The debate over moving into official emergency status has already been going on in every local government body throughout the country. A large number of authorities have voted to declare climate emergencies. It’s happening overseas, too – mostly with local authorities, but countries like the UK have also officially moved into a state of declared emergency.

These council declarations have been a useful way for politicians to illustrate their commitment to addressing climate change. But there’s also a lot of doubt about what declaring a climate emergency really means, whether it will achieve anything or be “enough”, and even whether it might actually be a mistake.

Political scientist and climate change campaigner Bronwyn Hayward, of the University of Canterbury, has spoken out against the trend for climate change emergency declarations. She was recently interviewed on RNZ by Jessie Mulligan, and argued that the declarations can be counterproductive and ineffective. She said: “When people are in panic mode, they’re easily manipulated, and one of the big risks is that people panic and don’t look at the basic things that are possible and within our grasp to do right now” – see: Taking climate change seriously without being alarmist. The whole 18-minute interview is well worth listening to.

Hayward “is worried recent doom-and-gloom climate reports will just induce paralysis and panic.” She says: “it is great that we are seeing the urgency, but it’s actually taking the practical steps that matters more than the declarations.” And she argues that the concept of an immediate emergency is also one that goes against the need for a sustained long-term approach: “People can’t sustain this long period of panic, so my worry is what happens when this drops off? We need to be building for a sense of inter-generational support over the long haul, not just the immediate.”

Hayward prefers that climate change action focuses more on solutions than hyperbole about imminent collapse and chaos: “Let’s wind back the language of panic and wind up the language of practical action.”

Talking to Herald science journalist Jamie Morton, Hayward cautioned against the Auckland Council’s declaration of emergency, arguing it was more important to focus on actions: “We can’t maintain this level of intensity – we have to get quite practical and a lot of that is very boring… It’s attending to those first principles of lowering carbon emissions in the cities, like changing the way we build our buildings, tackling freshwater supplies and making sure our housing is as dense as we can make it, live-ably” – see: Explained: What does Auckland’s ‘climate emergency’ actually mean? (paywalled).

The same article also discusses the legalities of whether the climate change crisis could be classified as a Civil Defence emergency: “As it stood, climate change wasn’t included in the formal definition of an ’emergency’ under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002. A declaration of a ‘climate emergency’ also had no other inherent statutory or legal implications.”

So, if it’s problematic to deal with climate change with a declared state of emergency, should it be something stronger? Political journalist Henry Cooke has argued this week that a declaration of war makes more sense: “War is much better. Wars take several years, require cooperation between countries, and often produce millions of refugees, much like climate change will. Vast technological change can be engendered as countries gear their entire economies towards a singular goal outside of simple growth” – see: We don’t need a climate emergency. We need a climate war.

Here’s Cooke’s main argument against the concept of a state of climate emergency: “Emergency responses are almost the opposite of what climate change requires. Emergencies last for small periods of time and require governments to temporarily act quickly to deploy resources to the effected area, in order to make an abnormal situation normal again. Almost everyone accepts that the normal rules should be suspended for this immediate response – dairy owners hand out water, respondents work overtime, and normalcy is eventually restored. Climate change is nothing like this. It is urgent but not urgent like an earthquake is. And fixing it requires a much more structural change to the way the world is run than other emergencies do”.

Another important analysis and critique of the logic of declaring climate emergencies can be found in Mark Blackham’s recent opinion piece, Declarations of climate emergencies will only increase apathy. As with Hayward, he suggests that the declarations will have a negative impact on fostering the public mood for change, suggesting that “Right when we most need sombre, thoughtful global and local action, our institutions are all too often faddish and hypocritical.”

The good intentions behind the declarations are noted, and he agrees with the concept of trying to get people to understand the seriousness of climate change, but for Blackham, the declarations are too gimmicky, especially in the absence of sufficient actions taken by the politicians: “We get it, but there is no emergency in the sense that ordinary people commonly use it. Where are the dead, dying and the fleeing? Where are the emergency services? No matter how you co-opt language, reality interferes. We will always respond differently to an emergency happening in the next 10 years, and an emergency happening right now.”

