Evaluation of Boundary-Spanning on Climate Change ENGO International Greenpeace in Asia

This paper discusses the evaluation of boundary-spanning on climate change ENGO International Greenpeace in Asia. The evaluation process uses secondary data from documents presented on the official website of Greenpeace, especially countries in Asia. These countries include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Japan, South Korea, and China. Evaluation of the boundary-spanning is obtained from the results of the mapping of all issues and campaigns related to climate change. The results: 1) limitation of the problem and identity of the campaigns carried out all based on the ecological conditions of each country; 2) limitation organizational through institutional strengthening becomes the main focus in the pattern of movement, and tactical efforts are made through the publication of reports and analysis is step by step in various communication and action media.


INTRODUCTION
Environmental issues have become a global discourse that attracts the attention of many parties. The development of environmental issues has become global as the result of the social dynamics of a social movement based on the environment spearheaded by many actors and agents. Although the environmental movement had been formed for a long time, observers agreed that the environmental movement developed rapidly in the late 1950s (Suharko, 1998). This is marked by an increase in the number of members and wider public awareness. Analysts say that the environmental movement in the late 1950s entered a modern period marked as an independent mass movement so that the problem was not single (Suharko, 1998).
In the period of environmental crisis in the late 1950s, both the causes and policies adopted to overcome the crisis were placed on a global scale. According to Homer Dixon in (Suharko, 1998), the cause of the environmental crisis is climate change which originates from the problem of the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, degradation of fertile agricultural land, pollution of clean water supplies, deforestation, and depletion of fishing grounds. The sources of environmental change are then accompanied by population growth and unequal distribution of resources which causes environmental scarcity. This makes the issue of climate change as a global issue getting special attention from various countries. Because climate change is the main problem of the environmental crisis occurring in every country with a variety of variations. So that the whole world was involved to find solutions to the environmental crisis that occurred. This model of the environmental movement that began in 1950 continues today. Based on ecological problems that are increasingly complex, the environmental movements are institutionalized into Environmental Non-Government Organization (ENGO).
Greenpeace has high popularity in Asia and has branches in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Japan, South Korea, and China. The campaign method used by Greenpeace is to take direct action, disclose testimony from the public, and propaganda through social media to persuade the community. Greenpeace is associated with journalists, activists, and science scientists. Massive branding in various countries in Asia affects the campaigns that have been carried out. Greenpeace has become the frontline in protecting the world's environment by holding various campaigns. For example in Indonesia, Greenpeace is carrying out an Air Quality campaign through the Udara Kita application which eventually forced KLHK to begin the process of revising the Ministerial Regulation on Air Quality (Simanjuntak, 2018). In addition to its large contribution in the scope of Asian countries, Greenpeace is also listed as a member of the Climate Action Network (CAN) which networked with 700 ENGOs from 90 countries to promote ecologically sustainable action to minimize the effects of climate change. As a CAN member, Greenpeace also took part in conducting campaigns related to climate change. One of them was involved in climate negotiations that took place in Madrid in the first week of the UN COP25 (CAN, 2019).
Although not a new issue, the culmination of the search for solutions by various countries and ENGO on the problem of climate change is the implementation of the Climate Change Convention or commonly known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The result is an international political commitment on climate change at the Earth Summit on Environment and Development (UN Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992(Mudiyarso, 2003. As one of the ENGOs involved in UNFCC, UK-based Greenpeace has committed to reducing emissions by 12.5% in the 2008-2012 period. However, the UNFCCC failed at the 25th Summit held in Madrid. The 25th UNFCCC summit COP 25 has five objectives namely: restarting the international carbon market, seeking funds to deal with losses and damage caused by climate change, preparing a road map for long-term financing from developed countries to developing countries, holding developed countries accountable for climate action they should have taken before the Paris Agreement entered into force, and to integrate the components of gender, human rights, and indigenous rights into all climate actions (CAN, 2019).
The carbon market has not yet begun because 195 governments from the European Union gathered in Madrid cannot approve its modalities. Members of delegations from developed and developing countries are not suitable when talking about data. Some accuse new economic powers like China and India of trying to dominate the market with projects that go through double credit calculations. Others accuse the European Union of blocking progress because it wants to control the internal carbon market. Conditions are heating up with leading developing countries like India to insist on collecting promises from developed countries before asking the world to act. A delegation from China even stated that they needed real action and stopped demonstrating.
The failure of the 2019 summit had put enormous pressure on the entire UN system. By not fulfilling the promise that has been formulated in the Paris Agreement to maintain an increase in average global temperatures below two degrees Celsius, there is no guarantee the summit can be as expected (Gupta, 2019). ENGO International Greenpeace's involvement in the UNFCCC journey is an achievement for ENGO that plays a role in the realm of negotiations on climate change issues on an international scale. But unfortunately, there is no writing to do a comparative mapping on climate change after the global agreement made by ENGO International Greenpeace, especially in countries in Asia. Other than that, this paper not only stops at the way organizations frame their movement models but also explains the evaluation of the boundary range carried out by ENGO International Greenpeace in response to global agreements. This paper not only stops at the way organizations frame their movement models but also explains the evaluation of the boundary-spanning by ENGO International Greenpeace in response to global agreements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper uses qualitative research methods by utilizing literature studies in the field of ecology and social movements. To update secondary data completely and transformatively (Quan-Hoang, Anh-Vinh, Viet-Phuong, Phuong-Hanh, & Manh-Toan, 2020;Shrivastava, Stafford Smith, O'Brien, & Zsolnai, 2020;Zhang et al., 2020), the authors refer directly to Greenpeace's official website. The importance of evaluating the boundary-spanning by noting all countries in Asia that have Greenpeace branches. Furthermore, the keywords climate change are included to make it easier for writers to filter data on issues and campaigns in the field of climate change. The data obtained is then processed using percentage sorting. Finally, the analysis and presentation of the data are done by comparing the similarities and differences in how campaigns respond to climate change.

