Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Meilinda Sari Yayusman, Researcher in International Relations and European Studies, Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional (BRIN)

Gastrodiplomacy as the practice of a country’s diplomacy by promoting its cuisine, is now gaining popularity in several countries across the globe, including South Korea and Thailand.

South Korea, for example, has introduced its so-called “Kimchi Diplomacy” in the world for the past years as part of the country’s soft power in promoting culinary culture. Thailand, meanwhile, has been spreading the influence of Thai food and expanding Thai restaurants around the globe, attracting the global communities to eat authentic Thai cuisine.

Indonesia, with diverse food and beverages as well as indigenous spices, has also started to resort to this strategy to promote the country in the global forum.

Our unpublished observation based on fieldwork in May 2023 and literature reviews since mid-2021 resulted in a recommendation for the Indonesian government to take advantage of its diverse menu for its gastrodiplomacy agenda.

We recommend Indonesia emphasise plant-based dishes for its gastrodiplomacy strategy in Europe, given the region’s rising trend of plant-based food consumption.

Why plant-based food

A growing number of people are increasingly considering plant-based food as a dietary alternative to maintain their health following global concerns on the negative impacts of processed foods on health, society and the environment.

Indonesia has a lot of ingredients and spices to create plant-based menus that have met global healthy standards.

Among them are tempeh, a traditional Indonesian food made from fermented soybeans. The fermentation increases its nutritional quality. Tempeh has been known in the Netherlands and already has consumers in Europe. However, it is not widespread yet in the whole continent.

Gado-gado, the famous Indonesian salad with its authentic peanut butter dressing, has also seen an emerging popularity in the global market. From our fieldwork, we have learned that almost all Indonesian restaurants worldwide, such as in The Hague and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, usually have gado-gado on their menus.

Other plant-based cuisines that have potential to gain popularity abroad are asinan (fruit salad preserved with vinegar) and gudeg (jackfruit stewed in coconut milk).

However, our observation shows that Indonesian vegan menus have yet to be widely known in Europe and other continents. Indonesia should promote them in the global market.

Why Europe

Plant-based food trend has been currently growing in many industrialised countries, especially in Europe.

In Europe, the value of plant-based food sales increased by 49% between 2018 and 2020. This includes an expansion in the market for plant-based substitutes for meat and dairy.

In the Netherlands, for example, sales rose by 50% during the same period. Germany and Poland have also witnessed a notable surge in the sales of plant-based food products, with an increase of 97% and 62%, respectively.

With the change in people’s food consumption habits, Europe can be a significant, promising market for Indonesia to expand the promotion of its plant-based food products.

Taking advantage of current presence

The fact that Indonesia’s culinary presence in Europe is already evident, particularly in the Netherlands, should benefit Indonesia.

Based on our finding, no less than 392 Indonesian restaurants are operating in West and South Europe, majority of which (295) is in the Netherlands. They have become popular since the 1970s.

For hundreds of years, the Netherlands colonised parts of what is now Indonesia. The colonial history between the two nations has created a sense of romanticism, including what and how they ate in the past.

Many Indonesian citizens living in European countries own Indonesian cuisine restaurants, and recently, they have started to develop plant-based menus in their kitchens.

The Netherlands offers a promising hub for introducing Indonesian foods and establishing Indonesian restaurants in other parts of Europe.

As part of our observation, we visited some Indonesian restaurants in the Netherlands that are developing plant-based menus in their kitchens for vegans and vegetarians, in response to the rising popularity of plant-based food in European society.

Among them were De Vegetarische Toko, Toko Kalimantan, Bali Brunch 82 and Praboemoelih. They serve gado-gado, variants of tempeh and tofu and tumis buncis (vegetable stir-fry).

De Vegetarische Toko, for example, has creatively transformed some authentic Indonesian foods into vegan and vegetarian-friendly versions. They replace the meats in menus like rendang (slow-cooked beef stew in coconut milk and spices) and semur (beef stew) with tempeh, tofu, beans and peanuts.

