From Baku to Borneo: Multilateralism and Dissonance in Global Climate Action

The Two Faces of Multilateralism

The 2024 Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCC also known as COP 29 was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from 11- 22 November. However, the recent climate negotiations were concluded with a major letdown. They were anticipated to be the COP that would deliver the climate finance urgently needed by developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change, especially to protect and recover their people and economies from the loss and damage caused by ongoing climate disasters. 

At the end of the grueling two-week negotiation, the amount of climate finance that was agreed upon fell abysmally short.[1] On the other hand, the heavy emphasis on pushing through decisions on carbon markets and offsets, with their existing flaws left unaddressed, provides leeway for continued carbon emissions.[2] Given the disappointing outcomes, some have concluded that this platform, the only multilateral space for a collective of 196 countries to address climate change, has failed to deliver once again.[3]

Meanwhile, more than 7,000 km away from the climate negotiation halls in Baku, the meaning of "multilateralism" takes on a different form. In Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia’s two largest states, indigenous ethnic groups make up more than half of the population. Here, multilateralism - or rather, a communal way of living - runs deep within their traditions and heritage, forming the very foundation necessary for survival in one of the oldest rainforests in the world. 

Multilateralism, often associated with cooperation between nations, such as what is seen at the climate COP, is also deeply embedded in the ecological wisdom of indigenous peoples. Indigenous practices reflect a collective understanding that ecosystems transcend boundaries and require shared stewardship among diverse communities. Through traditional knowledge systems, rituals, and communal decision-making processes, indigenous groups embody a multilateral approach to resource management, emphasizing collaboration, respect, and sustainable coexistence for the benefit of future generations.

Community Protocols 

Fundamental to the identity and way of life of indigenous peoples worldwide is their deep connection to their territories, and their ecological wisdom regarding the land, rivers, mountains, hills, flora, fauna, and all that exists within these environments. Indigenous communities have long been the most effective stewards of the environment, with their knowledge and practices ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources. This approach often stands in stark contrast to the complex and individualistic neoliberal system that dominates the global economy today.

This method of stewardship is held together by their own system too, known as the “community protocol”. It consists of a broad range of practices and procedures (both written and unwritten) which are developed by the indigenous peoples and their communities and other local communities (ILCs), in relation to their traditional knowledge, territories and natural and other resources.[4] 

A meticulously carved burial pole, crowned with a hornbill perched at its top, is known as a “klirieng” among the Punan indigenous group, although it is referred to by various other names depending on the region. It is believed to serve multiple functions, including acting as a ritual center for resolving disputes through sworn oaths and for invoking protection over the community during times of war.[5]
 

In Sabah and Sarawak, some of the indigenous communities have begun developing and adopting community protocols to manage their land and resources. Although indigenous peoples have practiced and passed down traditional knowledge and procedures for many generations, community protocol is actually a more recent framework for community-based natural resource management. These protocols incorporate ethics and guidelines, including do’s and don’ts for both visitors and local communities to maintain the harmony and conservation of the environment they live in. The key difference is that this approach is institutionalized with the active involvement of the respective state governments.

In Sabah, the Tagal System, an adaptation of the ecological wisdom of forest stewardship, was first implemented in 2001 to protect and revive the depleted freshwater fishery resources.[6] This system is legally recognized under the Sabah Native Courts Rules of 1995 (Native Customary Law) and the Sabah Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Enactment of 2003. The Tagal System generally prohibits fishing in rivers for a pre-agreed period to allow fishery resources to recover. However, local communities are permitted to harvest sustainably for subsistence purposes. The river is divided into three zones:

1. Green Zone: An “open fishing zone” where fishing is allowed all year-round for local communities using regulated fishing methods.
2. Yellow Zone: Open only once or twice a year, typically during community celebrations or festivals.
3. Red Zone: Reserved exclusively for conservation purposes. It is open only for sports fishing, which requires payment of entrance fees and the hiring of local guides.

Over the years, more than 240 Tagal systems have been established and registered under the Sabah Department of Fisheries.

In 2009, Sarawak adopted a similar approach following the success of Sabah's community-based management of river resources. Known as the Tagang System (meaning ‘prohibit’ or ‘prevent’ in the Iban language)[7]; it relies on collaboration between local communities and government agencies. It is formally recognized under the State Fisheries Ordinance of 2003 (Laws of Sarawak: State Fisheries Ordinance, 2003, 2006).

Before its implementation, the Tagang System was introduced through dialogues between local communities and relevant government departments to ensure consultation, mutual understanding, and agreement. Once agreed upon, a Tagang committee is established to oversee the project's implementation.[8] Today, the Tagang System is considered as a viable source of income for rural communities, as the proper management of rivers has created opportunities for ecotourism in various villages.[9]

The Tagal and Tagang Systems exemplify how ecological wisdom and multilateralism converge at the grassroots level. These systems operate through community protocols that often require collaboration among multiple neighboring communities, alongside the involvement of state agencies. This partnership, while essential, can sometimes present challenges, such as navigating power dynamics, addressing social hierarchies, managing competing resource uses, and ensuring long-term sustainability.

