Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.

More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the campaign organisation, 350.org.

A declaration of alliance between Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, the Pacific, and Australia ahead of COP30 has also been announced.

The “strongly worded letter” was handed to COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and Brazil’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Marina Silva who attended the Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), or Free Land Camp, in Brasília.

“We, climate and social justice organisations from around the world, urgently demand that COP30 renews the global commitment and supports implementation for the just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the letter states.

“This must ensure that solutions progressively meet the needs of Indigenous, Black, marginalised and vulnerable populations and accelerate the expansion of renewables in a way that ensures the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations pay their fair share, does not harm nature, increase deforestation by burning biomass, while upholding economic, social, and gender justice.”

‘No room for new coal mines’
It adds: “The science is unequivocal: there is no room for new coal mines or oil and gas fields if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — especially in critical ecosystems like the Amazon, where COP30 will be hosted.

“Tripling renewables by 2030 is essential, but without a managed and rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, it won’t be enough.”

350.org’s Fiji community organiser, George Nacewa, said it was now up to the Brazil COP Presidency if they would act “or lock us into climate catastrophe”.

“This is a critical time for our people — the age of deliberation is long past,” Nacewa said on behalf of the group that call themselves “Pacific Climate Warriors”.

“We need this COP to be the one that spearheads the Just Energy Transition from words to action.”

COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last week, on 26 February 2025, President Prabowo Subianto officially launched Indonesia’s first bullion banks, marking a significant shift in the country’s approach to gold and precious metal management.

This initiative aims to strengthen Indonesia’s control over its gold reserves, improve financial stability, and reduce reliance on foreign institutions for gold transactions.

Bullion banks specialise in buying, selling, storing, and trading gold and other precious metals. They allow both the government and private sector to manage gold-related financial transactions, including hedging, lending, and investment in the global gold market.

Although bullion banks focus on gold, this move signals a broader trend of Indonesia tightening control over its natural resources. This could have a significant impact on West Papua’s coal industry.

With the government already enforcing benchmark coal prices (HBA) starting this month, the success of bullion banks could pave the way for a similar centralised system for coal and other minerals.

Indonesia also may apply similar regulations to other strategic resources, including coal, nickel, and copper. This could mean tighter government control over mining in West Papua.

If Indonesia expands national control over mining, it could lead to increased exploitation in resource-rich regions like West Papua, raising concerns about land rights, deforestation, and indigenous displacement.

Indonesia joined BRICS earlier this year and is now focusing on strengthening economic ties with other BRICS countries.

In the mining sector, Indonesia is using its membership to increase exports, particularly to key markets such as China and India. These countries are large consumers of coal and mineral resources, providing an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its export market and attract foreign direct investment in resource extraction.

India eyes coal in West Papua
India has shown interest in tapping into the coal reserves of the West Papua region, aiming to diversify its energy sources and secure coal supplies for its growing energy needs.

This initiative involves potential collaboration between the Indian government and Indonesian authorities to explore and develop previously unexploited coal deposits in West Papuan Indigenous lands.

However, the details of such projects are still under negotiation, with discussions focusing on the terms of investment and operational control.

Notably, India has sought special privileges, including no-bid contracts, in exchange for financing geological surveys — a proposition that raises concerns about compliance with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

The prospect of coal mining in West Papua has drawn mixed reactions. While the Indonesian government is keen to attract foreign investment to boost economic development in its easternmost provinces, local communities and environmental groups express apprehension.

The primary concerns revolve around potential environmental degradation, disruption of local ecosystems, and the displacement of indigenous populations.

Moreover, there is scepticism about whether the economic benefits from such projects would trickle down to local communities or primarily serve external interests.

Navigating ethical, legal issues
As India seeks to secure energy resources to meet its domestic demands, it must navigate the ethical and legal implications of its investments abroad. Simultaneously, Indonesia faces the challenge of balancing economic development with environmental preservation and the rights of its indigenous populations.

While foreign investment in Indonesia’s mining sector is welcome, there are strict regulations in place to protect national interests.

In particular, foreign mining companies must sell at least 51 percent of their shares to Indonesian stakeholders within 10 years of starting production. This policy is designed to ensure that Indonesia retains greater control over its natural resources, while still allowing international investors to participate in the growth of the industry.

India is reportedly interested in mining coal in West Papua to diversify its fuel sources.