Blackham says “I doubt the authorities will take the sort of robust action that corresponds to an emergency. There will be no bans on cars, foreign travel, or imported consumer goods.” Ultimately, therefore, the public will lose more trust in those institutions making the declarations, and will become more cynical about climate change.

Does it matter if the emergency declarations are simply “symbolic gestures”? According to scientist Quentin Atkinson of the University of Auckland, this is exactly what is needed at the moment: “Symbolic gestures are what motivated New Zealand support to end apartheid and the nuclear-free stance and they had an effect, and we can hold our heads high knowing we were clear where we stood” – see Joel MacManus’ PM Jacinda Ardern: Government ‘not opposed to’ idea of declaring a climate emergency.

Atkinson is one of “more than 50 of New Zealand’s top scientists” calling for a declaration of emergency. And responding to this, “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the Government is not opposed to declaring a national climate emergency”.

Ardern is reported as favouring a New Zealand-wide emergency declaration, but also suggesting that the Government is already dealing sufficiently with the problem: “I don’t see why there should be any reason why members of Parliament wouldn’t want to demonstrate that this is a matter of urgency… The one thing I think we need to make really clear though – a declaration in Parliament doesn’t change our direction of travel. It’s what we invest in and it’s the laws that we pass that make the big difference and on those grounds I think we are making good, solid progress.”

Ardern has also reiterated that the Government’s progress so far shows that the emergency approach already exists: “Certainly I would like to think our policies and our approach demonstrates that we do see it as an emergency” – see Jason Walls’ Jacinda Ardern is keen on declaring a climate-change emergency but roadblock remains.

This article explains that a motion was earlier put in Parliament by Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick but was voted down by National. The National Party spokesperson on climate change issues, Todd Muller, criticised the motion as being just “Green Party symbolism”, and explained why his party didn’t support it: “There was no plan at all behind it – normally when Government’s calls emergencies, it brings the whole aspect of the state to bear to be able to deal with it.”

Quentin Atkinson, one of the scientist behind the call for a declaration of emergency, also challenges whether the Government has a sufficient plan for dealing with the crisis, saying: “Such a declaration also serves to highlight the hypocrisy of ongoing government policies that are inconsistent with a climate emergency. This is exactly what has happened in the UK, where policies are now being scrutinised in the light of the climate emergency declaration. This is a good thing. Of course, declaring a climate emergency does not in itself solve the challenge we face. We need a real Zero Carbon Act that lives up to its name” – see: We must face climate emergency head-on.

There are some real questions about whether the current Government is doing anywhere enough on climate change. For example, looking at last week’s rather moderate and limited policy announcement on electric vehicles, John Armstrong was scathing, saying it epitomises the “profound lack of urgency” in dealing with climate change under the current administration – see: Jacinda Ardern’s eco-warrior, emissions cutting image is a ‘charade’.

Armstrong argues that the Prime Minister continues to deliver “warm fuzzies” rather than make hard choices: “Ardern constructed an image of herself as some kind of eco-warrior in the front-line of the international crusade against global warming. It is a charade. Jacinda Ardern would like everyone to believe her administration is being bold in its framing of policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t.”

Within the Government itself, there is division about whether to characterise the campaign on climate change as an emergency or even a war. Last week the Associate Transport Minister, Julie Anne Genter, tweeted to say climate change was “our generation’s WWII”, which was an escalation of Ardern’s famous statement about it being “our generation’s nuclear-free moment”. The Prime Minister has since stated that she wouldn’t use the same comparison as Genter – see Jamie Ensor’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won’t compare climate change to World War II.

In terms of local government, most authorities appear to be passing emergency declarations – but not all. For example, earlier this month, Environment Southland voted eight-to-four against such a state of emergency. One councillor justified voting against the declaration, saying “The word emergency creates a knee-jerk reaction” and arguing it would create a “siege mentality” – see Blair Jackson’s Southland climate emergency motion voted down.

Similarly, the Thames-Coromandel Council voted six to three against the declaration in April, and now some residents are taking legal action to get this reversed – see Amy Williams’ Council taken to court over lack of action on climate change.

And some of the councils declaring emergencies are now being taken to task for subsequent actions that apparently contradict their gesture. For the best example of this, see Dave Armstrong’s How serious is Wellington about its ‘climate change emergency’? He points to continued attempts by the council to extend the airport runway, promotion of a convention centre as a destination for conferences, and the use of dirty diesel buses as going against the lofty proclamations of an emergency.

