Translating the Findings of the Climate Change Conferences

Tony Djogo 

The fabulous, lavish climate conference in Bali will finish soon. As has happened to many conferences, seminars, or workshops, the simple question people have always asked is, will the participants consistently follow up on the recommendations generated from the conference? Can they implement the post-conference action plans? Do they really apply what they have learned from others at the conference? Will their institution support them when they return to their office or organization with the follow-up of an action plan regarding budget, project planning and design, staff, and other resources support? Will their governments incorporate the conference's findings into the legal and regulatory framework? 

We could ask more questions. There are many more interesting discussions and achievements at this conference we could learn from the media and websites. There are agreements and disagreements, pros and cons, for certain aspects or means of mitigating climate change. 

The issues of trade and business, technology transfer, political support or no support, climate versus poverty alleviation, mitigating climate change using market or financial mechanisms versus climate justice or climate in conservation and development have demonstrated the richness of heated debates and arguments in this conference. 

One institution could not deal with all problems. On the contrary, not all institutions can deal with even one single issue on climate change. Discourses, debates, and group deliberations in any conference have always been attractive. But do they bring the key findings of the conference and transform them into a design for specific applicable or applied technology, policies, and institutions in government development programs and projects? Or would the scientists like to recommend more and more research related to specific issues? Would the local government be interested in incorporating the findings into local development design and budget or local legal or regulatory framework? 

There are complex institutional, policy, and governance problems and political and economic issues that need to be addressed. Apart from those issues, the role of scientists or researchers is vital. I often required clarification when I attended meetings dominated by scientists. Apart from my admiration of their scientific credibility, I found that scientists often made simple things too complicated. I bluntly criticized a scientist in the UK in 1999 who talked so complicatedly about simple things related to forests and mahogany. 

I was at a conference in West Germany in 1990. I was so upset to see a professor propose a hypothetical research project design of combining the plantation of teak wood intercropped with Tamarind. He argued that Tamarind is a nitrogen-fixing species that could provide nutrients for teak so teakwood would grow better and faster. In return, he said that teakwood would provide shade for the Tamarind. This is really nonsense. Based on my knowledge of nitrogen-fixing trees (NFTs), Tamarind is not a nitrogen-fixing tree species, although it might look like a leguminous species. Based on my field observations and experiences, I also found that Tamarind could not produce fruits when shaded. The tree needs an open field with solid sunshine and a hot and dry climate. If it was stained, it would have fewer fruits. So, this hypothetical design is absurd. 

This example explores the danger of imagination and illusion of the scientists who have never been to the field but develop research models from behind their desks. It may happen in many places where scientific, research, or academic discourses are far from reality. Many people talk about emission and carbon based on other people's data and then tries to expand their analysis, which may create more deviation from reality. Who has ever measured the actual carbon content in the air throughout the globe? I agree with some friends saying that researchers could make mistakes, but they should not lie, while politicians could make mistakes and tell lies whatever they like. Who could not make a mistake but could tell a lie? 

The other danger is the interpretation of carbon trade. I have heard different stories about the interpretation of carbon trade. Some people think that selling the trees means they sell carbon. Some interpret the Kyoto Protocol where only the trees planted after 1990 will be compensated for carbon sink. Let's cut all the trees to grow new ones eligible for carbon offset. 

Information accumulated in the conference must be abundant. But which one is to be taken into consideration by specific organizations. There is a need to transform information for different stakeholders, particularly those who do not have access to information on the conference outputs or those who might suffer or be exploited by the information asymmetry. While the conference is underway, the deterioration of the forest remains prevailing, people smoking anywhere, anytime, and industry cannot change their production technology in the short term. Many just did not care. 

Many old cars emit substantial CO2 or NO without being inspected by the government authorities. Is the local government interested in anticipating climate change? I do not think so. Climate change, environment, and poverty alleviation are often considered the cost and burden for the local government under the decentralization and devolution processes. In many places, the district governments are striving to get more money from the central government from their own resources for their increasing expenditures. 

Local governments are more interested in economic and physical infrastructure development than environmental protection. Developing or protecting the environment is often considered the trade-off of economic development. It's just similar to what George Bush thinks. 

At the national level, the Ministry of Environment's position could be more vital in political decision-making and law enforcement. Will this ministry have the power and authority to influence the allocation of the state budget and political decision-making related to environmental protection or specifically reducing carbon emissions? What kind of institutions and legal framework need to be considered by the central government to strengthen this ministry and implement the agreement in the conference? 

There are clear examples from many agreements, protocols, COPs, or other regulations developed at the international or national level meetings or even research findings that the ministry could not implement. This ministry needs to be more robust to counter the policy promulgated by the Ministry of Forestry, Mining, and Energy and others who prefer to support economic development rather than the environment. What about the other ministries or other government organs? Are they really concerned about the environmental issues? What kind of institutional mechanisms could all ministries and government institutions collaborate to develop a national movement supported by transparent institutions, rules, regulations, and a budget to mitigate climate change? 

Many other things need to be translated from the conference in terms of information dissemination, education, training or capacity building, rules and regulations with strict enforcement, technical design for forest and land rehabilitation, the obligation of the private companies to take into account environmental concerns and activities in their business, budget plan from the local to the national level government related to the endeavor in reconstructing the nature for ameliorating the destructed natural resources and its environment. 

Many projects tend to be ceremonial, more accessories than functions, large scale, and end when the regime or the government leadership changes or the foreign aid stops. So, there is the need for a straightforward design for the short-, medium--, and long-term perspective with clear, measurable objectives and achievement to be consistently measured. The new president, governor, or district government will undoubtedly change, and they might have their own priority in development. 

Will climate change issues be taken into account by all government leaders in the future, whatever their political affiliation is or whatever their leaders have changed? Many experts, celebrities, and observers always talk about poverty alleviation in climate change mitigation. Have they ever lived with poor people in rural and remote areas with limited access to information, technology, or even road access for their interaction with others? Nice to talk, but not easy to implement. 

There is much evidence that poverty alleviation projects combined with environmental rehabilitation or protection have ended up with desperate failures and negatively impacted people and the environment? The users have yet to translate or adopt many excellent research findings. Many political decisions, rules, regulations, or policies have yet to be consistently implemented. What are the incentives for people in their institution or their professionalisms who would like to do that? We might have extensive analysis but need more action. How to do it?