Indonesia’s energy ministry is hoping for economic benefits and a potential boost to the local steel industry. But environmentalists and social activists are sounding the alarm about the potential negative impacts of new mining operations.

During project discussions, India has shown an interest in securing special privileges, such as no-bid contracts, which could conflict with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

Implications for West Papua
Indonesia, a country with a population of nearly 300 million, aims to industrialise. By joining BRICS (primarily Brasil, Russia, India, and China), it hopes to unlock new growth opportunities.

However, this path to industrialisation comes at a significant cost. It will continue to profoundly affect people’s lives and lead to environmental degradation, destroying wildlife and natural habitats.

These challenges echo the changes that began with the Industrial Revolution in England, where coal-powered advances drastically reshaped human life and the natural world.

West Papua has experienced a significant decline in its indigenous population due to Indonesia’s transmigration policy. This policy involves relocating large numbers of Muslim Indonesians to areas where Christian Papuans are the majority.

These newcomers settle on vast tracts of indigenous Papuan land. Military operations also continue.

One of the major problems resulting from these developments is the spread of torture, abuse, disease, and death, which, if not addressed soon, will reduce the Papuans to numbers too small to fight and reclaim their land.

Mining of any kind in West Papua is closely linked to, and in fact, is the main cause of, the dire situation in West Papua.

Large-scale exploitation
Since the late 1900s, the area’s rich coal and mineral resources have attracted both foreign and local investors. Large international companies, particularly from Western countries, have partnered with the Indonesian government in large-scale mining operations.

While the exploitation of West Papua’s resources has boosted Indonesia’s economy, it has also caused significant environmental damage and disruption to indigenous Papuan communities.

Mining has damaged local ecosystems, polluted water sources and reduced biodiversity. Indigenous Papuans have been displaced from their ancestral lands, leading to economic hardship and cultural erosion.

Although the government has tried to promote sustainable mining practices, the benefits have largely bypassed local communities. Most of the revenue from mining goes to Jakarta and large corporations, with minimal reinvestment in local infrastructure, health and education.

For more than 63 years, West Papua has faced exploitation and abuse similar to that which occurred when British law considered Australia to be terra nullius — “land that belongs to no one.” This legal fiction allowed the British to disregard the existence of indigenous people as the rightful owners and custodians of the land.

Similarly, West Papua has been treated as if it were empty, with indigenous communities portrayed in degrading ways to justify taking their land and clearing it for settlers.

Indonesia’s collective view of West Papua as a wild, uninhabited frontier has allowed settlers and colonial authorities to freely exploit the region’s rich resources.

Plundering with impunity
This is why almost anyone hungry for West Papua’s riches goes there and plunders with impunity. They cut down millions of trees, mine minerals, hunt rare animals and collect precious resources such as gold.

These activities are carried out under the control of the military or by bribing and intimidating local landowners.

The Indonesian government’s decision to grant mining licences to universities and religious groups will add more headaches for Papuans. It simply means that more entities have been given licences to exploit its resources — driving West Papuans toward extinction and destroying their ancestral homeland.

An example is the PT Megapura Prima Industri, an Indonesian coal mining company operating in Sorong on the western tip of West Papua. According to the local news media Jubi, the company has already violated rules and regulations designed to protect local Papuans and the environment.

Allowing India to enter West Papua, will have unprecedented and disastrous consequences for West Papua, including environmental degradation, displacement of indigenous communities, and human rights abuses.

As the BRICS nations continue to expand their economic footprint, Indonesia’s evolving mining landscape is likely to become a focal point of international investment discourse in the coming years.

Natural resources ultimate target
This means that West Papua’s vast natural resources will be the ultimate target and will continue to be a geopolitical pawn between superpowers, while indigenous Papuans remain marginalised and excluded from decision-making processes in their own land.

Regardless of policy changes on resource extraction, human rights, education, health, or any other facet, “Indonesia cannot and will not save West Papua” because “Indonesia’s presence in the sovereign territory of West Papua is the primary cause of the genocide of Papuans and the destruction of their homeland”.

As long as West Papua remains Indonesia’s frontier settler colony, backed by an intensive military presence, the entire Indonesian enterprise in West Papua effectively condemns both the Papuan people and their fragile ecosystem to a catastrophic fate, one that can only be avoided through a process of decolonisation and self-determination.

