around the importance of place and one’s interaction with location. 

The project is entitled “Integrating Carbon Footprint Solidarity into University Education through a Service Learning” (Widianarko et al., 2011). The aims of this project are the following.

1.      To investigate a carbon calculator suitable to a course for enhancing carbon footprint solidarity of the students participating in the ESL course. The carbon calculator together with other related materials is developed by the faculty in line with the characteristics of three locations in Semarang - namely urban, peri-urban and coastal area - which is be used as the place for students or participants of the course to conduct a field research using participatory observation method and/or other activities which is constructed in objective 2. The faculty is responsible for all activities related to curriculum development. The ESL is conducted by students of SCU representing several departments.

2.      To construct some participant activities that are integral parts of the model of carbon footprint solidarity ESL, such as a camp and research activities on the three locations mentioned above.

3.      To formulate an ideal model of carbon footprint solidarity ESL and disseminate it with the intention that such a model will inspire other universities. Based on the initial curriculum and the results of students’ ESL, the faculty is responsible to achieve this objective. Hopefully the course with all the activities will bring forward carbon footprint empathy and solidarity among the student participants.

The following is a brief description of the Environmental Service Learning on Carbon Footprint Solidarity conducted at SCU.

3.1.            Participants
Twenty two (22) students of SCU coming from Departments of Food Technology (9), Civil
Engineering (4), Law (1), Architecture (2), Accounting (2), Business Management (3), and
Taxation (1) involved in this project. The recruitment of students was conducted through an announcement by the SCUs Research and Community Service Institute and followed up by short message services to several student contacts – which were then distributed among his/her network. This process has ensured the participation of genuinely interested students. The success of the recruitment was also supported by the fact that it took place during the inter-semester break.

3.2. Preparation and Introduction of the Draft Modules
Prior to the ESL, the draft of the module on Climate Change and Solidarity was introduced to the participating students in a two-days training session. The draft module covers various topics, not only limited to the subject matter (climate change, carbon calculation, and solidarity), but includes also the description of study site, research and presentation techniques, as well as, reflection method. The topics covered in the draft module are listed below

(1) Climate Change and Carbon Footprint
(2) Carbon Solidarity
(3) Description of Study Sites
(4) Carbon Calculator + Practical Work
(5) Participatory and Field Research
(6) Reflection Method + Practical Work
(7) Research Reporting
(8) Presentation Technique

3.3. Students Live In
Students live in took place at three different locations in Semarang, i.e.(I). peri-urban
(agricultural area), (II). urban (student dormitory/house), (III). coastal area. Students are divided into three batches of 7 or 8 each, to experience all three locations. At Location I and III students were placed in 7 houses, allowing each student to experience and observe the extent of a family’s carbon footprint, while at Location II each student stayed in his or her own house or dormitory.

At each location, students stayed and performed participatory observation for a duration of 3 days 2 nights. So, in the course of this field work each student stayed and observed the carbon footprint of three houses in three different locations. In total, carbon footprint data of 14 households at Location I and III plus 22 houses at Location II were collected by students.

3.4. Participatory Field Observation
Upon arrival at the assigned house, the participating student was introduced to the family by the neighborhood chief and the SCU’s research assistant. Afterward, the student involved in routine activities of the host family. For example, a male student at Location III joined his host to work at the fish pond – a female student at Location I joined her host to prepare a meal for the family.

While joining the family’s routine, students observed all activities and home facilities associated with carbon footprint, i.e. meal, water, electricity, energy, transportation and solid waste. To obtain more refined information on the familys carbon footprint the observing student also interviewed the host on family member, lifestyle, consumption pattern and daily travel.

For the electricity carbon counting, student observed the number of lamps and home appliances available in the household, as well as their frequency and duration of use. For the food related carbon footprint student obtained data via having meal together with the host family, and performing interview on the amount and variety of foodstuffs, cooking methods, frequency and amount of consumption. All carbon footprint information were recorded by each student and compiled with other data obtained by his or her fellow students.