With these creative innovations, these restaurants may have an excellent opportunity to extend and promote Indonesian plant-based meals more widely to other parts of Europe, thus supporting Indonesia’s gastrodiplomacy.

More support needed

Indonesia has acknowledged its gastrodiplomacy potential through several programs.

In 2021, Indonesia launched “Indonesia Spice Up the World”. It becomes the country’s first-ever concrete initiative to promote Indonesian cuisine and attract investment opportunities in local spices and herbs.

The initiative aims to increase Indonesian spice exports to US$2 billion, launch approximately 4,000 Indonesian restaurants abroad by 2024 and make Indonesia a culinary destination in the future.

To support this kind of initiative, the Indonesian government should regularly and intensively communicate with all stakeholders involved in the Indonesian culinary industry. The partnership should aim to support Indonesian diaspora entrepreneurs looking to start businesses in the food sector abroad.

One example is offering soft loans to these food entrepreneurs.
Bank BNI, Indonesia’s fourth-largest bank, has begun offering this kind of loan.

It is time for Indonesia to strengthen its international existence through gastrodiplomacy by taking advantage of the rising consumption of plant-based meals among global communities. Tempeh, gado-gado, asinan and gudeg can become a powerful weapon of Indonesia’s soft diplomacy on the global stage.

Meilinda Sari Yayusman receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Andika Ariwibowo receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Prima Nurahmi Mulyasari receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Ahmad Nuril Huda tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Indonesia can expand its gastrodiplomacy via plant-based meals in Europe: Research – https://theconversation.com/indonesia-can-expand-its-gastrodiplomacy-via-plant-based-meals-in-europe-research-209193

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Andini Pramono, Research officer, Department of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University

Research shows that six months of exclusive breastfeeding, and continuing until two years old or beyond, provide multiple benefits for the baby and mother.

It can prevent deaths both in infants and mothers – including in wealthy nations like the United States. It also benefits the global economy and the enviroment.

However, after maternity leave ends, mothers returning to paid work face many challenges maintaining breastfeeding. This often leads mothers to stop breastfeeding their children before six months – the duration of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others.

According to the WHO, less than half of babies under six months old worldwide are exclusively breastfed.

In Indonesia, research shows 83% of mothers initiate breastfeeding, but only 57% are still breastfeeding at around six months. In Australia, 96% of mothers start breastfeeding, but then there is a rapid fall to only 39% by around three months and only 15% by around five months.

Among the key reasons for low rates of exclusive breastfeeding are the difficult work conditions women face when they return to paid work.

So how can governments and workplaces – especially in countries that have yet to do enough, like Indonesia and Australia – better support breastfeeding mothers, particularly at work?

Half a billion reasons to change

For more than a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set global standards for maternity protection through the Maternity Protection Convention and accompanying recommendations, as well as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, aiming to protect female workers’ rights.

So far, only 66 member states have ratified at least one of the Maternity Protection Conventions, while 43 have ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention. Unfortunately, Indonesia has not ratified either convention. So far, Australia has only ratified the family responsibilities convention.

In some countries, protections are aligned with the ILO Conventions. For example, in Denmark and Norway, the governments offer maternity leave of at least 14 weeks. During leave, mothers’ earnings are protected at a rate of at least two-thirds of their pre-birth earnings. Public funds ensure this is done in a manner determined by national law and practice, so the employer is not solely responsible for the payment.

A Canadian study highlights the proportion of mothers exclusively breastfeeding to six months increased by almost 40% when paid maternity leave was expanded from six to 12 months. At the same time, average breastfeeding duration increased by one month, from five to six months.

Evidence shows paid maternity leave and providing an adequate lactation room at work both contribute positively to breastfeeding rates.

Despite this, half a billion women globally still lack adequate maternity protections.

For example, welfare reforms in the US encouraging new mothers’ return to work within 12 weeks led to a 16–18% reduction in breastfeeding initiation. It also saw a four to six week reduction in the time babies were breastfed.