Restoring West Papua’s sovereignty, arbitrarily taken by Indonesia, is the best solution so that indigenous Papuans can engage with their world on their own terms, using the rich resources they have, and determining their own future and development pathway.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tuvalu’s Transport, Energy, and Communications Minister Simon Kofe has expressed doubt about Australia’s reliability in addressing the climate crisis.

Kofe was reacting to the latest report by report by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, which found that Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom are responsible for more than 60 percent of emissions generated from extraction of fossil fuels across Commonwealth countries since 1990.

Kofe told RNZ Pacific that the report proves that Australia has essentially undermined its own climate credibility.

He said that there is a sense of responsibility on Tuvalu, being at the forefront of the impacts of climate change, to continue to advocate for stronger climate action and to talk to its partners.

“When the climate crisis really hits these countries, I think that might really get their attention. But that might actually be too late when countries actually begin to take this issue seriously,” he said.

He noted that Australia approved the extension of three more coal mines last month, which demonstrates that “there’s a lot of work to be done”.

‘Shoots their credibility’
“I think [that] kind of shoots their own credibility in the in the climate space.”

While Pacific leaders have endorsed Australia’s bid to host the United Nations climate change conference, or COP31, in 2026, Kofe said that if Australia really wanted to take leadership on the climate front, then they needed to show it in their actions.

“They are in control of their own policies and decisions. All we can do is continue to talk to them and put pressure on them,” he said.

“We just have to keep pressuring our partner, Australia, to do the right thing.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The chart above shows Aotearoa New Zealand’s exports and imports of coal. First, note that the emphasis is on timing, not absolute amounts; Imports have a different scale to Exports. Essentially, imports have been around 10% of exports.

It’s also important to note that most Aotearoan coal is exported, while coal used to generate electricity at the Huntly power station is mainly imported. These are two different grades of coal. So it is to be not unexpected that coal imports will have been high at the same times that coal exports also have been high.

And it’s important to note that these data are for values of coal, not volumes. Values will be affected by fluctuations in world coal prices and by fluctuations in the $NZ exchange rate. (Increases in coal exports from 2000 to 2002 will have reflected the historically low exchange rate then.)

Coal exports actually increased after the November 2010 Pike River explosion; that coalfield was still in development in 2010.

Generally, from 2005 to 2012 the export expansion reflected the world market; noting dips for the 2008 global financial crisis, with a subsequent export of stockpiled coal in 2009. During that coal boom period, more than half New Zealand’s coal exports were to India. There was a resurgence of coal exports to India at the end of the 2010s’ decade.

The lull in 2020/21 reflected to Covid19 crisis. Again, we see an exporting of stockpiles after the crisis eased. In 2023 coal exports plummeted, probably a mix of falling world demand as well as falling New Zealand supply. This is a good sign for global transitioning away from coal, though China’s domestic production and consumption of coal will be rising as it transitions from petrol and diesel cars to electric cars. China will be happy to be using fewer imported fossil fuels.

On the import side, New Zealand’s demand for coal from 2003 to 2020 seems to have reflected the global trend, and it will have reflected a lack of growth in renewable energy generation during the later years of the Clark-led Labour-led government. It was under National that the big fall in coal imports took place.

Coal consumption in New Zealand stabilised in the mid-2010s, but resurged again in 2018, again under a Labour-led government; although, to be fair, 2018 and 2019 mainly reflect economic growth rather than the new government’s priorities.

Coal consumption at Huntly in recent years also reflects drought, meaning less hydro-generation of electricity. There is likely to be a lull in coal imports over the next few months, given that the hydro lakes are full, and the El Niño weather forecast is for a strong contribution from wind generation.

My sense is that increased use of electric vehicles – and increased charging capacity – will lead to another temporary resurgence in coal imports. The 2023 quasi-recession, engineered by the Reserve Bank, may however lead to some offsetting reductions in energy demand. My guess, though, is that there will be a short-lived consumption boom in Aotearoa in 2024 and 2025, as high interest rates pull in hot-money from overseas, holding up the $NZ exchange rate, and leading to a further ‘blow-out’ in New Zealand’s current account deficit; a 30.6 billion dollar annual deficit (7.6% of GDP), slightly less than the record high of nearly 9% of GDP earlier this year.