Similarly, when the Auckland council passed its climate change emergency motion the mayor had to miss the vote to attend the announcement that one of the world’s biggest retailer, Costco, was about to launch in the city. Simon Wilson asks: “Were the two events – the climate emergency declaration and the Costco deal – by any chance related? The timing might have been coincidental but each has far-reaching implications for the other” – see his in-depth and thoughtful examination of what the emergency declaration might mean for Auckland and its council: Costco vs the climate emergency: planning the future of Auckland (paywalled).

Finally, there’s an ongoing debate within the environmental movement about how to rally the masses to take climate change more seriously without producing a sense of doom. This was raised in a recent debate in which an environmentalist from an NGO published an article suggesting that the type of groups that they had worked for had downplayed the state of the crisis in order not to scare people – see: An apology from an environmentalist.

This got a response from Danyl Mclauchlan, who wrote: The real enemy: Why blaming NGOs for climate inaction is stupid. He explains: “Every piece of research about climate messaging always finds the same thing. If you tell people we’re doomed – which is the apologetic environmentalists message – they’re less likely to take action than if you give them agency and tell them there’s hope.”

Mclauchlan examines the problems of over-egging the crisis of climate change: “some people seem to like declaring that the world is ending and that we’re all about to die. This is a religious impulse not a scientific one, but some activists relish playing the role of end-of-time preacher condemning society to perdition for our consumerist sins.”

Instead of seeing the struggle against climate change as “a binary phenomenon” in which the world is either saved or doomed, he suggests that it’s more like a spectrum of possible outcomes, and therefore the actions taken by humanity will impact on how good or bad the outcomes are. In terms of current efforts by the Government, Mclauchlan – who is a former Green Party activist – is not so impressed: “I’m less optimistic about progress in national politics, and a little staggered by how little progress this government has made on climate issues.”

By Kristen Lyons of the University of Queensland

Climate change threatens Australia in many different ways, and can devastate rural and urban communities alike. For Torres Strait Islanders, it is a crisis that is washing away their homes, infrastructure and even cemeteries.

The failure to take action on this crisis has led a group of Torres Strait Islanders to lodge a climate change case with the United Nations Human Rights Committee against the Australian federal government.

It is the first time the Australian government has been taken to the UN for their failure to take action on climate change. And its the first time people living on a low lying island have taken action against any government.

READ MORE: Big week for climate action rallies and democracy

This case – and other parallel cases – demonstrate that climate change is “fundamentally a human rights issue”, with First Nations most vulnerable to the brunt of a changing climate.

The group of Torres Strait Islanders lodging this appeal argue that the Australian government has failed to take adequate action on climate change. They allege that the re-elected Coalition government has not only steered Australia off track in meeting globally agreed emissions reductions, but has set us on course for climate catastrophe.

In doing so, Torres Strait Islanders argue that the government has failed to uphold human rights obligations and violated their rights to culture, family and life.

The video Our islands, Our Home. Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples should be aware that this video may contain the images, voices and names of people who have died. This film was shot on location on the islands of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait) in Australia. Video: 350 Australia

This case is a show of defiance in the face of Australia’s years of political inertia and turmoil over climate change.

It is the first time people living on a low-lying island – acutely vulnerable in the face of rising sea levels – have brought action against a government. But it may also be a sign of things to come, as more small island nations face impending climate change threats.

Breaching multiple human rights obligations
Driving this case is an alliance of eight Torres Strait Islanders, represented by the Torres Strait land and sea council, Gur A Baradharaw Kod, along with a legal team from ClientEarth and 350.org. They argue that their way of life has come under immediate and irreversible threat.

On this basis, they accuse the Australian government of breaching multiple articles of the UN Human Rights Declaration, including the right to culture, the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home, and the right to life.

In the early 1990s, the Torres Strait Islands were at the centre of struggles to secure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights in Australia.

Securing these rights were made possible through the historic Mabo Decision, and these rights remain central to land and human rights debates today as Torres Strait Islanders’ land and seas are threatened by climate change.