Indonesia and Australia aren’t doing enough

Neither Indonesia or Australia are currently doing enough to meet the ILO’s maternity protection standards.

In Indonesia, the 2003 Labour Law urges companies to give 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women workers to support breastfeeding. Furthermore, the 2012 regulation on exclusive breastfeeding obligates workplace and public space management to provide a space or facility to breastfeed and express breast milk. However, the monitoring of its implementation is weak.

In Australia, paid parental leave (PPL) policy supports parents who take time off from paid work to care for their young children.

Eligible working mothers or primary carers are entitled to up to 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if the child is born or adopted from 1 July 2024) of government paid parental leave within the first two years of the birth or adoption of a child.

In the Federal Budget announced on 15 May 2024, the Australian government has added payment of superannuation contributions to the parental leave package for births and adoptions on or after 1 July 2025. However, the PPL is a low amount, paid at the national minimum wage ($882.80 per week)].

Some mothers can combine the government payment with additional paid leave from their employer. However in 2022-2023, only 63% of Australian employers offered this, leaving nearly half of new mothers with only minimum financial support.

Unlike Indonesia, Australia has no legal requirement for employers to offer paid breastfeeding breaks in their workplace, so mothers can express and take home their breastmilk. This can badly impact women’s and children’s health.

While Australia’s support for breastfeeding mothers is welcome, it’s still inadequate to meet the ILO’s international standard – particularly Australia’s low payment rate of government PPL (at the minimum wage, rather than two-thirds of previous earnings) and the lack of legislation for paid breastfeeding breaks.

How employers and colleagues can help

Globally, the barriers to maintain breastfeeding include not only lack of maternity leave duration and pay, but also unavailability of breastfeeding and breast pumping facilities at workplaces, sometimes unsupportive colleagues and supervisors, and lack of time at work to breastfeed or expressing breastmilk.

Breastfeeding a baby should not preclude women from earning a living. In 2022, female workers were 39.5% of total workers globally, while in Australia and Indonesia they made up 47.4% and 39.5% respectively.

An accessible facility or space for breastfeeding or breast pumping is vital to support breastfeeding working mothers.

In Indonesia, a 2013 Ministry of Health regulation outlines the procedure for an employer to provide a space and facility for mothers to breastfeed and breast pump.

The minimum specifications of this facility are described as a lockable, clean and quiet room, with a sink for washing, suitable temperature, lighting and flooring. While these specifications are technically mandatory, monitoring is weak, meaning if employers fail to meet the requirements there are no specific consequences.

But a breastfeeding space alone is not enough. In many jobs, mothers cannot leave their tasks during working hours, even if there is a lactation room.

Supportive employers need to regulate time and flexibility to breastfeed and express breastmilk, including providing flexible working arrangements and paid breastfeeding breaks during working hours. Supportive attitudes from co-workers and managers are also important.

Suitable staff training on breastfeeding and policies supporting mothers, such as providing time and facility to express breastmilk in work hours, are crucial. Training on how to support co-worker can include anything from basic information breastfeeding, to what to say (or not say) with a breastfeeding co-worker.

Access to supportive childcare is another issue globally.

For those families who can access childcare, childcare centres can also help by:

• encouraging and accommodating mothers to visit for breastfeeding
• having written policies supporting breastfeeding
• providing parents with resources on breastfeeding
• and referring parents to community resources for breastfeeding support.

Practical ways to support more families

The Australian Breastfeeding Association has an accreditation program that helps workplaces to be breastfeeding-friendly. Workplace policies, including adequate time and space for pumping, are positively associated with longer breastfeeding duration.

The program assesses workplaces for three aspects: time, space and supportive culture. This means, workplaces are encouraged to provide a special space and time for breastfeeding and breast pumping in a supportive culture and flexible working hours.

Mothers should consider to prepare how to align breastfeeding with work early – during pregnancy. Start by discussing your breastfeeding goals with healthcare professionals and finding a baby-friendly hospital.