I look forward to hearing about the new government’s plans for expanded renewable electricity generation, and hope that these plans will not mean the loss of wild rivers such as the Mokihinui. Time will tell; soon, in 2024. This government needs ‘runs on the board’ – outcomes, not just proposals – if it is to survive beyond 2026.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

After a series of tense huddles, more than 24 hours into overtime, the gavel went down on a climate deal in Glasgow, Scotland, last night.

The Glasgow Climate Pact refers to coal for the first time in the UN process. It asks countries to come back with stronger climate plans in 2022.

And it finalises the most contentious elements of the Paris Agreement rulebook, six years after the landmark deal was done.

What it doesn’t do is meet calls for climate reparations, to the dismay of developing countries, especially in the Pacific.

A proposal for a finance facility to help victims of the climate crisis was quashed by the US and other rich nations, as was a call to earmark a share of carbon trading revenues to fund adaptation.

Addressing the plenary before the text was adopted, US Climate Envoy John Kerry said: “There is some discomfort. Well, if it’s a good negotiation, all the parties are uncomfortable. This has been a good negotiation.”

For China, India and big emerging economies, the compromise was accepting language around 1.5C, coal and fossil fuel subsidies despite concerns that such restrictions could inhibit their development — and a grievance against developed countries taking up most of the carbon budget.

India forces concession
India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav forced a concession at the last minute, getting a reference to the “phase-out” of coal power changed to “phase-down”.

Tina Stege, of the Marshall Islands, told the plenary of her “profound disappointment” about the change.

“We accept this change with the greatest reluctance. We do so only because they are critical elements in this package that people in my country need as a lifeline for their future,” she said.

COP26 president Alok Sharma said: “I apologise for the way this has unfolded and I am deeply sorry.”

Pausing to fight back tears, he continued, to applause from the crowd, “I think it is vital that we protect this package” before, hearing no objections, he banged down the gavel.

Vulnerable countries also expressed dismay at the incremental progress on scaling up funding to respond to the impacts of climate change. They had to make do with a body to provide technical assistance and a “dialogue” on loss and damage.

Before the plenary started on Saturday afternoon Kerry and veteran US climate lawyer Sue Biniaz roamed the meeting hall. Their longest and most animated discussions were in a huddle with Ahmadou Sebory Toure, the lead negotiator for the G77+China group of developing countries.

‘Betrayal of people, planet’: World reacts to COP26 climate pact https://t.co/WRPMkN8gbp

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) November 14, 2021

Emerging empty handed
Yet Toure appeared to emerge empty handed. A source in the G77 said the African group had threatened to reject the package, but small islands talked them down.

Speaking in the meeting, while Biniaz pored over texts, Gabon’s Environment Minister Lee White said one of Africa’s red lines had “been rubbed out with no compromise”.

“The [African Group] is quite unhappy,” the source said. “Aosis [group of small island states] managed to convince the rest of the blocs to revisit the issue in Egypt. For now, they believe this is the best deal we can have out of COP.”

After the meeting, Kerry strode over to Toure and they exchanged a fistbump before walking off talking with Kerry’s arm around Toure’s shoulder.

The UK presidency’s stated aim for the conference was “to keep 1.5C alive”, referring to the most ambitious global warming limit in the Paris Agreement.

Announcements last week including India aiming for net zero by 2070 and a widespread agreement to reduce methane emissions led the traditionally cautious International Energy Agency to say that global warming could be held to 1.8C.

Climate Tracker caution
Others urged caution. Climate Action Tracker projected current policies put the world on a path to 2.7C warming and strengthened emissions targets for this decade could bend the curve to 2.4C.

More optimistic assessments rely on long term — and therefore uncertain — targets.

The carbon trading rules agreed in Glasgow, while stricter than some parties wanted, risk diluting ambition, critics warned.

“We have much to do to stop companies and countries gaming the system,” said Rachel Kyte, co-chair of an initiative to boost the integrity of voluntary carbon markets. “We have no room or time for markets like buckets of water, with 100 tiny holes.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A suicide bombing near Kabul airport on Thursday added another dimension to the chaos in Afghanistan as Western forces rush to complete their evacuation.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the blasts that killed at least 175 people, including 13 US soldiers, challenging the Taliban’s hold on the capital.

