Wildlife Matters - Climate

change what Malaysia can

do
Posted on 6 January 2016 - 07:14pm
Last updated on 6 January 2016 - 07:35pm
Preetha Sankar

Print
SO 2015 is done with and most of us look forward towards a more
optimistic and uplifting year. I wouldn't attribute 2015 as being particularly
uplifting for environmental matters as a whole, but the year did end
gracefully and positively with the signing of the Paris Agreement on
Climate Change.
Many thought a deal simply wouldn't be reached in Paris. After nearly 20
years of "negotiations" and many failed conferences, a new global deal
on climate change didn't seem conceivable. But as we would have it, a
new framework did indeed come into fruition; in text form to say the least,
as the implementation stage only begins in 2020. There are still many
issues that need to be fleshed in the coming months.
The entire agreement is contained in a 32-page document and this
article does not attempt to analyse it in its entirety. Article 2 of the
agreement contains a key provision in relation to global temperature rise.
It states the objective as "holding the increase in the global average
temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial
levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and
impact of climate change".
This new threshold is indeed very ambitious (some have labelled it as
being "aspirational") as the previous target was to prevent a 2C rise in
global temperature. The target now aims to limit warming to 1.5C;
meaning that very intense action will be needed to even begin to realise
such a target.
Article 2 also maintains the difference between the level of responsibility
assumed for climate change solutions between developed and
developing countries. This issue has been a permanent fixture in all
climate negotiations at the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) level and Paris makes no attempt to rock the boat on
this. Thus, the Paris Agreement continues with the differentiated
positioning; meaning all parties are responsible but not equally
responsible.
So make no mistake; the principle in no way absolves any nation from
undertaking climate change commitments (the new politically correct
term now being changed to "contributions"). Only that now, the targets for
a particular nation will be set by that nation according to its national
capabilities and circumstances aka "nationally determined contributions".
Ahead of the Paris talks, parties were required to submit what is known
as "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" (INDC), containing
initial emission reduction targets and viewed as "action plans" for the
specific country. Malaysia did submit its INDC, but only just mind you, as
it was submitted three days shy of the Paris talks. Phew! Alas!
So what has Malaysia pledged to do or shall I say in present climate
change jargon, "contribute"? By 2030, Malaysia intends to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions intensity of GDP by 45% relative to the
emissions intensity of GDP in 2005. However, only 35% of the emissions
reduction efforts are unconditional. The remainder 10% is conditional on
Malaysia receiving climate change monetary aid, capacity building and
technology transfer from developed countries.
The target in itself is fair. My main issue with the INDC is that it simply
lacks detail on the "means" of achieving this 45% target. The document
is all but six pages and in my view, a rather nondescript document.
Missing from the narrative are real strategies that seek to achieve the
emission reduction targets. The INDC lists about 20-odd policies that
appears to have "contributed" towards the INDC but in no measure
elucidates the significant components of each policy that would
contribute towards real emission reduction efforts. The heart and real
value of the INDC lies in the mitigation of emission of greenhouse gases
and efforts geared specifically towards them. The document, however, is
sorely lacking on any specifics for greenhouse gas mitigation especially
from a sector-based perspective. There was no formal review or
assessment process of the individual INDCs set at the UNFCCC level. If
one had in fact been instituted, our INDC simply wouldn't measure up in
terms of details.
I think we can do better in articulating our blueprint towards achieving our
stated emission targets. To be clear in our approach that leads us to
2030, we must set our post 2020 agenda within a very cohesive policy
framework. The current policy framework/s for climate change is utterly
fragmented with the National Climate Change Policy of 2009 being too
obscure to offer any assistance towards climate-related action. It's time
to start working on the details. To this end we must resolve to do the
following:
Formulate a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework that
commensurates with international standards and Paris Agreement
requirements
Provide clear and strong effective measures towards the
implementation of our INDC targets
Provide details on reforms needed within the policy, regulatory and
institutional realms that would support coordinated implementation of the
climate change agenda
Ensure all processes in designing and determining a more vigorous
climate change national agenda is set at the highest transparent level.
The Paris Agreement stresses that in relation to the nationally
contributed information there is necessity for "clarity, transparency and
understanding". The aim for 2016, ahead of the next climate change
summit in Morocco in November, is to produce a more meaningful
document underscoring those crucial elements.
The Paris Agreement and the INDC for Malaysia can be accessed
at http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Have a good 2016 everybody.
Preetha is an advocate and solicitor. She has spent many years in
the environmental conservation arena. Comments:
letters@thesundaily.com
Website :http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1657920