Torres Straight islanders on the frontlines
Some Torres Strait Islands are less than one metre above sea level and are already affected by climate change.

Rising tides have delivered devastating effects for local communities, including flooding homes, land and cultural sites, with dire flooding in 2018 breaking a sea wall built to protect local communities.

Increasing sea temperatures have also affected marine environments, driving coral bleaching and ocean acidification, and disrupting habitat for dugong, salt water crocodiles, and multiple species of turtle.

In the same way settler colonial violence dispossessed First Nations people from their ancestral homelands, climate change presents a real threat of further forced removal of people from their land and seas, alongside destruction of places where deep cultural and spiritual meaning is derived.

Parallel threats across the Pacific
While the Torres Strait appeal to the UN is groundbreaking, the challenges facing Torres Strait Islanders are not unique.

Delegates at the Pacific Islands Forum in Fiji last week described climate change as the “single greatest threat” to the region, with sea level rise occurring up to four times the global average in some countries in the Pacific.

Climate change is already causing migration across parts of the Pacific, including relocation of families from the Carteret Islands to Bougainville with support from local grassroots organisation Tulele Peisa.

The Alliance of Small Island States, an intergovernmental organisation, has demanded that signatories to the Paris Agreement, including through the Green Climate Fund, recognise fundamental loss and damages communities are facing, and compensate those affected.

Growing wave of climate litigation
Across the Torres Strait, the Pacific, and other regions on the frontline of climate change, there are a diversity of responses in defence of land and seas. These are often grounded in local and Indigenous knowledge.

They show the resolve of First Nations and local communities, as captured in a message from the Pacific Climate Warriors:

We are not drowning. We are fighting.

There are parallel appeals to the Torres Strait Islanders’ case. Around the world, First Nations people are calling on the UN to hold national governments to account on human rights obligations, including in the context of mining and other developments that drive greenhouse gas emissions.

In Australia, Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners have submitted multiple appeals, including last year alleging government violations of six international human rights obligations in their effort to advance Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine.

There is an array of other climate litigation underway. This includes citizens suing their governments for failing to take action on climate, such as in the Netherlands, where a judge ordered the government to take hefty action to reduce national emissions.

Similarly, a group of 21 children in the United States are pursuing a lawsuit to demand the right to a safe climate.

Given the parlous state of climate politics in Australia, further litigation can be expected. The significance of the current appeal by a group of Torres Strait Islanders lies in its potential to lay bare the adequacy or otherwise of Australia’s response to climate change as a human rights issue.

First Nations people already have a moral authority in defending their human rights in the era of climate change. Over time, they and others, including children, will also test the grounds on which they might have the legal authority to do so.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

James Shaw rates his Zero Carbon Bill as seven or eight out of ten. And former Green Party co-leader, Russel Norman – now with Greenpeace – rates it zero out of ten. Either way, it’s clear that the new legislation isn’t really the crucial planet-saving bill that many were hoping for. And it certainly doesn’t seem to match up to Jacinda Ardern’s claim that her government regards the climate change crisis as her generation’s nuclear-free moment.

The press release from Greenpeace really was quite stunning in its scathing critique of the Government – see: Toothless Zero Carbon Bill has bark but no bite. To quote Norman: “What we’ve got here is a reasonably ambitious piece of legislation that’s then had the teeth ripped out of it. There’s bark, but there’s no bite.” And ultimately, the bill “is watered-down medicine that lacks the potency to cure the actual ailment we have”.

Norman went on to criticise more about the bill, on various broadcasters, even saying that it amounted to “virtue signalling” as it would do nothing to fight climate change, only make the Government look like they were taking action.

One of Norman’s main criticisms is that the bill establishes targets for emission reductions that are “unenforceable”. He told TVNZ’s Breakfast: “They’ve made it very clear – it’s like saying the speed limit is 50km/h, then the next line says that no one is allowed to enforce the speed limit. The next part is you can go get a declaration, it’s called, but a declaration has no weight – you can’t force the Government to do anything” – see: Climate change amendment bill ‘unenforceable, problematic’ – says Greenpeace New Zealand leader.

In this interview, Norman also calls on the public to pressure the Government to do more: “That people power element is essential and people shouldn’t think that somehow, this, the Government now has this under control… They’ve been calling it climate action – it’s not. Action will only happen now if people really mobilise and put pressure on politicians.”

