A new carbon credit trading deal reached in the final hours of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, has been criticised as a free pass for countries to slack off on efforts to reduce emissions at home.

The deal, sealed at the annual UN climate talks nearly a decade after it was first put forward, will allow countries to buy carbon credits from others to bring down their own balance sheet.

New Zealand had set its targets under the Paris Agreement on the assumption that it would be able to meet some of it through international cooperation — “so getting this up and running is really important”, Compass Climate head Christina Hood said.

“It’s a tool, it’s neither good nor bad, but there’s going to have to be a lot of scrutiny on whether the government is taking a high-ambition, high-integrity path, or just trying to do the minimum possible.”

The plan had taken nine years to go through because countries determined to do it right had been holding out for a process with the right checks and balances in place, she said.

As it stood, countries would have to report yearly to the UN on their trading activities, but it was up to society and other countries to scrutinise behaviour.

Cindy Baxter, a COP veteran who has been at all but seven of the conferences, said it was in-line with the way Aotearoa New Zealand wanted to go about reducing its emissions.

‘We’re not alone, but . . .’
“We’re not alone, Switzerland is similar and Japan as well, but certainly New Zealand is aiming to meet by far the largest proportion of our climate target, [out of] anywhere in the OECD, through carbon trading.”

The new scheme fell under Article six of the Paris Agreement, and a statement from COP29 said it was expected to reduce the cost of implementing countries’ national climate plans by up to US$250 billion (NZ$428.5b) per year.

COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev said “climate change is a transnational challenge and Article six will enable transnational solutions. Because the atmosphere does not care where emissions savings are made.”

But Baxter said there was not enough transparency in the scheme, and plenty of loopholes. One of the issues was ensuring projects resulting in carbon credits continued to reduce emissions after the credits were traded.

“For example, if you’re trying to save some mangroves in Fiji, you give Fiji a whole bunch of money and say this is going to offset this amount of carbon, but what if those mangroves are destroyed by a drought, or a great big cyclone?”

Countries should be cutting emissions at home, she said.

“And that is something New Zealand is not very good at doing, has a really bad reputation for doing. We’ve either planted trees, or now we’re trying to throw money at offset.”

Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson said she, too, was concerned it would take the onus off big polluters to make reductions at home, calling it a “get out of jail free card”.

‘Lot of junk credits’
“Ultimately, we really need to see significant cuts in climate pollution,” she said. “And there’s no such thing as high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, and a history of a lot of junk credits being sold.”

Countries with the means to make meaningful change at home should not be relying on other countries stepping up, she said

The Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said there was strong potential in the proposal, but it was “imperative to ensure the framework is robust, and protects the rights of indigenous peoples at the same time as incentivising carbon sequestration”.

It should be a wake-up call to change New Zealand’s over-reliance on risky pine plantations and instead support permanent native afforestation, he said.

“This proposal emphasises how solving the climate crisis requires global collaboration on the most difficult issues. That requires building trust and confidence, by meeting commitments countries make to each other.

“Backing out of these by, for instance, restarting oil and gas exploration directly against the wishes of our Pacific relatives, is not the way do to that.”

Conference overall ‘disappointing and frustrating’
Baxter said it had been “very difficult being forced to have another COP in a petro-state”, where the host state did not have much to gain by making big progress.

“What that means is that there is not that impetus to bang heads together and get really strong agreement,” she said.

But the blame could not be placed entirely on the leadership.

“The COP process is set up to work if governments bring their A-games, and they don’t,” she said.

“People should be bringing their really strong new climate targets [and] very few are doing that.”

Another deal was clinched in overtime of the two-week conference, promising US$300 billion (NZ$514 billion) each year by 2035 for developing nations to tackle climate emissions.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Indonesia Art Movement has collaborated with the Monj Hen Wani Community and environmental advocates in Papua to organise the “Arumbay Tonotwiyat” — the Women’s Forest People’s Party.

The event took place beneath the lush canopy of Enggros village’s mangrove forest Abepura District, Jayapura City last weekend.

Arumbay Tonotwiyat was a multifaceted celebration that blended art, culture and environmental conservation.

This gathering was a tribute to nature and the preservation of cultural heritage.

It was also a commitment to fostering harmony between humanity and the natural world.

Rumah Bakau Jayapura, Kampung Dongeng Jayapura, Forum Indonesia Muda Jayapura, Sangga Uniyap, and representatives from Cenderawasih University and ISBI Tanah Papua, and Papua Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) supported the event.

The “forest party” engaged a wide range of participants, including children, teenagers, and adults.

Beach clean-up
The event started with a beach clean-up initiative at Cibery Beach, organised by Petronela.

This cleanup effort was a “demonstration of environmental love”, said the organisers.

It acknowledged the persistent issue of marine debris washing ashore during the rainy season.

Following the cleanup, participants were treated to a tour of Youtefa Bay, where they witnessed a performance by children from Tobati-Enggros village.

This performance depicted the story of a mangrove forest tainted by garbage and waste originating from Nafri Village, Hamadi Beach, and the Acai River.

Subsequently, the participants were guided to the Women’s Forest in Enggros, an area accessible only to women.

Here, women sought food sources to meet their household needs while also sharing their domestic concerns.

Women’s Forest ‘off-limits’
The Women’s Forest is off-limits to men and any breach of this custom incurs penalties, typically in the form of jewelry or other items.

Mama Ani — “Mother Ani” — explained that men were not permitted to enter the forest while women were foraging for food, as women in the forest swam naked.

Within the mangrove forest, women typically gathered clams, crabs, shrimps, and fish as sources of sustenance.