Limititation of Problems and Identity
Six countries in Asia have Greenpeace ENGO International branch offices in Southeast Asia such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, then in South Asia, India, and East Asia, Japan. The six countries have different issues and campaign activities in the context of climate change even though they are in the same ENGO corridor. This difference can be explained conceptually according to Jenkins (1983), that environmentalbased social movements aim to preserve and improve the natural environment through public education, advocating lifestyle choices, better community planning, increased financial investment, and government regulation (Rochwulaningsih, 2017). Emphasizing the final explanation, namely government regulation, that climate change issues should still refer to the main objectives of the UNFCCC, however all of them are often at odds with government regulations. Agreements at the global level can change drastically when speaking at the national or regional level. Of course, the four conceptual put forward by Jenkins will be subject to government regulations.
International ENGO such as Greenpeace as an example of relevant actors to discuss anthropogenic climate policy issues with principles such as joint responsibility but carried out by many actors (besides UNFCC and IPCC), are present to collaborate to solve the best solutions on climate change issues (Kukkonen et al., 2018). The issue of climate policy globally becomes a prominent issue for national policymakers and decision-makers, so that the framing of the boundaries of the problems and identities of each country (Wang, Piazza, & Soule, 2018), sometimes becomes blurred and competes in the political arena, one of which is mass media. Simply put, how each country responds to the issue of climate change is different even though the rules made refer to the UNFCC and the IPCC. The response data of each country was obtained from the mapping by the author based on electronic media, namely Greenpeace's official website.
The different ecological characteristics of the Southeast Asian, South Asian, and East Asian regions have caused the response of each country in each region to the issue of climate change to be different. The following are differences in the first boundary-spanning range, namely the problem boundaries and the identities of several countries in Asia: 1) Indonesia (Southeast Asia) Scheme 1. Greenpeace Issues in Indonesia Source: processed by the author from www.greenpeace.org (2020)

Greenpeace Issues in Indonesia
There are three campaign issues when entering keywords to search for climate change in Indonesia. The most dominant activity is the protection campaign. Details of each campaign can be seen in the following  Greenpeace Issues in India 6) Japan (East Asia) Scheme 6. Greenpeace Campaign in Japan Source: processed by the author fromwww.greenpeace.org (2020) There are nine campaign issues when inserting keywords for climate change search in Japan. The most dominant in the campaign activity is the emphasis on the use of coal. Of the six countries in Asia, it can be categorized as a keyword on climate change in three parts, namely sensitivity to conservation, forest protection, renewable energy use change, and the use of coal. This summary can be seen in the following table: Greenpeace Campaign in Japan developed countries according to the World Bank is more emphasized on Gross National Income (GNB), which is the more advanced infrastructure to support economic activity, the economy is more focused on the industrial sector, quality of education, health, high welfare, and science and technology is developing rapidly. When related to the GNI, Japan is very well known for advancing with its industrial sector, then the progress of the country is supported by the issue of climate change which suppresses the use of coal to be replaced with environmentally friendly renewable energy. In contrast to Indonesia  The two parts of renewable energy in India, more emphasis on the microstructure of people's lives. Of course, something like this must be supported by understanding and ecological awareness that is qualified in each individual. Thailand is also wellknown for its agriculture sector, for example, as a rice-producing country, it turns out that both of them have chosen climate as the most common campaign boundary. The choice of climate campaign itself is related to improving clean air quality, the context of climate change is understood by better handling of air ecosystems. The Philippines is also more active in climate campaign activities, but in contrast to the others, the Philippines prefers to declare justice for the environment. When viewed, the process of philosophy in looking at the environment has tried to be advocated by Greenpeace in the Philippines.