Despite these challenges, community protocols serve as a vital platform for uniting communities and fostering shared responsibility for environmental conservation. While they represent an institutionalized framework, these protocols can be seen as an evolution and expansion of traditional ecological wisdom, adapting ancestral practices to address modern environmental and social contexts.

The Tagal and Tagang Systems highlight how traditional knowledge and collective stewardship can be integrated into broader governance frameworks, showcasing a localized yet impactful form of multilateralism in action. 

When community protocol alone is not enough

While preserving ecological wisdom through community protocols is essential, there are instances when it is not sufficient on its own, as indigenous communities continue to face significant threats such as pollution, deforestation, and large-scale development projects (such as the construction of mega hydroelectric dams[10]). This persists despite the existence of native customary land rights and laws, introduced during British colonial rule to safeguard the heritage and rights of these communities.[11]

For example, in Sabah, the Eloi River community protocol incorporates traditional customs and prohibitions to ensure the sustainability of the mangrove forest surrounding their village. These practices regulate the extraction of resources such as herbs, aquatic life, and timber from the mangrove area.[12] Despite the presence of a community protocol and a demonstrated model of sustainable resource management that benefits the entire community, a significant portion of the mangrove was destroyed to make way for a privately-owned shrimp farming operation. This underscores the vulnerability of community efforts to external pressures, particularly those driven by business ventures promising high economic returns.[13] Similarly, the COP29 outcomes on a global carbon credit trading will likely have a significant impact on the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak. Their territories, located within some of the world’s richest rainforests, are already prime targets for generating carbon credit offsets.[14]^,[15] 

On the surface, the carbon market is often portrayed as a system that benefits indigenous communities by providing much-needed financial incentives for conservation. For instance, communities may receive payments for conserving and restoring forests, helping to maintain the forests' carbon sequestration capabilities while improving livelihoods in areas where income generation is often challenging. 

However, significant flaws in the current carbon market systems pose serious risks that frequently outweigh the potential benefits. One major concern is the issue of “carbon colonialism,” where external entities or corporations take control of indigenous lands under the pretext of climate action.[16] These projects are often implemented without obtaining free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from the affected communities.[17] 

As a result, indigenous peoples often lose access to their territories and ancestral lands and are restricted from using forests in the traditional ways they have relied on for generations. This not only undermines their rights but also threatens their livelihoods and cultural heritage. To make matters worse, the carbon market is plagued by fraud and fabrication[18] and has yet to demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing emissions,[19] which are urgently needed for steering the world away from the path of climate destruction.

While communities can implement sustainable management practices, uphold their community protocols, and champion their ecological wisdom, these efforts are often undermined and rendered powerless against the immense pressure of market forces. This systemic issue, deeply embedded in the global climate response as demonstrated through the climate COP, prioritizes market-driven solutions and economic gains over social justice and equity, ultimately leaving indigenous communities vulnerable and marginalized.

The wisdom in multilateralism and the dissonance that plagues it

In principle, multilateralism holds great promise for addressing shared challenges, particularly those on a planetary scale such as climate change. Yet, in practice, this ideal is consistently undermined by private interests and market-driven agendas. Indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak, like countless others around the world, experience this dissonance firsthand. 

Far removed from negotiation halls filled with suited technocrats and private sector representatives,[20] many indigenous communities remain unaware of how the legalistic language of the Paris Climate Action Plan will profoundly affect their lives. This happens despite their best efforts to steward their ancestral lands and protect the ecosystems upon which they, and the planet depend. This disconnect is not just a matter of oversight; it is a glaring failure that jeopardizes both justice and the very goals of global climate action.

Re-examining this dissonance is more crucial than ever. While this call is not new, global climate actions and policies must genuinely reflect the lived experiences and on-the-ground realities of those most intimately connected to the ecosystems we seek to protect. The current framework of global negotiations is inherently skewed toward prioritizing economic mechanisms and market-based solutions, often overlooking the priorities of grassroots communities, who emphasize the protection of livelihoods, cultural heritage, and ecological integrity. 

Failing to bridge this gap entrenches a grim cycle where those least responsible for climate change continue to endure its harshest consequences, while the powerful dictate solutions that serve their own narrow interests rather than the collective good. Addressing this imbalance is not just necessary – it is imperative for fostering a more equitable and effective approach to climate action, one that genuinely honors the ecological wisdom, rights, and invaluable contributions of indigenous communities.

As the year 2024 marks the first time global temperatures exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – a critical threshold set by the Paris Agreement – the urgency has never been greater. With the clock relentlessly ticking, one must ask: when will the world finally recognize and embrace the true purpose of multilateralism, or will this shrinking window of opportunity slip away, lost to inaction and misplaced priorities?

__

Evelyn Teh is the Executive Director of Ara Research, a non-profit research organization based in Penang, Malaysia. She has conducted extensive research on natural resources management and environmental impact assessments in Malaysia since 2007.

Disclaimer: This published work was prepared with the support of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The views and analysis contained in the work are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the foundation. The author is responsible for any liability claims against copyright breaches of graphics, photograph, images, audio, and text used.