However, men can enter the forest in the absence of women, usually in search of dried mangrove wood for firewood.

Orgenes Meraudje, the former head of Enggros Village and a prominent community leader, said women also visited the Women’s Forest to share their domestic experiences.

However, these stories remained within the forest, not to be brought back home.

For the women of Enggros-Tobati beach, the forest holds sacred significance, and they foraged unclothed for their household necessities.

Protecting Women’s Forest
Yehuda Hamokwarong, a lecturer at Cenderawasih University who attended the event, stressed the importance of protecting the Women’s Forest.

“The forest served as an educational hub, imparting knowledge and survival skills to Enggros-Tobati women, encompassing practical skills, ethics, and morals,” she said.

“The Women’s Forest represented not only the lungs of the world but also a profound emblem of feminine identity.”

In addition to the Women’s Forest, there is a designated area called “para-para”, a sort of hall exclusive for men, and women were prohibited from entering.

Any woman entering this area would face customary fines.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Around the world, today – July 26 —  is commemorated as the International Day for the Conservation of the Mangrove Ecosystem.

In 2015, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) during its General Conference proclaimed the day, also known as the World Mangrove Day.

It was first commemorated in 2016.

Mangrove forest conservation is crucial for global strategies on climate change mitigation as it is one of the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world today.

According to the Department of Forestry, Fiji has more than 46,600 ha of mangrove forests which is approximately 4 percent of Fiji’s forest cover.

The ecosystem goods and services provided by mangroves include the provision of firewood, saltwater resistant building materials, traditional medicines and natural dyes.

Mangrove forests are productive fishing grounds and fulfil an important role as nurseries and habitat for a wide range of fish and invertebrate species which is crucial for food security and coastal livelihoods.

From masi to erosion defence
From the use of mangrove as a main ingredient for masi printing dyes to its role as a defence against soil erosion, mangroves are indeed plants with multiple benefits and their significance goes beyond just carbon storage.

However, despite the many benefits of the mangrove ecosystem, it continues to encounter challenges, including new infrastructure and development, pollution, and over-use.

In her Mangrove Day address, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay warned that mangroves were in danger.

“Mangroves are in danger — it has been estimated that more than three quarters of mangroves in the world are now threatened and with them all the aquatic and terrestrial organisms that depend on them,” she said.

“In the face of the climate emergency, we must go even further, for mangroves also serve as key carbon sinks that we cannot allow to disappear.

“Beyond protection and restoration, we also need global awareness. This means educating and alerting the public, not only in schools, but wherever possible.”

Around the Pacific, the project on the Management of Blue Carbon Ecosystems (MACBLUE project) focusing on conservation and management of mangrove ecosystems and seagrass meadows is being implemented in four countries: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

Close collaboration
“The project is implemented by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ Pacific) together with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the Pacific Community (SPC) as regional partners.

The project in close collaboration with the four governments will utilize remote sensing approaches to map the extent of seagrass and mangrove ecosystems, assess if the areas in the partner countries are increasing or decreasing, and model related carbon storage capacity and ecosystem services.

The resulting data will support government partners in their efforts to strategically develop and implement conservation, management, and rehabilitation efforts.

The integration of traditional use and ownership rights in national blue economy and ocean governance approaches is seen as a key priority.

MACBLUE Project director Raphael Linzatti said the implementation of the project would see support provided towards the four countries with mangrove conservation and management.

“The support will follow a demand-driven approach and tailored to address the needs and priorities of each partner country,” Linzatti said.

“The MACBLUE project will also allow for closer regional and international collaboration and building regional capacity through training activities and knowledge exchange, supporting long-term expertise within the region.”

The project will be implemented until December 2025 and is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection under its International Climate Initiative.

Joeli Bili works for the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ Pacific). The views expressed are the author’s alone.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Suva foreshore has been under “enormous” pressure from decades of destructive practices with little to no public awareness about the various afflictions, says prominent academic professor Vijay Naidu.

The problems have been exacerbated by no sustained public awareness campaign, absence of environmental issues in Pacific news media coverage and lack of leadership, Professor Naidu said.

Professor Naidu made the comment while delivering his keynote address at a two-day workshop this week organised by the University of the South Pacific’s journalism programme and the Earth Journalism Network (EJN).

The workshop looked at the causes and impacts of pollution in the Suva bay area and possible solutions.

“I have observed over 60 years massive changes to our foreshore including reclamation, destruction of mangrove forests, sewerage and solid waste, and the epidemic of plastic pollution,” he said.

“Fisheries in Suva Bay have been depleted enormously, and it is not safe to consume shell fish, or ‘kaikoso‘, collected here. Very sadly, there has hardly any systematic ‘fight back’!

“The public who use the water around the Suva Bay area for fishing have little or no idea about the state of the lagoon and what needs to be done to preserve such a wonderful resource for the people of Suva.

‘Need a penicillin injection’
“Some years ago, USP reported that if you fell in the waters of Suva harbour and Laucala Bay, you’d need a penicillin injection.”

The former head of the University of the South Pacific’s School of Government, Development and International Affairs was speaking as the chief guest at an environmental journalism workshop.

Professor Naidu said there was a need for greater collaboration between journalists and scientists to bring attention to these issues and to “help us begin the fightback”.

He commended the EJN for providing crucial support to Pacific journalists in the form of grants and training for stronger environmental reporting.

“The workshop is a great example of how scientists and journalists can work together for the greater good,” Professor Naidu said.

Such partnerships should make the public become more aware of the issues regarding the marine environment, and lead to stronger calls for change, Professor Naidu said.

Sheldon Chanel is the training editor for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication. USP Journalism works in partnership with the Pacific Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz