Indonesia: A Case Study
In a recent article in Yale’s E360, the case of Indonesia which has eagerly embraced the new agreement has been analysed. Indonesia, with its vast forests and potential for carbon sequestration, exemplifies both the promises and pitfalls of carbon trading. The country has been proactive in leveraging its natural resources to generate carbon credits, attracting significant international investments. Yet, its carbon trading ventures have exposed systemic flaws in global carbon markets.
This southeast Asian giant is home to the third largest expanse of tropical rainforests and more than a third of another of the world’s great carbon stores, peatlands. And it plans to raise up to $65 billion by 2028 from selling carbon credits accrued from restoring and protecting its forests and peatlands — developing what the Indonesia government terms as “restorative economy.”
Indonesia’s strategy focuses on two main pillars: Peatland Restoration and Forest Conservation. Peatland restoration builds on earlier efforts to rewet drained peatlands to curb carbon emissions and reduce fire risks. However, critics argue the effectiveness of rewetting efforts is questionable, with incomplete adherence to water table targets and continued emissions from partially restored areas. Forest Conservation include Flagship projects like Katingan Mentaya that claim to protect biodiversity while selling carbon credits. The initiative supports local economies but faces scrutiny over inflated carbon credit claims and questionable assumptions about potential deforestation outside the project.
Notwithstanding the many merits of carbon trading, and Indonesia’s enthusiastic embrace of the new agreement, concerns about integrity, transparency, and environmental effectiveness surround this enthusiasm.
Firstly, there are accounting issues. Doubts linger over inflated baseline scenarios, with studies showing that only 25% of carbon credits linked to avoided deforestation deliver real emission reductions.
The second apprehension is about Double Counting, where emission reductions are claimed by multiple entities. Carbon credits risk being claimed for multiple purposes (e.g., meeting Indonesia’s national targets while being sold internationally), undermining global carbon goals. This issue undermines the integrity of the market and dilutes its environmental benefits.
Thirdly, critics highlight the absence of robust compliance mechanisms and transparency under the Baku framework, raising fears of fraud.
Verification challenges also persist, as accurately measuring and verifying emissions reductions in remote forest areas is complex and resource-intensive. Furthermore, social conflicts arise when carbon offset projects, such as large-scale reforestation initiatives, encroach on local communities’ land rights, leading to disputes and potential human rights violations.
Systemic Flaws
Indonesia’s experiences expose systemic flaws in global carbon markets, such as inflated claims and insufficient regulation. As more countries adopt peatland restoration strategies, better scientific data and governance will be essential to ensure these efforts contribute genuinely to climate targets. It also highlights the need for robust governance and transparency in carbon markets. Strengthened monitoring, reporting, and verification systems, coupled with independent evaluation, are essential to address these challenges. Balancing offset projects with direct emissions reduction efforts is crucial to ensure alignment with national climate goals.
The risk that looms ahead is these flaws escalating into wholesale carbon fraud. And if the mistakes are replicated in other countries, they could seriously undermine the world’s efforts to fight climate change.
Cowboy Carbon Market?
The imminent danger presently is the loose rules for carbon trading adopted in Baku — with their potential for secrecy and lack of oversight or enforcement. As one of the experts has poignantly pointed out the existing set of rules “risk facilitating cowboy carbon markets at a time when the world needs a sheriff.”
Carbon trading represents a pragmatic approach to addressing climate change, blending market mechanisms with environmental stewardship. Its success, however, depends on stringent regulation, transparency, and equitable frameworks. The Indonesian venture typifies both the benefits and risks of carbon markets, illustrating the potential for future manipulation. A better understanding of the way the carbon markets may operate should naturally reveal both the strengths and weaknesses, and while the strengths will need to be reinforced, the many weaknesses will need to be plugged.
For this landmark initiative to succeed, to harness its benefits, and to mitigate the many pitfalls, striking the right balance is both critical and imperative. If developed honestly, it may as well be a key weapon in the fight against climate change.
scribo ad LX 