Either group is bad news for Afghan women and girls, and anyone with links to the former government or exiting armies.

Taliban officials are on a charm offensive in international media, with one suggesting to Newsweek the group could contribute to fighting climate change if formally recognised by other governments.

Don’t expect the Taliban to consign coal to history any time soon, though. The militant group gets a surprisingly large share of its revenue from mining — more than from the opium trade — and could scale up coal exports to pay salaries as it seeks to govern.

Afghan people could certainly use support to cope with the impacts of climate change. The UN estimates more than 10 million are at risk of hunger due to the interplay of conflict and drought.

Water scarcity
Water scarcity has compounded instability in the country for decades, arguably helping the Taliban to recruit desperate farmers.

There was not enough investment in irrigation and water management during periods of relative peace.

One adaptation tactic was to switch crops from thirsty wheat to drought-resistant opium poppies — but that brought its own problems.

The question for the international community is: who gets to represent Afghans’ climate interests?

If the Taliban is serious about climate engagement as a route to legitimacy, Cop26 will be an early test.

Megan Darby is editor of Climate Change News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister has condemned the Australian Prime Minister’s conduct at last week’s Pacific Islands Forum, calling Scott Morrison’s attitude “unfortunate” and “neo-colonial,” and questioning Australia’s future in the 18-member body.

In an interview with RNZ on Sunday, Enele Sopoaga also threatened to pull Tuvaluan labour from Australia’s seasonal worker programme in light of comments by Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, who was recorded saying people from Pacific countries threatened by climate change – like Tuvalu – would survive because “many of their workers come here and pick our fruit”.

Australia’s High Commissioner to Tuvalu would be summoned to explain the comments on Monday, Sopoaga said, and he would cancel the programme if he wasn’t satisfied. He would also encourage the leaders of the other Pacific countries – including Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga – to do the same.

READ MORE: ‘Bullying’ Australia disregards Pacific over climate crisis, says 350 Pacific

“I thought the Australian labour scheme was determined on mutual respect, that Australia was also benefiting,” said Sopoaga. “We are not crawling below that. If that’s the view of the government, then I would have no hesitation in pulling back the Tuvaluan people as from tomorrow.”

“I don’t think the Tuvaluan people are paupers to come crawling under that type of very abusive and offensive language,” he said. “If New Zealand is thinking the same way, we’ll have no other option but to do that [there too].”

McCormack’s comments came after the region’s leaders – including Sopoaga, Morrison and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – met for a marathon 12 hours on Tuvalu’s main island, Funafuti, on Thursday with Australia, the region’s largest economy and emitter, pitted against the Pacific.

The Pacific countries wanted strict commitments to cutting down greenhouse gas emissions, a phase out of coal power stations, support in replenishing the UN’s Green Climate Fund and a strong and united communique that they could take to international climate talks at the UN next month.

But Australia refused to budge on certain red lines, which included insisting on the removal of mentions of coal, a commitment to limit global warming to under 1.5C and drafting a plan for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

It succeeded. Late on Thursday night, a watered-down communique was released, although some are now questioning at what cost.

Australia is meant to be in the midst of a so-called “step-up” in the Pacific, and Morrison came to the meeting stressing the vuvale (family links) between Australia and the region as Canberra gets increasingly jittery about China’s presence.

Pacific trip-up
But if the reaction from the region’s leaders in the past few days has been anything to go by, the step-up has tripped and tumbled some way down the stairs.

Vanuatu’s foreign minister, Ralph Regenvanu, described the meeting as “tense” and “very frank,” revealing that the talks almost broke down twice.

Marshall Islands Foreign Minister David Paul tweeted “Stepping-up means showing up. It means showing you are willing to play your own part in fighting the greatest threat to the Pacific and to the world.” That was later followed by: “The Pacific’s survival – and the Australian fruit industry – requires leadership on the greatest threat to our region and to the world.”

But the most cutting criticism was from Fiji’s Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama, who said on Saturday that Australia had taken a “big step backwards” in its relationship with the Pacific. That came after he told The Guardian on Friday that Morrison’s approach during Thursday’s meeting was “very insulting and condescending.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia’s coal policy and its use of carry over credits to fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement have come under fire and been major points of contention at this year’s 50th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Meeting in Funafuti, Tuvalu.

