Indonesia Climate Diplomacy

Sub tema: Lingkup Domestik
Konvensi AIHII Padang

Indonesia Climate Diplomacy:

An Eclectic Approach in Understanding the Logic of Action of Indonesia Foreign Policy on Climate Change Mitigation

Muhammad Sigit Andhi Rahman

President University

Jababeka Education Park

Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara, Kota Jababeka Cikarang Baru, Bekasi, Jawa Barat, 17550

E-mail: emsigitar@gmail.com

Keywords:
Indonesia foreign policy, climate diplomacy, eclectic approach, climate change mitigation, logic of action

Abstract

This study examines the logic of action of the current Indonesia foreign policy in climate change mitigation. Since the climate change conference in Bali in 2007, Conference of Parties (COP 13), Indonesia has advocated itself as an active global leader in climate diplomacy. At  COP 15, in Copenhagen, Indonesia committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emission up to 41 percent below business as usual (BAU) by 2020. Many consider this as a very ambitious target. It is questionable whether this foreign policy is purely derived from Indonesia’s national interest or merely pressure from international community or Great Powers. This study will eclectically use the three approaches of foreign policy from neorealist (Baumann, Rittberger and Wagner 2001), utilitarian liberal (Freund and Rittberger 2001), and constructivist (Boekle, Rittberger and Wagner 2001) to understand the logic of action of Indonesia foreign policy on climate change mitigation. I argue that there are clear evidences of the existence of both logic of consequentiality: seeking autonomy and influence (neorealist) and maximizing gains (utilitarian liberal) and the logic of appropriateness: maintaining reputation as a member of international society (constructivist) in the formulation of the policy. I conclude that the climate change has enabled Indonesia as a state to increase its international influence, regain its domestic control, and strengthen its international legitimacy and acceptance.  

Indonesia Climate Change Policy at a glance

            The 13^th Conference of Parties United Nations Climate Change Convention (COP 13-UNFCCC) in Bali, December 2007 has become a milestone for Indonesia’s involvement in international climate change policy. Indonesia has successfully organized an international forum in the midst of uncertainty of the continuation of Kyoto Protocol, and yet, Indonesia together with other developing countries agreed to increase their participation in climate change mitigation by initiating “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” (NAMA) in accordance with their respective capacities. Indonesia then proved itself as leader in mitigating climate change by stating a commitment of reducing green house emission at the COP 15, in Copenhagen up to 41 per cent below business as usual (BAU) by 2020. The target is for 26 percent reduction relative to BAU undertaken by unilateral effort, and up to 41 percent with international assistance.

            For the first decade, the share of reduction mostly come from the land sector especially forestry as shown in the 2 011 presidential decree on National Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission, known as RAN-GRK. Around 85 percent of total Indonesia’s emissions result from land use issues: agricultural practices, land use methods and land use changes in forest and peat-land areas.  Therefore, the five biggest opportunities identified by National Commission on Climate Change to reduce emission are preventing deforestation, preventing fires on peat land, preventing, preventing the oxidation of peat land through water management and rehabilitation, implementing and enforcing sustainable forest management, and deforesting marginal and degrade forests (Norton Rose Group, 2010).  The longer-term effort will be focused on Indonesia’s energy system. This includes industrial energy use, electricity use in public buildings and homes, and transports.   

 Indonesia government has produced a number of relevant laws in relations to climate change. There are regulations related to energy, environment, forestry and land use. In term of international collaborative efforts, Indonesia has conducted several bilateral arrangements in emission reductions. For example, the Indonesian and Australian governments have cooperated in technology and information sharing and Indonesia’s institutions and capacity building. Norway government has also promised $1billion funding to Indonesia in connection to emission reduction from deforestation, forest degradation and peat land conversion (Norton Rose Group, 2010). Potential investment opportunities are also resulted from Indonesia’s participation in greenhouse emission reduction. These include investments in forestry project (REDD) and also renewable energy projects (geo-thermal, hydro and waste to energy project).

Despite these promising efforts and opportunities, there is crucial issue on Indonesia’s credibility on setting the level of Business-as-usual (BAU) or its baseline scenario. A BAU baseline scenario is a projection of greenhouse gas emissions without intervention of mitigation policies for a given time period. The scenario should be clearly defined to guarantee that the intended target is really achieved. If Indonesia set the official BAU baseline above the real condition, the emission reduction level achieved trough the mitigation efforts will not show the real emission decrease. This is named by Hot Air (Hein, 2013). Hot air or virtual emission reduction is emission reduction that would happen anyway without any mitigation effort. This concern is stated by some observers when they analyzed Indonesia’s government document submitted to UN in November 2010 that assumes fast growth in emissions under the scenario. If chosen as the official BAU baseline, it would make the target less ambitious and affect its international credibility (Jotzo, 2011). 