Organizational and Tactical Restrictions
The campaign activities carried out by Greenpeace representatives in several countries on the Asian Continent became a protest that determined the short life span of advocacy for the environment, but could be the longevity of advocacy at the time of collaboration involving other partners. The campaign that has been carried out can be seen as two forms, namely the instrument of protest and the instrument of a cultural symbol of collective identity (Wang et al., 2018). The environmental movement is driven by ENGO currently has the greatest influence on the politics of the global environment in its wide and deep understanding of the environment. This makes NGOs have a high position compared to countries in environmental conventions that are not specifically specific about the various global environmental conditions (Low, 2009). Greenpeace as one of the ENGOs that has the power to develop public discourse while advocating for environmental issues has been aggressively campaigning for environmental issues in the Asian region. These efforts should be elaborated to find out to what extent Greenpeace can advocate for environmental issues that are a common concern in countries in the Asian Continent.

Greenpeace Advocacy Reduces Use of Plastics
Stages of resistance to destructive development discourse have shown results. In the case of East Asia, Greenpeace has advocated for climate change and energy issues. Greenpeace has carried out campaigns for many years by conducting surveys in Asian countries. One of the efforts made by Greenpeace is surveying supermarkets that use plastic in the process of distributing goods to customers. In the Greenpeace Seoul Report (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2020b) noted that the area where plastic is most often used is in packaging. Around 40% of plastic production in 2015 was used to package items such as food, drinks, cosmetics, disposable detergents, and other household utensils. Packaging products are a major cause of mass production and excessive plastic consumption. The representative space where this plastic packaging material is consumed in the hypermarkets. The starting point of the use of this plastic is the efficiency of consumers to see the appearance of the product to stimulate consumer sentiment. Also, the use of plastic is massively found in the process of distribution of goods because it is considered the most effective.
The main results evaluated by Greenpeace Seoul following the four standards of reduction, transparency, innovation, and policy are as follows: 1. The inability of hypermarkets to understand the amount of disposable plastic used in stores, including rolls of plastic bags, 2. Lack of distribution of plastic products themselves and product suppliers, 3. Passive identification and disclosure, 4. Lack of collaboration with manufacturers and suppliers for plastic reduction, 5. The absence of an alternative packaging system, 6. This campaign only focuses on consumers so they don't get significant results, and 7. Inadequate rate of recovery of multi-use shopping carts In the report, Greenpeace Seoul suggested steps for Korea to change and follow the Plastic Zero Movement that is spreading throughout the world with personal efforts to reduce the number of pastries on a macro scale. The first step to reducing disposable plastic is to determine the capacity of use. In the distribution process, capacity analysis is important to understand the amount of plastic used including disposable plastics used in stores. Also, hypermarkets need to work with suppliers to develop sustainable packaging methods and improve logistics systems. Finally, hypermarkets need to make comprehensive road maps and set clear reduction targets.
One of the hypermarkets that stated their attitude after the circulation of the report was Lotte Mart. Lotte Mart together with E-Mart and Homeplus got the lowest score among the five marts surveyed in the Greenpeace report (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2020b). Earlier in April, Greenpeace pulled an extra-large cart more than 5 meters tall to the front of Lotte Mart as a form of demonstration that revealed the target of using and reducing disposable plastic packaging and demanding immediate handling. Because Lotte Mart is expanding its market to Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam and Indonesia, so it is crucial to deal with plastic problems with corporate responsibility (Kim, 2020). After that, Greenpeace held an ongoing meeting with Lotte Mart to negotiate the amount of plastic used by the company and to set effective reduction targets. As explained above, hypermarkets are a bridge connecting consumers and products. If hypermarkets show a desire to solve plastic problems, many products can change, and consumers can contribute to living a plastic-free life. Then on June 3, 2020, Lotte Mart declared itself to remove all disposable plastic. The Lotte Mart Declaration is the first statement of attitude to take place in Asia. However, the statement of attitude is only the beginning. Greenpeace will urge Lotte Mart to build a Benton system to reduce plastic consumption systematically and will continue to monitor it. 2. Greenpeace Advocacy for Protection of Marine Ecosystems After the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, the use of nuclear as safe, inexpensive, and reliable energy has been debated again. Leaking of the Fukushima Daichi nuclear reactor pipe and disposal of radioactive wastewater into the sea causes water and marine products to be contaminated by radioactive substances. TEPCO states that radioactive wastewater discharged into the sea has reached 300 tons per day since 2011 (Sarjiati, 2018). TEPCO and the government state that the disposal of radioactive wastewater does not exceed the safety limits set by the government so that radioactive pollution in low doses does not endanger health. However, some researchers express different opinions. Radioactive waste disposed of by TEPCO as much as 300 tons per day does not include the waste that flows due to leakage of nuclear reactor pipes (CNIC, 2011). In September 2018, it was revealed that 80% of radioactively contaminated water was treated in a multi-nuclide removal facility that could remove all reactive material except tritium which contained strontium 90 and iodine 129 which were harmful to marine ecosystems (Greenpeace Jepang, 2020).
At a meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Greenpeace called on the Japanese government not to release radioactive polluted air into the sea. Greenpeace sent conservation experts Greenpeace Division to the United Nations about the agreement of the International Maritime Organization which will be held in London in the fall and will request an appeal directly to UN member states. Until now, Greenpeace opened an open site petition about Greenpeace that can be accessed online to approve Greenpeace at the level of the International Maritime Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Organization.

Greenpeace Advocacy Campaigns for
Renewable Energy In September 2019, Beijing Greenpeace and the North China Electric Power University released a report entitled "Green Cloud Lighting: Research on Energy Consumption and Potential for Renewable Energy Use in Chinese Data Centers". This report is the first report that analyzes the evaluation of the needs and feasibility of purchasing and using renewable energy in the China Data Center industry. Analysis of the report states that the total power consumption of the China Data Center in 2018 was 160.8889 billion kWh which is 2.35% of China's total social power consumption. The expenditure exceeds Shanghai's total social power consumption in 2018 (156.7 billion kWh) (Aninda, 2020). That is, most of China's Data Center locations are mostly concentrated in areas with relatively low renewable energy resources such as Beijing, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu. Through the report, Greenpeace emphasized the efforts of the Chinese Data Center industry to improve the efficiency of power use. Greenpeace in the report recommends that relevant government departments should expand the pilot area of the renewable energy market trading mechanism to enable various types and sizes of corporate users to participate in the procurement of renewable energy, as well as expand the scope of green certificate issuance.

Greenpeace Advocacy in Supporting Food
Security The COVID-19 pandemic has caused famine in affected populations in India. One of them is in Delhi. Even before the pandemic, famine was still a frightening specter for the people of Delhi. The Delhi government has started public kitchens in several cities, but these efforts have not been enough to reach people in need. This urgency is behind the non-profit organization Samadhan Abhiyan who is working with Greenpeace India to open a community kitchen that currently serves lunch and dinner for around 6000 people every day. Greenpeace India donates grains, rice, and vegetables purchased from small farmers in Delhi at a reasonable price. This public kitchen movement is also assisted by volunteers from residents who are willing to help to process food (Agnihotri, 2020).
This solidarity movement increasingly mushroomed when the COVID-19 pandemic struck India and forced the government to impose a national lockdown so that it affected agricultural supplies. Transportation restrictions cause delays in procurement and delivery which have an impact on product freshness. Greenpeace India's collaboration with the Organic Farmers Market (OFM) is working with small and marginal farmers from Kodai, Ooty, Dindigul, Tindivanam, Madurantakam, and Chengalpattu to unite to ensure that producers are connected to consumers who need it most, especially stranded migrant workers, and tuna homestead. Greenpeace helps farmers to distribute their agricultural products while ensuring that the products are safe and nutritious to be processed by public kitchens and consumed by the community (Ananthoo, 2020).