3.5. Carbon Footprint Analysis
The carbon calculation was done using a worksheet based on “The Climate Diet – How You Can Cut Carbon, Cut Cost, and Save the Planet” (Harrington, 2008) available in the module.
Carbon footprints were calculated manually using the available worksheet based on data obtained from participatory observation as inputs.

After several trial sessions by students, the worksheet was complemented with a virtual carbon calculator – available at www.eatlowcarbon.org - to improve the calculation. This should be done especially due to unavailability of local foodstuffs in the worksheet. Even then, some specific foodstuffs, such as vegetables and fishes, were not available in both the worksheet and virtual carbon calculator.

Carbon calculation of individual and batch of students were presented at the mini workshop. It turned out that, the results of carbon footprint calculation varied among the students - leading to different conclusions and validity. To solve this problem, a calculation technique used by Gorby (Group II) was adopted by the group. This technique was run on Microsoft Excell subroutines. Before the adoption by the group, this technique was refined several times to give reasonable results.

Upon the adoption of a common calculation technique, carbon footprint of individual house at all locations were recalculated and presented as the average value of individual carbon footprint (tons CO2 equivalent per capita per year).

3.6. Carbon Footprint Reflection
After knowing carbon footprint information and analyzing it, participants were reflected it together in class. In this session, students reflected their experiences about carbon footprint and to share among them. Participants were also motivated to realize that climate change is caused by human behavior and activities. In other words, human’s life style impacted the large body (earth).

The session started by letting the participants to prepare themselves in a prayer. Participants from three different batches were instructed to internalize that they have responsibility to change their life style for contributing to social welfare or common good, in this case carbon solidarity. In this internalization session, participants shared his or her on carbon consumption in comparison to experiences during live in. Furthermore, they were asked to tell his or her planning for contributing to save the environment.

Finally, participants determined some decisions for doing together in their group as a solidarity model of carbon consumption. That decision or consensus is collected from member’s experiences that are shared in the group. This decision is manifestation of a new initiative toward global solidarity. Each coordinator wrote the decision of his or her group and read them for all participants. The reflection session was ended by a prayer.

Note: At the start of the research students were asked to write their current knowledge and experience on climate change approximately in 200 words. The same process was repeated after the modules introduced to the students, and after the reflection session.

4. Lessons Learned
In general, two objectives of this ESL project - namely (1) to train students to master the carbon footprint calculation and (2) to put the results of the carbon calculation into the context of solidarity - are met. With a limited introduction, i.e. a –two-days training session, students have been able to perform carbon footprint calculation, despite of the fact that the provided tool (i.e. carbon calculator) is not fully compatible with the local conditions. The participating students, however, have managed to make some necessary adjustments of the carbon calculation tool and technique by making use of internet resources.

At the initial stage – i.e. mini workshop - the second objective of the project seemed not fully met. After the repeated reflection session, however, a larger proportion of student participants have been starting to grasp how and what the carbon footprint reflection is all about. The students realized that application of the module on reflection needs to be extended in terms of duration (live in) and frequency (reflection session).

The successful application of the outcome of this project, i.e. a new program for ESL on Carbon Footprint and Solidarity, is not improbable. Service Learning approach has proven to enable students to gain expertise in carbon footprint calculation, and at the same time to be able to make a reflection on the solidarity aspect of carbon footprint.

One component of ESL which needs to be addressed in the future projects is the community empowerment. Ideally, via ESL the participating students should initiate activities aimed at nurturing community awareness toward their own carbon footprints, and stimulating relevant actions accordingly.  

Finally, although this pilot activity has shown that ESL is very promising, its implementation in other or broader subjects, however, is still quite challenging. In this case, the most apparent challenge will be the time constraint perceived by faculty in the light of the number of required course contents. 

 

5. References

Astin, A. & L. Sax (1998).  How undergraduates are affected by service participation.

Journal of College Student Development, 39.


Boss, J.  (1994).  The effect of community service on the moral development of college
Ethics students.  Journal of Moral Development, 23.