To achieve that target will not be an easy task. Most of the reduction efforts are against the interests of industry and parts of government bureaucracy that prefer status quo. The success will be determined by the existence of economic opportunity and enforcement of laws and regulations, and policy reform especially in energy sector (Jotzo, 2011). The law taken by The People’s Representative Council (Parliament) would strengthen the domestic legitimacy and international credibility of Indonesia’s mitigation effort. In other words, the success of Indonesia’s mitigation efforts depends mainly on its ability to mobilise political capacities to enforce the plan (Hein, 2013).

There are obstacles ahead, but new opportunities are also becoming more visible. Despite that fact, there is still a question remaining. It is the question on the reason or logic of action that explains why Indonesia takes this audacious foreign policy. Is it based on well calculated risk and opportunity, or merely based on fortuitous events? The implication of ecosystem changes is quite difficult to be assessed effectively because many of the effects are slow to become apparent, and because costs benefits calculation often accrue to different sets of stakeholders (Anton & Shelton, 2011). Is it due to the influence of the prominent international norms and legal framework, or pressure from general public concern due to the increase of public awareness on climate change issue? This study examines the logic of action of the current Indonesia foreign policy in climate change mitigation by using an eclectic foreign policy theoretical approach.

Discussion

            Eclectic theoretical approach by definition is combining whatever seem the best or most useful things from different theories, rather following a single theory. My intention is to give comprehensive understanding rather than a theory-consistent based explanation. Despite its eclecticism, this paper scrupulously explains by using original concept provided by the respective theories.

            I use three foreign policy theories adapted from theories of international politics; Neo realism, Utilitarian Liberalism, and Constructivism. Neo-realism and Utilitarian Liberalism explain the logic of action in term of logic of consequentiality while Constructivism explains the logic of appropriateness.  Logic of consequentiality is based on assumption that states are homo economicus-rational actors who act in order to maximize their gains. Based on that logic, states articulate foreign policy by considering their goals and available options for them. Different from that, logic of appropriateness considers states as homo sociologicus or social actors rather than rational actors who decide their policy on cost-benefit calculation. By this logic, states conduct their foreign policy by assessing their roles and the norms in their social context. The next table shows the detailed key features of those theories (Rittberger, 2002) .

	Logic of Action	Level of Analysis	Actors' Goals	Standards of Behavior	Dependent Variable	Independ-ent Variable	Components of Independ-ent Variable
Neoreal-ism	consequent­iality	top-down	survival/ security - autonomy, influence	n.a.	power politics: autonomy- and/or influence-seeking policy	power position	power resources - polarity of the international system
Utilitarian Liberalism	consequent­iality	bottom-up	survival - "power," "plenty"	n.a.	gain-seeking policy: material or immaterial	dominant societal interests	structure of pertinent policy-network
Construct­ivism	appropriate­ness	top-down and bottom-up	n.a.	international/ domestic social norms	norm-consistent policy	international/ domestic social norms	communality/ specificity of norm

            Neorealist argues that countries seek for survival in international system. Their survival can be maintained and preserved by increasing their autonomy and/or influence to through their foreign policy, and that are contingent to their position in international system. As a rational being, country tries to maximize their gains either material or immaterial. This is the assumption of Utilitarian liberalism, and the one that determines those gains or interest are the dynamic of social group within the country. The dominant societal interests influence the foreign policy of a country. Different from both approaches, Constructivism seeks explanation by studying the social norms as the standard of behaviour rather than studying countries’ goals. International and domestic social norms are the factors that describe logic of action of a country in its foreign policy.

            I will thoroughly elaborate those theories to explain the logic of action of Indonesia’s climate change diplomacy. I will focus on certain aspects of each theory; autonomy seeking policy of Neo realism, the dominant societal interests of Utilitarian Liberalism, and norm consistent policy of the Constructivism.

Autonomy and influence seeking policy

            In this part, I shall argue that Indonesia’s involvement in global climate change mitigation is to increase its influence in protecting domestic environment and gaining new economic opportunities provided by yielding a small or moderate level of its autonomy. 