Discuss your breastfeeding plan with your supervisor at work during your pregnancy, including finding out your maternity leave (paid and unpaid) entitlements. Also consider childcare arrangements that will work best for you with breastfeeding.

For further information and support, you can find resources from local breastfeeding support groups, such as the Indonesian Breastfeeding Mothers Association and Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Julie P. Smith is a qualified breastfeeding counselor and honorary member of the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Andini Pramono dan Liana Leach tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this – https://theconversation.com/difficult-work-arrangements-force-many-women-to-stop-breastfeeding-early-heres-how-to-prevent-this-211831

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Edy Setyawan, Marine Ecologist, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) is a tough swimmer. They can travel hundreds of kilometres to feed themselves. The longest recorded movement for an individual reef manta ray was 1,150km, observed in eastern Australia.

But even though they are able to swim long distances, our study on reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, discovered they are more likely to swim short distances. They appear to prefer staying close to their local habitats, strengthening their social bonds and forming distinct populations.

Our research – involving researchers from Indonesia, New Zealand and Australia and published in the Royal Society Open Science journal in April – increases our understanding of this globally vulnerable species.

Policymakers can use our findings to enhance conservation efforts for the species in Raja Ampat waters, which currently are facing challenges due to fishing and tourism.

Why don’t reef manta rays roam far?

Our study found reef manta rays occupy three distinct habitats within Raja Ampat. As of February 2024, we recorded 1,250 individual manta rays around Waigeo Island’s extensive coral reef ecosystem in the northwest of Raja Ampat; 640 manta rays around the coral reef ecosystem in the southeast of Misool, southern Raja Ampat; and no more than 50 manta rays in the Ayau atoll ecosystem up north.

Within their own habitat, the manta rays tend to move around from one area to another, sticking to relatively short distances within 12 kilometres. They only occasionally make longer trips to similar areas in other habitats across Raja Ampat.

We believe there are a few reasons why reef manta rays in Raja Ampat do not often venture far. The first reason is the presence of natural barriers, such as deep waters – over 1,000 metres below sea level – between Ayau Atoll and Waigeo Island, as well as the sea between Misool and Kofiau, which is 800-900 metres deep.

Travelling through deep waters poses increased risks to reef manta rays due to potential encounters with natural predators, such as killer whales (Orcinus orca) and large sharks, which frequently inhabit deep open water.

The second reason is that each habitat is well-equipped with sufficient resources, such as food and cleaning stations, reducing the need for the reef manta rays to travel extensively.

Our previous research has identified dozens of feeding areas and cleaning stations in each habitat occupied by local populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

Raja Ampat’s ‘small town’ of reef manta rays

The habits of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat are gradually forming a unique population.

We have found that they do not form a single large population, but instead split into three local populations, creating a metapopulation. A metapopulation consists of several local populations of the same species, each occupying its own habitat but all situated within the same geographic region.

Think of a metapopulation as a small town, consisting of three hamlets. When each hamlet has enough food and water, the people prefer to stay in their own settlement. But they still live in the same town and occasionally visit each other.

We found this movement pattern based on our tracking process from 2016 to 2021 using acoustic telemetry, which functions similarly to office check-in systems.

In the tracking process, we combined this acoustic tracking with network analysis to map out the movement network of the manta rays, consisting of nodes and links. Nodes represent important areas for the manta rays, like cleaning stations and feeding areas, and links represent the movement between these key areas.

The metapopulation occurs because individual manta rays migrate between local populations. Based on our observation, the migrating manta rays usually head back to their original area — it is often seasonal – while those that spread out generally do not return.

This movement pattern means there is less mixing of individuals between local populations compared to within a single local population.

How to better protect reef manta rays

Some conservation policies and efforts have successfully increased the populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

But increased human activities such as fishing and tourism in eastern Indonesia still pose challenges. While manta rays are not directly caught or hunted, they often get entangled in fishing lines and nets, which may cause harm and sometimes death.