Bourdeau, Ph. (2004). The man-nature relationship and environmental ethics.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 72 : 9–15

Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community
engagement  in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cairn Jr, J. (2002). Sustainability and sacred value. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2002: 15-27.

Capra, F.  (1982) Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture. Flamingo-HarperCollins Publishers. London.

_________ (1994). Systems theory and the new paradigm. In C. Merchant (ed.): Ecology, Key Concepts in Critical Theory. Humanities Press. New Jersey. p. 334-341.

_________ (1996). The Web of Life – A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. Flamingo-Fontana Paperbacks. London.

_________ (2002). The Hidden Connections – A Science for Sustainable Living. HarperCollins Publishers. London.

Curry, J.M., G. Heffner & D. Warners (2002). Environmental Service-Learning: Social
Transformation through Caring for a Particular Place. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning. Fall 2002: 58-66

EPA (2002). Service-Learning. Education beyond Classroom. Washington D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 32 p.

Eyler, J. & D. Giles (1999).  Where’s the learning in service-learning?  San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J., D. Giles &  C. Gray (2001). At a glance:  What we know about the effects of service-learning on students, faculty, institutions and communities. Washington: Corporation for National Service. 

Fleming, M.L. (2009). Ecological sustainability: What role for public health education? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6: 2028-2040.

Giles, D. & J. Eyler (1994).  The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey:
Toward a theory of service-learning.  Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1.

Goldsmith, E. (1998). The Way: An Ecological World-View. Revised and Enlarged edition. The University of Georgia Press. Athens.

Hawken, P., A. Lovins & L.H. Lovins (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown & Co. London.

Hessel, D.T. (2002). The Earth Charter: Guide to a sustainable way of life. In Biodiversity Project: Ethics for A Small Planet. Biodiversity Project. Madison.

Keen, C. & J. Keen (1998). Bonner student impact survey.  Princeton, NJ:  Bonner
Foundation.

MacHarg, B., J. Lessman & B. Widianarko (2012). Theory to Practice: Environmental Service Learning in Indonesia. A granted proposal to ASIANetwork Service Learning and the Environment in Asia Program (ANSLEAP)2012 Pilot Grant - Supported by the Luce Foundation.
Madigan, P. (2000). The Environmental Service-Learning Research Project. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service National Service Fellowship Program. 89 P.

National Society for Experiential Education. (1994). Partial list of experiential learning terms
and their definitions.  Raleigh, NC.

Parker, J., R. Wade & H. Atkinson (2004). Citizenship and community from local to global:
Implications for higher education of a global citizenship approach.  In J. Blewitt & C.
Cullingford (Eds.), The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education.
Sterling, VA:  Earthscan. 

Prentice, M. & G. Robinson (2010). Improving Student Learning Outcomes with Service Learning. AACC–RB 10: 1-16

Seifer, S.D. & K. Connors (Eds.) (2007).  Community Campus Partnerships for Health. Faculty Toolkit for Service-Learning in Higher Education. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

Stern, N. & I. Noble (2008). Achieving low carbon growth for the world: Key elements for a global deal. Development Outreach 10(1): 4-7.

Ward, H. (1999). Why is service-learning so pervasive in environmental studies programs?.
In H. Ward (Ed.), Acting locally: Concepts and models for service-learning in environmental
studies.  Sterling, VA:  Stylus. 

Widianarko, B. (2007). Can Hydrospirituality Ensure Water Sustainability?. Global Spiral
(e-publication of Metanexus Institute. Philadelphia).

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., W. Hadipuro, S. Weru & D.S. Djati (2011). Coping with Climate Change:
Integrating Carbon Footprint Solidarity into University Education through a Service Learning

Approach. Report of a UB Sponsored Project. Soegijapranata Catholic University. 14 p.

THE DILEMMA OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

THE DILEMMA OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Budi Widianarko
Graduate Program on Environmental and Urban Studies,
Soegijapranata Catholic University


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 thatThe 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 watermay 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.

Popular Posts