Kenneth N. Waltz characterized the international system as interaction of self-help units (states) who try to maintain its survival in anarchical system (Waltz, 1979).  Surviving in the case of foreign policy is about securing territorial integrity and rightful claim to self-determination (Rittberger, 2002). Of course, survival is not their only state’s goals but this is the fundamental interest that determines the behaviour of the state. As a self-help entity, state requires to sustain its survival through enhancing its autonomy and influence. Maximizing autonomy and influence are the goals of its foreign policy. 

            How would we explain Indonesia’s involvement in international mitigation effort and regime in the light of autonomy and influence seeking policy? Standard neo realism (Waltzean version of neo realism) argues that state will participate and strengthening multilateral organization when this arrangement will increase its influence. Having influence is defined as having reasonable capabilities to imposing obligation to other states in order to get its interest.  When the effort to maximize its influence is conflicting with its autonomy, state tends to choose autonomy over influence. We can take the case of Unites States’ refusal to sign Kyoto Protocol. Although this protocol enables US to increase its influence through its mechanism such as carbon trading mechanism, this protocol certainly constrains the US in managing its economic development and domestic environment protection.

 Based on its property and capability, Indonesia is not a great or hegemonic power compared to the US which has potential to directly or indirectly influence other states in the case of climate change diplomacy. There is no influence gained for Indonesia in this multilateral scheme. Due to this logic, Indonesia should not have joined and stated that ambitious commitment in reducing carbon emission. The fact shows the opposite, so how can we explain this? If we use great powers’ point of view, it is obvious. Indonesia was influenced by developed countries to restrict its own economic development and to make commitment of emission reduction. Indonesia has lost its autonomy in managing its own resources. The environmental protection agreement is clearly not threatening Indonesia’s territorial integrity, but it is indeed reduce its right of self-determination. 

Is this the only explanation? States do not only take into account worst-case scenarios of their security in their decision. They consider the probability of threats to their security. Modified neo realism said that state aware of the variation of threats. It is due to different factors such as technology, economy, or geography. When threats to its security are low, states may trade autonomy for influence. They choose to sacrifice some parts of their capacity for independent action if this is a prerequisite for gaining a significantly greater degree of influence upon the behaviour of other states or upon the decisions, programs or operational activities of alliances or international and supranational organizations (Elman, 1996). I argue that the existence of “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” (NAMA) mechanism in this global mitigation effort has given developing countries such as Indonesia to balance its need of autonomy and influence.

            Developing countries have become the central of the discussion in global climate change mitigation effort since COP-13 in Bali. This was because in this forum they started to seriously discuss forest and deforestation as the 20 percent contributor of carbon emission.  Beside as the home of one of the largest forest in the world, Indonesia also suffers from the climate change. Climate change that happens in Indonesia is in form of change of daily average temperature, rainfall pattern, increases in sea level, and climate variability (El El Niño dan La Niña). These phenomena give serious impact to health, agriculture and economy (Supangat, 2013). Indonesia has considered itself as a country which is lack of capacity to cope climate change. Indonesia needs assistance from other countries to do that as said by Indonesia’s Ambassador for Germany, Eddy Pratomo in the recent climate change conference in Bonn

            “In every statement, Indonesia has stated that the efforts (to mitigate climate change) were not easy, either politically or financially. Despite of that, Indonesia states that we have strong national commitment and this should be admitted and supported internationally in the form of funding and technology transfer (DW.DE, 2013)”

 In other words, Indonesia tries to influence other countries to assist Indonesia in mitigating climate change.  NAMA mechanism can be interpreted as a tools for Indonesia to compromise its autonomy in certain extent while increase its influence for protecting its domestic environment and maintaining its economic development through green projects such as investments in forestry project (REDD) and also renewable energy projects (geo-thermal, hydro and waste to energy project).

Dominant Societal Actor’s Interest

            Utilitarian liberalism is not totally rejecting the proposition of neo realism that says state’s behaviour is influenced by its international environment, but it argues that foreign policy is primarily a function of state preferences, whose main sources lie in the domestic environment of states, justifying and indeed necessitating a bottom-up approach to the study of foreign policy. More over, utilitarian liberalism argues that a state's foreign policy goals are determined by the interests of the dominant societal actors, i.e. a state will pursue that policy which serves the interests of these actor(s) most (Moravcsik, 1997).

            The question is who are the actors that influence Indonesia’s foreign policy in climate change? Utilitarian liberalism defines two groups of relevant actors-political administrative system and organized private sector. The political administrative system consists of political actor and administrative actor, while the organized private sector is divided into companies, economic pressure groups (industries, trade unions), and political advocacy group.

            In the case of climate change policy, we classify those groups based on their preference in climate change policy- pro and anti-climate change policy groups.  I shall argue that the pro climate change policy group especially from the central political-administrative apparatus (Jakarta) and political advocacy group (environment activists) has successfully dominated the decision making process in favour of environment protection policy.

            The first phase of Indonesia’s mitigation effort is focusing on tackling deforestation and forest degradation. The second phase will address the shift to low emission energy system. The societal groups who are affected by the mitigation effort in the first phase are companies doing business in forested land, indigenous people, and the provincial government. It is around 60 millions of indigenous people depend their live on the use of forest. The REDD program has restricted their access to the forest (Fakultas Kehutanan Unhas, 2009). Those are the one that reluctant to support the policy. I consider those as the anti group.

There are two basic goals of advocating this policy. The first is to extend policy making power and economic control, and the second is to increase financial means. Thus, the societal actors strive for ‘power’ and ‘plenty’. The anti-climate change policy group see no reasonable benefit of supporting this policy. This policy will reduce their power (authority) and increase their wealth.

The central political-administrative actors who claim legal and prerogative right on the natural resources has been using this policy to regain domestic control over the resources both politically and economically. For example, REDD is used to monopolize the use of forest from the indigenous people and local business actors. The calculation of distribution of benefit of REDD scheme is merely focus on material benefit which alien to the local community. The social, historical and cultural benefits were excluded from that calculation (Rumah Iklim, 2009).

The central political-administrative apparatus with the support of environmental activist groups and scientists gains the most political advantages. By producing regulations to reduce carbon, it restricts the political and economic right of individuals and communities in using the resources. The goals are both control (power) and wealth.

Norm-consistent policy

There are two social reference systems for state to decide its foreign policy: international and domestic.  Green economy and low carbon industries certainly promise material benefits Indonesia’s economy as formally stated by the government

“The Second United Indonesia Cabinet la green economy program as part of its sustainable development plan which is pro-growth, pro-job, and pro-poor. To support the implementation of green economics, programs have been drawn up on food resilience by implementing sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry management, efficiency and renewable energy usage, clean technology support, waste management, efficient and low carbon transportation management and green infrastructure development (Antara News, 2010).

Despite of that, this is merely speculative calculation. Indonesia’s current economic development is surely restricted by the policy. The anti-climate change policy group certainly concern that there was no open and clear public debate in Indonesia on the climate change phenomenon from the start although many top scientists has admitted that global warming forecasts were wrong (Dixon, 2013).  There is only one discourse saying that climate change is a real threat for the humanity. The risk of serious climate change impacts suggests that urgent action is needed to significantly reduce GHG emissions in the coming decades (OECD Policy brief, 2007).  Because this is caused by human induced activities (industries, land use shift), we need to constrain any human activities which in the future will bring harm to the environment. This is the implementation of what so called pre-cautionary principle.  Businesses and industries mostly took the blame of any environmental degradation. There is systematic and obvious effort from the pro group to monopolize the truth of global warming and to denigrate the one who oppose that. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has become the only legitimate source on explaining the reality of global warming (Klaus, 2012).

This is the norm that is being introduced in international level and advocate by norm entrepreneur both transnational and domestic non-state actors (Finnemore & Sikking, 1998). The socialization process influence Indonesia’s decision maker in considering proactive respond to climate change as appropriate behaviour. This respond brings positive reputation for Indonesia. Indonesia is considered as reliable partner and allies.

Although NGO Wahana Lingkungan Hidup has noted many violence conflicts happened, public (Indonesian) consider the norm on protecting environment as a valid norm (Fakultas Kehutanan Unhas, 2009). Indonesia involvement in global mitigation effort is considered as appropriate and honourable act. The reason of this is because most of initial efforts of emission reduction do not directly influence general public. Only small portion of the population get the immediate impact of the policy. Public will support any regulations to protect environment as long as it does not influence their way of life (Giddens, 2009). Thus, international and domestic norms consistently give socialization effect to Indonesia’s decision maker to undergo the climate change policy. 

Indonesia conforms itself to the intersubjectively shared, value-based expectations of appropriate behaviour emanating from his social environment. As Indonesia ranks third after China and the United States in emitting greenhouse gases, Indonesia needs to develop mitigation effort in order to gain domestic legitimacy and international credibility. Hence Indonesia considers the international norms in climate change mitigation are binding to itself despite the immense costs that Indonesia should bear in order to materialize that commitment.