READ MORE: ‘We should have done more for our people’ – Forum climate change fight leaves bitter taste

Both declarations strongly call for Australia to commit to urgent climate action, as the effects of the climate crisis become more apparent on a daily basis.

In response to Pacific Island states, which have considered Australia as the “big brother”, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced that it will provide A$500m over five years in climate resilience and adaptation funding for the region.

“Australia is supposed to be an ally for the Pacific, and their inaction in a time of dire need is appalling,” said Fenton Lutunatabua, 350 Pacific managing director.

“This funding support is being marketed as a solution, but in fact is a diversion of funding that was already allocated for supporting the Pacific Island states.”

Australia’s aid ploy
Australia’s ploy to use aid as a means of negotiating in the Pacific is failing, with Pacific Island leaders literally stating that they do not care about the money anymore.

The Prime Minister of Tuvalu and chair of the Pacific Islands Forum said during the PIF meeting on Tuesday that channeling aid money to the Pacific was in no way a compromise to open new coalmines and continue with unregulated emissions.

“Pacific Island leaders have stepped up their game significantly because for us it is a matter of survival and they have committed to holding industrialised, coal-producing nations to account,” said Patricia Mallam, senior communications specialist for the Pacific.

“The appalling fact in all this is that Australia is granted a seat at the same PIF meeting table as nations literally struggling to protect the lives and cultural integrity of their people.

“Australia bullies its way through negotiations, attempting to mask the gravity of the climate crisis on paper – when the visible proof in our lives shows otherwise.”

Pacific Island leaders had paved the way for polluting countries to take more concrete steps towards recognising that the climate crisis was real, she said.

The fact that Australia continued to disregard the science that proved this, and carried on with allowing the coal industry to prosper was “a slap in the face of its family in the Pacific”.

“We share the same part of the planet, in close proximity to each other, so taking action to save the Pacific pretty much means saving your own people. A person of authority in a position to make a difference, who compromises the wellbeing of their very own people is not worthy of being considered a leader,” added Mallam.

Key examples of leadership across the Pacific include:

• The Marshall Islands becoming thefirst country in the world to update and strengthen its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement.
• The Republic of Fiji holding the presidency of COP23 through 2017-2018 and having recently announced that it will introduce aClimate Change Act, one of the world’s most ambitious legislative programmes which includes tighter restrictions on the use of plastics, a framework for Fiji to reduce its emissions to net-zero by 2050, the introduction of a carbon credits scheme and the establishment of procedures for the relocation of communities at risk from the adverse effects of the climate crisis.
• Tokelau announcing the launch of its Fakaofo Wind Turbine Project, situated on the southernmost island of Tokelau. The viability of this innovation is being tested for urgent climate action.
• More climate stories
• More Forum stories

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

Australia looks to have succeeded in watering down language on climate change in the communiqué of today’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ summit in Tuvalu.

Small Pacific states sought firm commitments from developed countries to stop global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees this century.

Pacific Islands leaders also wanted a commitment towards an end to the use of coal.

READ MORE: Relocation for ‘sinking islands’ cheaper but ‘we’re staying’, vows Tuvalu PM

But it is understood references to a climate crisis have been removed, and Forum members are instead being asked to “reflect on” the UN Secretary-General’s call to phase out coal.

While fishing at dawn this morning, Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga said the situation would most likely be referred to as a “climate reality”.

Leaders of the Forum’s 18 states and territories are currently in a retreat debating what the final communiqué will be.

It will be tonight before a final version is released.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

French television journalist Hugo Clément speaking out about the arrest in Queensland on Monday. Video: Euronews

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The Queensland Police Service (QPS) has dropped trespass charges against a prominent French journalist and his film crew who were arrested while filming anti-Adani protesters earlier this week, reports ABC News.

France 2 reporter Hugo Clément – a high-profile environmental and climate change journalist –  his crew and several protesters were arrested on the railway line at the entrance to Adani’s Abbot Point coal-loading facility on Monday.

In a statement, QPS said it had “reviewed the circumstances surrounding the arrests of five people at a port facility near Bowen on Monday”.

READ MORE: RSF demands Australian police drop charges against French TV crew

“The decision to withdraw charges follows careful consideration of the circumstances, including QPS policies and procedures,” the statement said.