Additionally, with the increasing popularity of Raja Ampat as a top tourism destination, overcrowding and aggressive behavior by divers and snorkelers in Raja Ampat disrupt manta ray cleaning and feeding, which may affect their health and fitness.

Conservation strategies for reef manta rays require a more precise and targeted approach to effectively address these growing challenges.

The recognition of these rays as a metapopulation comprising three distinct local populations can inform a strategy shift in conservation management.

Recently, we have presented our research findings and recommendations to the authorities responsible for managing the Raja Ampat Marine Protected Area (MPA) network.

We recommend the MPA management authority in Raja Ampat create and implement three separate management units, each tailored to the specific needs of one of the local manta ray populations.

Separate units are necessary because each habitat has different demographics and is far apart, making it difficult to manage them as a single unit. This strategy is feasible because local rangers in each habitat already conduct regular patrols and monitoring.

We also see the urgent need to protect a critical area for various activities of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat called Eagle Rock, which is currently outside existing protected zones. Located in west of Waigeo, Eagle Rock could be effectively safeguarded by expanding the Raja Ampat MPA network to encompass this area.

Protecting Eagle Rock is crucial, not only because it serves as a vital migration corridor connecting significant areas and habitats within the South East Misool MPA, Dampier Strait MPA, Raja Ampat MPA, and West Waigeo MPA, but also due to the increased threat from nickel mining activities on Kawe Island.

MPAs prohibit industrial fishing, restrict tourism and all unsustainable activities — including mining — to minimise environmental impact.

Besides mapping out the movement patterns and networks of key areas and habitats of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, our research lays the groundwork for future studies, including genetic analysis and satellite tracking.

These advanced techniques can offer deeper insights into the population structure, home range, and distribution of reef manta rays in the region, helping to enhance management and conservation strategies.

Edy Setyawan has received funding from the Manaaki New Zealand Scholarship – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) New Zealand, and the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN), United States.

– ref. We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them – https://theconversation.com/we-discovered-raja-ampats-reef-manta-rays-prefer-staying-close-to-home-which-could-help-us-save-more-of-them-230692

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Lay Monica, Researcher, Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS)

A recent ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) report emphasised that to contribute in tackling climate change, ASEAN countries don’t need to immediately phase out all of their coal fleet.

The report asserted that coal will continue to be an essential part of the energy transition. It also stated that by allowing ASEAN countries more time to improve electricity grids to accommodate more renewables could help smooth the transition to cleaner energy. Put the two together, and it strongly hinted that coal might be squeezed in to buy said time.

In order to reduce damage from coal, ACE urged ASEAN member states to use clean coal technologies in coal-fired power plants. It also recommended to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) to replace “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants”.

Interestingly, this is also a view promoted by the World Coal Association — now Future Coal – the international coal lobbying group.

At first glance, this plan seems promising. However, relying heavily on technology oversimplifies potential risks and assumes full delivery of promises without thorough risk assessments. In this article, we provide evidence that ACE’s chosen pathway is not as good as it seems and could face significant problems in the future.

False solution

The first “clean coal technology” proposed by ACE – termed “high efficiency, low emissions (HELE)” – is mostly supercritical coal power plant. This means it uses less coal while producing more energy. This is why they’re claimed to be more environmentally friendly than sub-critical or “regular” coal power plants.

But using supercritical technology doesn’t guarantee the emission problem is solved; it has varying degrees of success in reducing coal emissions.

For example, a 2019 Australian paper found supercritical coal power plants underperformed against regular power plants with higher breakdown rates, leading to frequent electricity price spikes during 2018-2019. This was a decade after the technology was first launched in 2007.

Failing to deliver steady electricity supplies would contradict ACE’s stated goal to prevent energy shortage and provide smoother transitions towards renewable energy.

Risks of carbon capture

Another technology that ACE advocates is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures carbon emissions from power plants and stores them underground.

However, CCS appears to replicate past project failures. Opponents of CCS often suggest its success rate is relatively small.

The industry claims the technology can capture 95% carbon from each project. Yet, the 2023 reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that no current project has consistently managed to capture more than 80% of carbon emissions. Some of them only succeeded in capturing 15% of carbon emissions.

Leakage from captured carbon underground is the other risk we might bear. This will have tremendous consequences not only by netting off the so-called mitigated emissions but also by contaminating groundwater and risking communities nearby.

According to carbon capture proponents, when done properly, the risk of leakage is minuscule. Even when it occurs, they claim it will not be catastrophic.

However, a big enough leak is still possible. The margin of safety is very narrow: even a mere 1% leakage every ten years could pose serious consequences in the long-run, mainly rises in temperature. Keeping the “safe level of leakage rate” requires a rigorous monitoring and supervision. Therefore, the risks could be higher in developing countries like Indonesia, which has chronic problems with regulatory governance.

Some other evidence suggests that CCS is not economically viable. One of the strongest arguments against CCS is probably the diminishing returns. As one of the leading experts in carbon capture claims:

The closer a CCS system gets to 100% efficiency, the harder and more expensive it becomes to capture additional carbon dioxide.

This implies potential future costs for bigger equipment, additional time, and additional energy for CCS to achieve that efficiency level.

More importantly, chasing increasingly expensive CCS technology merely prolongs the life of coal-fired power plants, which pose significant environmental risks. The same money and effort could be used to build more renewable energy infrastructure such as wind turbines or solar panels.

In addition to its potential high costs, captured carbon must be sold in the market – for various uses ranging for oil extraction to food preservation – to increase its economic viability.

However, other than CO₂ conversion to fuels, there is a strictly limited usage of CO₂. Commercial use of CO₂ is less than 1% of the global CO₂ emmissions from energy usage. On the other hand, converting CO₂ back to fuels requires carbon-free energy sources.

The conversion will also result in approximately 25-35% of energy losses. Although there have been more research on how to improve the efficiency of the process, CO₂ utilisation has yet to be scalable.

Why the half measure?

ACE must be wary of its reliance on technological solutions. Instead, the centre should consider a double-down on less-risky and less-capital-intensive solutions with many positive impacts, such as setting up community-based renewable energy, aggressive reforestation, or even better, significant halt of deforestation.

Community-based renewable energy offers to help people in energy-poor areas to build their own energy sources. Moreover, people living in close geographical proximity can share costs and resources to install and maintain off grid renewables, encouraging more widespread adoption of cleaner energy sources with minimum problem of land use.

On the other hand, in contrast to CCUS, aggressive reforestation does not require heavy machinery or specialised knowledge and skills to operate complex technology to achieve the same goals of storing emissions. Again, it is an established scientific fact that forests and soil currently store 30% of emissions. Unlike CCS that only stores emissions from sites where it is installed, forests and soil absorb atmospheric carbon emissions. Even well-planned city forests could have more capacity to effectively absorb CO2 than we thought.

ACE can also reconsider replacing the “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants” with renewables, such as solar and wind, especially those for non-industrial electricity facilities. Those electricity generation costs have been falling rapidly for years.

As most of the ASEAN member states are developing countries, they must carefully select the most suitable technologies to adopt. With limited fiscal capacity, rashly importing an advanced technology that will require substantial startup costs potentially becomes a costly effort, yielding limited benefits.

It is puzzling why we should replace our old coal plants with new ones. It is like when we are replacing our old mobile phone with a slightly better mobile phone – instead of jumping straight to a smartphone. Why the half-measure?

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Why relying on technology to keep ASEAN’s coal plants running is risky – https://theconversation.com/why-relying-on-technology-to-keep-aseans-coal-plants-running-is-risky-234918

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Brurce Muhammad Mecca, Senior Analyst, Climateworks Centre

Indonesia has signalled it could include blue carbon ecosystems — carbon-rich coastal and marine areas, like mangroves and seagrass — in its new climate targets. This shift follows years of relying heavily on the forestry and land sectors as well as the energy sector.

This could be a turning point, given Indonesia is one of the most important countries globally for ocean-based climate change mitigation. Indonesia’s blue carbon ecosystems are crucial, housing 22% of the world’s mangroves and 5% of seagrass meadows.

However, the country is losing its mangroves and seagrass in recent years due to changes in land use. As of 2019, only 16% of mangroves and 45% of seagrass were inside protected areas. Damage to mangrove and seagrass ecosystems can release carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.

For that reason, it’s crucial that Indonesia considers establishing more protected areas for its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems as part of its new climate targets. This could shield them from harmful activities like industrial fishing, unsustainable aquaculture, massive infrastructure development and overtourism.

Two kinds of protected areas

A 2023 Climateworks Centre study highlighted how Indonesia could prevent up to 60 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2030 – equal to Singapore’s 2030 emissions reduction target – by protecting 39,000 hectares per year of mangroves and 8,600 hectares per year of seagrasses. The combined area of these mangroves and seagrasses is almost three-quarters the size of Jakarta.

One way to do this is by including both ecosystems inside two kinds of protected areas. The first is marine protected areas (MPAs), which are areas designated by the government to protect essential ecosystems. The other kind — known as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) – are just as crucial for ecosystem protection.

Many activities are prohibited in marine protected areas, such as industrial fishing, mass tourism and mining. The government plans to increase Indonesia’s MPA cover from 8% to 10% by 2030, which is an opportunity to prioritise mangroves and seagrass.

Meanwhile, OECMs can allow Indonesia to target, recognise, and support areas beyond marine protected areas. These other conservation measures can play an important role in protecting blue carbon ecosystems across the country.

For example, the indigenous community of Rote Ndao in Eastern Indonesia’s traditional marine management system protects the local marine ecosystems – despite not being considered an marine protected area. Research shows that Indonesia has more than 390 potential marine OECMs. Many have conservation measures that have been implemented by local communities for centuries.

Key places to protect

While Indonesia still urgently requires broad investment in the collection of high-quality data for mapping blue ecosystems, our findings highlight some key priority locations for mangroves and seagrass to be included in the country’s ocean strategy.

For mangrove ecosystems, we highlight Kalimantan and Papua as areas of particular importance. Between 2009 and 2019, approximately 19% of mangroves in Kalimantan (58,000 hectares) were deforested due to palm oil and aquaculture. By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.

Meanwhile, protection of seagrass is quite tricky because an Indonesian seagrass map has not been completed.

Before defining specific seagrass areas to be protected, the government can verify the data in provinces such as Maluku, North Maluku, Bangka Belitung Islands, South East Sulawesi, West Papua and South Sulawesi. These areas have the potential for seagrass ecosystems to be included in a protection plan.

The government could also prioritise seagrass ecosystems in the Riau Islands and West Nusa Tenggara. These regions have extensive seagrass areas lacking marine protected area coverage.

A new target for mangrove and seagrass protection

Indonesia can set a clear and measurable area-based target to protect its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems in the upcoming climate targets. This could align the country’s climate actions on ocean and marine to its overall climate ambition. It will also lay the foundation for attracting climate financing, which Indonesia will need to achieve its targets.

Local participation is also important. Indonesia can design and implement its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems protection target with the involvement and consent of local communities. This would align with Indonesia’s existing targets, such as its Blue Economy Roadmap, to ensure coordinated efforts across government agencies.

As the world works towards net zero emissions, Indonesia has a huge opportunity to boost its climate leadership. Protecting and restoring more of the country’s carbon-rich mangroves and seagrass meadows can ensure the future thriving of marine ecosystems that so many Indonesians rely on.

Editor’s Note : In 13 August, 11.57 AM WIB, we made a correction to a sentence in the article’s previous version:

“By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation, with no indication of this changing.”

The previous sentence was inaccurate because while the historic rate was low, the implication was deforestation would continue, when in fact there are indications this could change in the future.

We replaced the sentence with “By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.”

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets – https://theconversation.com/sea-of-opportunity-protecting-mangroves-and-seagrass-could-boost-indonesias-new-climate-targets-229819