\

Conclusion

            Indonesia ambitious climate change policy has brought substantial question. The question is on the references used as the logic of action for the decision makers to produce this policy.  I found that eclectic approach of foreign policy theories adapted from international relations is quite useful in understanding this.  Neo realism explains that global climate change mechanism enables Indonesia to increase its international influence by sacrificing the small number of its autonomy. In the current international politics constellation, it is reasonable for a country such as Indonesia to do that. Indonesia enervates international resources to protect its own environment. Utilitarian Liberalism helps us to understand which dominant societal actor dominates the decision making processes. The central political-administrative actor (state) has conspicuous goal in advocating this policy. This policy enables state to regain more control –power and wealth over the resources. Constructivism elaborates that both international and domestic norms has consistently influenced the decision maker. It has socialization effect that make decision maker to consider climate change policy as the appropriate behaviour.

            It is obvious whether intentionally or not, the climate change has enabled Indonesia as a state to increase its international influence, regain its domestic control, and strengthen its international legitimacy and acceptance.   

Reference

 

Antara News. (2010, April 20). Finance Minister: Green Economics Implementation Needs Inovations. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from Embassy of Indonesia: http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/news/2010/04/news074.htm

Anton, D. K., & Shelton, D. L. (2011). Environmental Protection and Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bauman, R., Rittberger, V., & Wagner, W. (2001). Neorealist Foreign Policy Theory. In V. Rittberger, German Foreign Policy Since Unification (pp. 37-67). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.

Boekle, H., Rittberger, V., & Wagner, W. (2001). Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory. In V. Rittberger, German Foreign Policy Since Unification (pp. 105-137). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.

Brooks, S. G. (1997). Dueling Realisms. International Organization , 51:3, 445-477.

Dixon, H. (2013, September 15). Top climate scientistc admit that global warming forecasts were wrong. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from the telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

DW.DE. (2013, June 7). Lingkungan: Konferensi Iklim:Perlu Tindakan Nyata dan Segera. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from Deutche Welle: http://www.dw.de/konferensi-iklim-perlu-tindakan-nyata-dan-segera/a-16865902

Elman, C. (1996). Horses for Courses: Why Not Neo-Realist Theories of Foreign Policy? Security Studies 6:1 , 7-53.

Fakultas Kehutanan Unhas. (2009, February 25). Dampak Skema REDD terhadap Akses masyarakat sekitar hutan dalam memanfaatkan sumber daya alam. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from Fakultas Kehutanan Unhas Website: http://unhas.ac.id/fahutan/index.php/halaman-wacana-a-opini/5-dampak-skema-redd-terhadap-akses-masyarakat-sekitar-hutan-dalam-memanfaatkan-sumber-daya-alam.html

Finnemore, M., & Sikking, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52:4 , 887-917.

Freund, C., & Rittberger, V. (2001). Utilitarian-liberal Foreign Policy Theory. In V. Rittberger, German Foreign Policy Since Unification (pp. 68-104). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.

Giddens, A. (2009). The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hein, J. (2013). Climate Change Mitigation in Emerging Economies: The Case of Indonesia-Hot Air or Leadership. Briefing Paper DIE Vol.8.

Jotzo, F. (2011, October 11). Indonesia's role in international climate change policy. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from www.eastasiaforum.org: http://www.eastasiaforum.org

Klaus, V. (2012). Kebebasan dan Politik Perubahan Iklim (terjemahan dari Blue Planet in Green Shackles). Jakarta: Freedom Institute.

Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51:4 , 513-553.

Norton Rose Group. (2010, October). Issue 6: Asia Pacific climate change policy series: Indonesia. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from Norton Rose: http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com

OECD Policy brief. (2007). Climate Change Policy. OECD.

Rittberger, V. (2002). Approaches to The Study of Foreign Policy derived from International Relations Theories. Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. New Orleans.

Rumah Iklim. (2009). Pembagian Manfaat. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from Rumah Iklim website: http://rumahiklim.org/hak-masyarakat-adat/pengorganisasian/mitigasi-berbasis-masyarakat/:

Supangat, A. (2013, April 1). Perubahan Iklim di Indonesia. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from www.kompas.com: http://sains.kompas.com/read/2013/04/01/11290330/Perubahan.Iklim.di.Indonesia

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.