Greenpeace Advocacy in Kitchen Waste
Management According to Solid Waste Management and Public Cleaning Company (SWCorp), in 2020, Malaysia produces around 16,688 tons of food waste per day, an amount that can easily feed around 2.2 million people three times a day. Food waste is an incomplete and dangerous problem. Food waste releases methane gas which is far more dangerous than carbon dioxide. The heat absorbed by this gas can heat the earth in a short time.
Warming the earth will eventually cause the sealevel rise and climate change. To respond to these problems, Greenpeace Malaysia campaigned for the Gerila Compost Land Recovery Movement. The substance of this movement is to campaign for ways to treat kitchen waste and create compost through it so that it can be reused (Greenpeace Malaysia, 2020). 6. Greenpeace Advocacy for Water Crisis Management Greenpeace Thailand gets the findings outlined in the research report which shows that pollution occurs in every process in the coal cycle. It causes water to be contaminated with heavy metals and toxic substances at levels that are significantly dangerous to humans and wildlife. This condition is exacerbated by Thailand which is experiencing the worst drought in four decades. In Southeast Asia, aside from having to deal with water scarcity, water resources in Thailand are dominated by industrial interest groups because government policies lead to conflicts over agricultural resources. Greenpeace Thailand has long been gathering online petitions to urge water resources companies to find ways to treat water amid water scarcity and the drought currently engulfing Thailand (Greenpeace Southeast Asia, 2019). 7. Greenpeace Advocacy Strengthens Forest Protection Greenpeace Indonesia analyzes deforestation in the moratorium area in Kalimantan, Sumatra, Papua, Sulawesi, and Maluku. As a result, there is no significant decrease every year. Of the total forest cover lost in the moratorium area in 2017 recorded around 22.2%, in 2012 reaching 19.7% percent and in 2019 reaching 19.7% (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2020a). Through the analysis, Greenpeace suggested making fundamental changes namely fundamental changes in the form of an improvement in indicative maps and information that are open to the public so that the community can participate in monitoring as an action to strengthen the Forest and Peat Moratorium policy (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2019).

Greenpeace Advocacy Campaigns for Air
Quality Improvement The hashtag #BetterNormal has become a mainstay hashtag in the Philippines in campaigning for air quality improvement in 2020. A report released by Greenpeace Philippines reveals that pollution levels in Metro Manila have been steadily increasing since early May. This report collects data from two main air pollutants emitted from burning fossil fuels, namely nitrogen dioxide and fine particles (PM2.5) (Greenpeace Philippines, 2020). Nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 are associated with severe respiratory illness and heart health. Exposure to high levels of air pollution affects the body's natural defenses against viruses in the air and increases susceptibility to COVID-19. Greenpeace urges the government with recommendations for recovery efforts that prioritize clean energy sources, green transportation options, and increased micromobility around the area to maintain air pollution at manageable levels and minimize risks to health.
Greenpeace's strategy in campaigning for increased environmental problems is related to the existing process of developing environmental politics. The Greenpeace movement is currently responding to the post-industrialist era which could be the only alternative in fighting against the industrialization era. Campaigns and ideologies that can be accepted quickly are accepted because of the acculturation of cultural symbols and universal norms, green ideologies are symbolized as wise ideologies to provide a complete set of patterns of western capitalism. From the advocacy presentation conducted by Greenpeace, it can be seen that advocacy must be the main focus in its movement patterns by adding value to the intellectual values of human resources and creativity in communicating everyone who can look for individuals who care about the environment. This can be witnessed by the incessant reports and analysis conducted by Greenpeace since it was founded in Asian countries through alternative discourses as a movement output.
The power of discourse is used to provide values that are different from the discourse of capitalism that is built. Because basically, the power of this discourse can break the intellectual traditions that have been controlled by the elite. The desire for a variety of conditions that are better than now also serves as an entry point for alternative discourses. This criticism begins with the emergence of various changes in the joints of life one of which is the pattern of changes in consumption and production, lifestyle, and the context of other clean actions. The effectiveness of this movement pattern also provides an awareness-building that is starting to appear in global life now. So the discourse instruments as the basis of the movement provide awareness in seeing the environment. The discourse that is built in the community can build public sensitivity which eventually becomes one of the entry points for ENGO Greenpeace to take part in the negotiations that take place at international conventions.

CONCLUSION
Greenpeace is one of the international ENGOs who participated in discussing the issue of global climate policy anthropogenically in addition to the UNFCC and IPCC. Greenpeace has several branch offices in more than 40 countries, including some on the Continent of Asia. The results of the evaluation of the range of climate change fighting movements in the Asian Continent produce the following conclusions: 1) the problem and identity restrictions on the campaigns carried out are all adjusted to the ecological conditions of each country; 2) organizational limitation through institutional strengthening becomes the main focus in the pattern of movement, and tactical efforts are made through the publication of reports and analysis that are built in stages in various communication and action media. From this conclusion, the author recommends that there be other similar writings, which also evaluate Greenpeace boundaries in the Continent of Europe, America, Africa, and Australia. Its function is to become new knowledge related to the supervision of activities carried out by civil society on an international ENGO.