Norman also says: “The Bill sends some good signals, until you get to the section at the end that negates everything else you’ve just read. This section states there is no remedy or relief for failure to meet the 2050 target, meaning there’s no legal compulsion for anyone to take any notice.” See also: Greenpeace Executive Director rates Zero Carbon Bill 0 of 10.

Others have also criticised the new legislation for setting up a Climate Commission that recommends necessary actions, but has no power.

According to Gordon Campbell the bill has “been reduced to a shadow of what the Greens originally envisaged”, and the lack of independence for the Commission is big problem: “Crucially, these are to be aspirational targets and recommendations only. The Commission lacks the policies to help achieve them, the powers to enforce them, the penalties to punish non-compliance, and the independence to over-ride the opposition from competing interests. Instead of reporting to Parliament, the Commission will report to the government of the day, who will be free to spin or muzzle its findings as it sees fit” – see: Token moves on climate change.

Blogger No Right Turn is also critical of the bill, and not only for the problem with the enforceability of the targets, but because setting the carbon neutral goal for 2050 is too unambitious in light of the crisis we are in: “2050 looked great as a target year a decade ago, but it may now be too late. I suspect that we’re going to have to increase our ambition and bring forward the target year for net-zero in the medium term” – see: Climate Change: The Zero Carbon Bill.

Other climate commentators have criticised the lack of ambition in the targets and processes involved. For example, Bronwyn Hayward, who was New Zealand’s lead author on last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, is reported as approving of the overall framework of the bill, but being unhappy about the new Commission reporting to the Government of the day rather than Parliament as a whole: “We all know that when you’re reporting to a government of the day your report can be, the text can be massaged, the release can be delayed which all gets in the way of what we actually need which is a fearless commission” – see Kate Gudsell’s Climate change plan: ‘Setting the bar so low’.

As to why the Government “had to set the bar so low”, Hayward suggests it was “in order to get everybody on board”. This has been a common theme in the commentary about the new bill. For example, although Gordon Campbell points the finger at New Zealand First for watering down the bill, he thinks that it’s a result of the consensus political process and “the path of moderation has ended up pleasing virtually no-one”.

Clearly, the Government and the Greens have put a high priority on “consensus” in drawing up the Zero Carbon Bill. James Shaw, in particular, wanted to put together a law that had as much buy-in as possible from political parties and relevant organisations.

For one of the best discussions of this prioritisation of consensus, see Toby Manhire’s interview with the Climate Change Minister, in which Shaw explains that he went to great lengths to consult and find consensus, saying “I’ve bent over backwards, and some people argue forwards too, to get them on board” – see: James Shaw and the zero hour.

This might have led to what Shaw acknowledges are “imperfections” in the legislation, but he justifies the approach like this: “It’s important because it reduces the chances that a future government will come in and biff it out. I mean, they could. But generally what happens is if a party votes for legislation when they’re in opposition they will uphold it when they’re in government.”

Furthermore, Shaw says that environmental groups backed this approach: “I’ve said to them: tell me what is more important. Do you want this thing to last for 30 years or do you want it to be perfect? And what they’ve said is that they need it to last for 30 years, because there’s no point in having a perfect piece of legislation that get thrown out three or six or nine years down the track. If you think about that 30-year target, it’s got to survive three or four governments in that time.”

In this interview, Shaw has high praise for the National Party for how they engaged in the process: “Look, they’ve operated in a way that has been unusually nonpartisan. They really have. We’ve been talking to them for just under a year. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to give us a good kicking, to really blow it up politically, or make hay out of it. They’ve chosen not to do so. So they have engaged in really good faith. There are certainly elements of the bill that are directly due to things they’ve proposed to us.”

And in terms of the controversial new target whereby methane gases will need to be reduced by ten per cent by 2030, Shaw suggests that this could still be moderated over the next few months if it helps get the National Party onboard. But there would inevitably be a trade-off: “you could have a lower methane target, but that means you’d have to have a steeper long-lived gases target – get to net zero in, say, 2040 or 2030”.

