Bali Achieved What It Set Out to Do

By Chai Mei Ling

New Straits Times - Posted on: Monday, 31 December 2007, 00:00 CST

FROM being pressed to join the league of developed nations and help curb greenhouse gas emissions to winning praises for being a tough negotiator. These were some of the highlights Malaysia went through at the conference on climate change in Bali earlier this month, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid tells CHAI MEI LING.

Q: What significant agreements were reached in Bali and how will they impact Malaysia?

A: The Bali road map is considered a key achievement, with parties agreeing to work towards a comprehensive agreement post- 2012 that considers mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and financial assistance when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends.

This agreement is supposed to be reached by 2009 and the Bali road map charts the path towards achieving this.

Decisions were made on the reduction of emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, and conservation, and on measures to enhance technology transfer.

The meeting also saw the launch of the Adaptation Fund. (The Fund, with contributions from developed countries, was set up to finance projects to help developing nations adapt to the effects of climate changes. It can be used, for instance, to strengthen water resources, widen and deepen rivers, build flood barriers and replant mangrove forests.)

Malaysia will over the next two years be keenly involved in negotiating the agreement.

We will likely have to enhance existing policies to reduce carbon emissions, especially from the energy sector, and increase the carbon sink potential (ability of trees to absorb carbon dioxide) of forests by modifying land use policies.

Q: How did Malaysia fare at the talks?

A: It was the common pattern of never making a concession without getting something in return, a very arduous, tiring and somewhat frustrating environment.

In some cases, the parties were getting close to using trade sanctions.

We were seen to be among the toughest negotiators. Our officers are very good, experienced and particular about the wording in any agreement.

Representations from other countries sent feelers to me asking for a compromise. We conceded, on the condition that the principle "common but differentiated responsibility" be upheld.

Developing countries for the most part stood united under the G77 and China banner, and this was effective in strengthening our negotiating positions.

The bloc with the most clearly stated objectives is the European Union, which was willing to provide financial aid. Developing countries, binding with China and India, make up the G77 bloc. America is another bloc, always pushing but may not deal with climate change.

The battle was very much America versus China and India.

The US doesn't want China to beat it economically, and China doesn't want to be dictated to on what to do.

But for the last 10 years, nobody started anything.

The Kyoto Protocol target of five per cent cut has not been met, and developed countries are not willing to contribute 0.75 per cent of their gross domestic product to help fund developing countries in mitigation.

Q: What contributed to the intensity?

A: Developed and developing countries are looking at climate change from different perspectives. The world can only afford a two- degree increase in temperature.

(The average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.74 degree Celsius since the late 1800s. It is expected to increase by another 1.8 degree Celsius to 4 degree Celsius by 2100.)

But even now, more than 1,000 Maldivian islands have sunk.

For developed countries, two degrees put them in huge trouble, but as far as small islands are concerned, even a one-degree increase means they are gone.

That is why developing countries were very united in the Bali discussion. G77 was very, very tough.

They wouldn't budge from their position. But they were willing to compromise provided the US compromised.

Q: What do you think of the United States' love-hate relationship with the Kyoto Protocol?

A: The Kyoto Protocol, which started in 1997, is already 10 years' old. The US didn't want to be part of it because it is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (through the burning of ever- greater quantities of petrol, oil and coal, and the cutting of forests).

When the United States said it couldn't go along with the rest of the world, the representative from Papua New Guinea made a profound statement that the world needed the US to lead because it's a big country, but if it couldn't, it should get out of the way. Within 10- 15 minutes, the representatives from the US relented.

What's happening around the world is that although governments may resist (the fight against climate change), the people are for it. California has enacted very strict laws on environment. There is high expectation that the next US government will be committed.

Q: Malaysia's carbon dioxide emission stands at 7.5 tonnes per capita. Why were we asked to fund developing countries' work to mitigate climate change?

A: I don't agree on using the measurement of emission per capita. It doesn't give the true picture. China's emission per capita is low because it is divided over a huge population. But in total, China's emission is high and is poised to overtake the US soon.

Malaysia's per capita emission is high, but our total carbon emission makes up only 0.6 per cent of what's in the sky now. Sixty per cent of our land area are original forests.

Our forests absorb more carbon than we produce, so why should we pay?

Developed countries have cut down their own forests, and now they want us to keep our forests.

The developed countries want Malaysia to be in the group of Annex 1 countries, countries that must contribute to the fund.

Developing countries are divided into advanced developing countries, medium developing countries and least developed countries. We are advanced.

Q: Did Malaysia face pressure from groups on the issue of deforestation?

A: Yes, to not participate in the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme.

The pressure came from groups concerned about indigenous peoples' rights and their access to forest products, whose position was that participation in REDD would adversely affect them.

When a country receives money and agrees to preserve forests, the trees no longer belong to them. The funder can come and do auditing, and demand its money back if the trees die or are felled.

REDD has been negotiated and the change in forest stocks looks set to be credited based on the Good Practice Guidelines used by developed countries.

Details have not been worked out and guidelines are still not clear. Are they going to pay for every tree that we keep? Or are they going to pay for every tree that we replant?

Q: Different countries have differing concepts on "avoided deforestation". What is Malaysia's stand?

A: Malaysia is of the view that this should involve the conservation of not only all protected areas (forest reserves, wildlife refuges, water catchment areas, national, state parks and marine parks), but also sustainably managed production forests.

Malaysia has for many years been practising sustainable forest management. As a result, we are able to maintain about 60 per cent of land area under forests.

Malaysia put up a very strong proposal because it is the only one of the tropical countries which has the best forest practices management recognised by the world.

Q: How would you rate the success of the Bali roadmap?

A: The Bali roadmap is a success in the sense that we were able to bring China in to agree to adaptation, mitigation, technology and finance.

China was a tough country, unwilling to commit. And the US is also in. All sides have compromised, we took in everyone's interests. We are hoping that the 2008 and 2009 conferences will have more detailed road maps.

(c) 2007 New Straits Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content