W

e celebrated World Environment Day last week, and the United Nations tactfully used the tagline, '€œRaise your voices, not the sea level'€, which pretty much sums up the call for collective action to combat climate change.

Global climate negotiators, who represent countries worldwide, are currently working conscientiously to formulate a new climate agreement that will be adopted in 2015. The new agreement will take the form of a global agreement, which will be applicable to all parties.

Mitigation and adaptation are the two main pillars of climate change, which look like twins '€” metaphorically speaking. There are pains that come with being twins; namely, one of the two may be prettier and, therefore, favored. When one raises the issue of climate change, mitigation is perceived to attract more attention compared to adaptation.

The Kyoto Protocol previously set the limit of an increase in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. Thus, mitigation is more quantifiable than adaptation; hence, the efforts appear to be more tangible and measureable.

However, given that the pace of mitigation that has not yet reached the required target, mitigation and adaptation should be addressed in a balanced manner. Mitigation, through the further reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, needs to be conducted, or we will have to be prepared to allocate more resources for adaptation.

According to the UN'€™s International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), one of the key risks of climate change is an increased drought-related water and food shortage that would, in turn, affect food security. There is a possibility to include the quantification of adaptation efforts as proposed by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN); namely, through proposed targets that could be included as adaptation-related targets.

Such targets, according to the CDKN, could include the development and implementation of low-carbon development strategies by year x; national planning to build resilience to climate change by year x; reducing the number of people killed in climate-related natural disasters by x percent by year x; increasing the yields of agricultural smallholders by year x; and increasing water efficiency in agriculture. These targets would be useful for quantifying adaptation efforts.

Up to now, most developed countries have not assumed sufficient responsibility in tackling climate change, despite their combined contribution of a 40 percent increase in GHG emissions in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution (Readfearn, 2013).

Thus, there are urgent calls for adaptation through a number of measures, such as to build urban and community resilience in the face of climate change impacts.

However, there are also limits to mitigation and adaptation. At some point, no matter how much GHG emissions have been reduced and how many adaptation efforts have been undertaken, severe impacts may still occur that would affect the lives of many people.

That said, a third pillar of climate change is called '€œloss and damage'€, which has been highly promoted. There is no agreed definition of '€œloss and damage'€ but loosely interpreted, it refers to the destruction caused as a result of climate change impacts that cannot be prevented through mitigation and adaptation measures. Low-lying islands and some areas in developing countries are threatened by rising sea levels; therefore, they are seeking to be compensated for the loss and damage they suffer.

But compensation is also not an easy issue to address or one that will be accepted by all countries. As financing is neither available nor allotted, liability is an important aspect. Countries most at risk must come up with their own solutions to adapt to climate change.

For flood-prone but more privileged countries, such as the Netherlands, Dutch engineers have been thinking ahead and preparing for a rise in sea levels of 1.5 meters by 2100. They even claim that they will be able to cope with a 2-meter rise in sea levels.

Considering the close ties between the Netherlands and Indonesia, as well as the similar risks facing these two countries from climate change, we must consider the transfer of knowledge, particularly in terms of adaptation.

So, we come back to the main question '€” mitigation or adaption? That is not the question; it is not an either/or proposition. All countries must be able to mitigate through lowering GHG emissions, otherwise they will have to pay more for adaptation.

But if all that fails, countries must open Pandora'€™s Box, which is the loss-and-damage mechanism that must be enforced and agreed upon by all parties.

In the face of the presidential election, Indonesia is yearning for a new leader who can lead by example and has the capacity to address the climate change-related challenges in this archipelagic country.

The new president, whether Joko Widodo or Prabowo Subianto, must take the lead in addressing and tackling the issues relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The discourse on loss and damage must also be concurrently addressed, as our country has a number of small islands that are at risk due to rising sea levels.

The new administration must explore opportunities for an inclusive green economy, set and achieve ambitious targets on renewable energy, devise taxation and policy systems for investment in renewable energy and implement energy-efficient measures.

Climate change in Indonesia also poses a key risk in increasing a drought-related water and food shortage, which would cause malnutrition. It is imperative that Indonesia also increase its climate resilience and agricultural yields to tackle the issue of food security.

Thus, the enhancement of food security through developing the capacity to deal with climate change through risk assessment, improving early warning systems and integrating land-use policies and disaster-risk management for adaptation programs must be pursued.

The writer is a lecturer at Surya University in Tangerang, Banten