For another very good discussion of both the Greens’ attempt to find consensus, and also the possibility of bringing National into the multi-party consensus on the legislation, see Thomas Coughlan’s Zero Carbon Bill lives or dies on politics. According to Coughlan, the success or otherwise of this bill will be very telling for the New Zealand political system: “If the bill succeeds, it will vindicate the ability of our complicated, imperfect democracy to solve the great problems of our age… If it fails, it will prove the opposite: that our democracy isn’t up to handling the great problems of our age.”

The problem is, “When your starting point is bringing in as many cooks as possible, you’ll inevitably spoil the broth. The Government’s next big problem also has a British precedent [of Brexit], and that is the danger that in trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one”.

Now the pressure will be on National to support the bill. They want the Government to drop the detailed methane targets and instead leave the target-setting to the new Climate Commission. Commenting on this, political journalist Richard Harman says: “whether the Government would be prepared to accommodate that now would seem highly unlikely. And that could be a deal breaker” – see: Why is James Shaw apologising to Todd Muller over climate change?.

It therefore seems unlikely that a cross-party consensus will eventuate. But, in reality the Government appeared to give up on that some weeks ago, with Shaw apparently having to pull out of continued talks with National’s climate spokesperson, Todd Muller – which Shaw publicly apologised for last week. It seems that New Zealand First has played a significant role in recent changes to the process and substance of the bill. Although Harman reports that New Zealand First contacts “have been briefing journalists warning that they would have to agree to stricter methane targets than they would like because of the big win they had over capital gains tax”.

Given that consensus hasn’t worked out, and given that the Greens didn’t get what they wanted from the bill, Simon Wilson ponders who was to blame in his column, High stakes and the Greens’ game (paywalled). Wilson seems to think that it was Labour rather than New Zealand First who have stymied the bill being more progressive.

Wilson almost rules out New Zealand First and National as being responsible for ruining the consensus: “So why did that consensus fail? Blame the usual suspects, NZ First? Their rhetoric is all about their being the farmers’ friend, which makes them unlikely promoters of a methane target higher than farmers wanted. Was it National, slyly deciding to stay out of the deal, whatever it proposed? That also seems unlikely: Shaw and National’s climate change spokesperson Todd Muller have forged a close working relationship they both say is based on trust.”

Instead, it seems that Labour might be responsible: “So was it NZ First after all, playing dark and dirty with a Greens initiative because that’s what they always do? Or did Labour shaft the consensus? There’s a logic to that. Labour always needs issues that define it as being different from National, and consensus doesn’t matter if your opponents are going to accept your reforms later anyway.”

Finally, according to economist Rod Oram, this bill was always destined to be a problem because all political parties are hostage to conservative forces who don’t want to see real action on climate change. He says that the Zero Carbon Bill “is by far the most important Act our Parliament will ever pass” but that it isn’t the best legislation that could have been produced. Therefore, “time is very short to get a very direct message to all parties: a significant number of voters want a far more effective Climate Act than this Bill offers. If that means taking to the streets, let’s do it” – see: Time to shout for a better climate law.

ANALYSIS: By Megan Darby in London

A world-leading climate action plan or a betrayal of future generations? The UK’s net zero emissions plan certainly sorted the technocrats from the activists.

In a 277-page report, the Committee on Climate Change set out how Britain could stop changing the climate by 2050, calling for legislation to make it happen.

It is a level of ambition that would have stretched credibility five years ago. This week, it landed on fertile ground, softened up by technological advances and social momentum. Even the rightwing press was relatively receptive.

Indeed, the strongest criticism of the report came from Extinction Rebellion.

Riding high after Parliament declared a “climate emergency”, one of its key asks, the activist movement asked whether the 1-2 percent of GDP cost estimate – there to reassure middle Britain – was commensurate with the scale of the challenge.

Of course, endorsing higher ambition in principle is one thing. Applying it to tough policy and investment decisions like expanding Heathrow Airport or opening a new coal mine (decisions backed by both major parties) is another.

The UK has a projected shortfall against existing emissions targets from the mid-2020s.

On an international level, together with similar plans under development in France, it is a shot in the arm for the Paris Agreement.

As Britain bids to host key UN climate talks in 2020, it signals a seriousness about ratcheting up ambition over time.

This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz