Is mutual assistance in international environmental problems, where there is an intensive to free-ride for each country, a dream that could be hardly achieved? If it is not a dream and could be achieved under certain conditions, what is the key to draw such international cooperation?

This article illustrates the effectiveness of international cooperation in addressing and tackling environmental issues by distinguishing between regional and global cooperation scheme, in particular how each type of cooperation has served its purpose through plausible international mutual assistance, as further reflected in the authors’ analysis on the real environmental case relevant to each cooperation.

The fact that since early September 2015, carbon emissions from the Indonesian forest fires had exceeded average US daily output on 26 out of 44 days (report of the World Resources Institute) is a strong evidence that the Indonesian haze pollution requires joint assistance from other countries, instead of merely rely on the Indonesian government’s own capability in reducing the burning.

Compared to other existing ASEAN agreements, for instance in the trade or investment area, the prominent role of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution adopted in 2002 (“ATHP”) in resolving the regional haze pollution caused by Indonesia’s annual slash-and-burn practices has always been questionable. This skepticism lasted until last year, when Indonesia (being the last ASEAN member state) finally ratified the agreement. Following such ratification, there is evidence that greater information sharing made by Indonesia in relation with the identification of forest fires location are significantly increasing, accommodating the ASEAN countries in providing effective mutual assistance.

Align with mandates of the ATHP, the following are few of the mutual assistances undertaken by ASEAN member states in the context of the Indonesian haze problem at present:

• Concrete on-the-ground activities cooperation to fight the fires by deploying member team to assist existing fire fighters;
• Deployment of water-bombing aircraft;
• Implementation of the ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy (2006-2020) to support the management of peatlands within the ASEAN countries;
• Since 2007, Singapore and Malaysia have collaborated with the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia (currently, Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia) as well as the provincial government to deal with land and forest fires by providing technical assistance of high resolution satellite pictures to help identify the location of fires;
• The contribution to the ATHP Fund towards realizing the pledge of providing initial contribution of USD500,000 by the majority of ASEAN member states.

Other ASEAN member states, having the required governance and technology capacity, are best positioned to fill in the gap of Indonesia’s forest monitoring and management system which stem from the prolonged lack of technology and economic infrastructure. From a regional cooperation perspective, implementation of mutual assistance will serve as a fulfilment of their obligations under the ATHP in its entirety. Lastly, such assistance will also stop the haze pollution and thus mitigate potential future economic and health impact within the national and regional level.

On the other hand, financial and technical assistance has been one of the most adversarial issues in the negotiation of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The Convention (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992, states that the developed countries shall provide financial and technical assistances to the developing countries. After the adoption of this agreement, a lot of discussion and negotiation had been done on how to realize this.

For example, at COP15 (Fifteenth meeting to the Conference of the Parties of the Convention) in 2009, it was agreed that the developed countries would provide 100 billion US dollars to the developing countries in 2020. Since then, the developing countries have been calling for faster actions. For example, at COP19 (2013), China, representing G77+China, emphasized the importance of agreeing on a roadmap for achieving the 100 billion dollar target. Similar claims have been made repeatedly, such as setting the intermediate target of seventy US billion dollars in 2016.

The developed countries opposed to these requests, knowing that it would post additional burden to them. On the other hand, the developed countries seem to insist that they have and are doing enough. OECD’s report last month calculates that the developed countries provided financial assistance of fifty two billion US dollars in 2013 and sixty two billion US dollars in 2014.

Does adversarial negotiation on international cooperation at UNFCCC mean that it is difficult to expect international assistance in climate change?

Many evidences which show that actual assistance could be done in climate change supports the answer “no”. For instance, the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, an organization which represents iron and steel industries in Japan, conduct steel plant diagnosis in Asian countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) to introduce energy management method to examine energy saving potential by implementing energy saving technologies, in cooperation with Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

If international cooperation is possible in climate change, what are the keys to carry out such cooperation?

Maybe we can draw some lessons through comparing the two cases, the Indonesia Haze Pollution and UNFCCC negotiation.

First, in Indonesian case, the issue is regional and the countries involved are limited to UNFCCC negotiation, which 192 parties participate. Second, in the former, there are other cooperation schemes through ASEAN, contrary to the latter. Third, the costs and benefits of cooperation are clearer in the Indonesian case than climate change. Fourth, the former is easier to know each country’s efforts compared to the latter, since the parties involved are fewer.

This comparison leads to the following hypothesis; international cooperation is likely to happen when countries are limited since (a) there tend to be other cooperation mechanisms, (b) the benefit of cooperation is clearer, and (c) it is easier to recognize each country’s efforts.

This is the lesson from the two cases, and the authors do not exclude other factors; for example, it may be easier to carry out cooperation when countries have similar cultures or backgrounds. Still, it may be worth considering in order thinking of a strategy to turn a dream into reality.