“As a result, the QPS will withdraw all charges against a 28-year-old Victorian man and four male French nationals — aged 29, 30, 32 and 39 — when the matters are brought before Bowen Magistrates Court again on July 30.”

Charges will still proceed against two Victorian women, aged 20 and 22, who took part in the protest.

Shortly after being released from Bowen police station on Monday, Clément expressed his surprise at being arrested.

‘Difficult to understand’
“It’s just difficult to understand why police decided to do that because we are not a danger, we did not block the railway, we are just filming, reporting what is going on here,” he said.

QPS said representatives of all five people had been notified of the decision and that it would make no further comment on the matter as it remained before the courts.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) CEO Paul Murphy said it was “wonderful news”.

Murphy said the union had written to the Premier, Attorney-General and Police Commissioner asking for the charges to be dropped.

“It was such a bad look for Australia and it is great news that common sense has prevailed,” Murphy said.

“It seems extraordinary they were not given the opportunity to be informed that they were on private land and given the opportunity to move on.

“They were simply arrested and then had these extraordinary bail conditions imposed on them, it was completely wrong.”

He said he could not recall a previous occasion when journalists had been charged while covering a protest.

“But coming from the back of the recent AFP raids on the ABC and a News Corporation journalist, it certainly is a worrying time in Australia for press freedom,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on the Australian authorities to drop all charges against four French TV journalists who – in what RSF called an “unacceptable attack on investigative journalism” – were arrested yesterday while filming environmentalists protesting at a coal terminal near the Great Barrier Reef in northeastern Australia.

The four journalists, who work for the French public TV channel France 2, were held for seven hours after being arrested about 7am while filming two women protesters who had chained themselves to the rail line leading to the Abbot Point deep-water coal port in north Queensland.

The journalists – reporter Hugo Clément, producer Guillaume Durand and cameramen Clément Brelet and Victor Peressentchensky – some of whom were handcuffed at the time of their arrest, were charged with “trespassing” on the rail line although, unlike the protesters themselves, they were not on the line.

READ MORE: Earlier Pacific Media Watch report

“The France 2 journalists were doing their job in a completely legal manner in a public space, so their arrest on this spurious charge was the kind of arbitrary procedure more typical of an authoritarian regime,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“We call on the Queensland authorities to immediately drop these absurd charges against the four journalists. Recent repeated press freedom violations in Australia raise questions about respect for the rule of law.

“If nothing changes, Australia has every chance of falling several places in RSF’s next Press Freedom Index.”

Reporting ban
The France 2 journalists were released on bail at around 2pm pending a hearing scheduled for September 3.

The release order specifies that they are banned from being within 100m of any property owned by the Adani Group, the Indian transnational that owns the rail line and coal terminal, and within 20 km of the Adani Group’s Carmichael coal mine, 500km south of Abbot Point.

“The link between our arrest and this ban is the Adani Group, which runs the mine,” Clément told RSF.

“The police went straight for us this morning. They clearly didn’t want us filming the protest. And now we are banned from covering this story, which says a lot about the influence that big private-sector corporations wield.”

Adani launched the Carmichael mine in 2014 with the support of the federal and Queensland governments with the aim of turning it into the world’s biggest coal mine.

It would take a heavy environmental toll because it includes the construction of a channel leading to Abbot Point that would destroy part of the Great Barrier Reef.

The French crew was covering the story for “Sur le Front”, a France 2 series on environmental issues.

Major violations
Press freedom in Australian has been badly undermined in recent years by the concentration of private media ownership in ever fewer hands, impacting pluralism.

It was dealt two major blows last month in the form of federal police raids on the home of a political journalist in Canberra and on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s headquarters in Sydney, in unrelated cases.

And it was reported earlier this month that the federal police had demanded that the Australian airline Qantas surrender its records of an ABC journalist’s travel arrangements as part of its investigation into a leak.

Australia is ranked 21st out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index, two places lower than in 2018.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

As it seeks to diversify its sources of fuel, India is looking to get in on the ground floor of coal mining in previously unexploited deposits in Indonesian-ruled Papua.

In exchange for technical support and financing for geological surveys, officials say India is pushing for special privileges, including no-bid contracts on any resulting concessions  a prospect that could run foul of Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

The details of an Indian mining project in Papua are still being negotiated, but Indonesia’s energy ministry welcomes the prospect as part of a greater drive to explore energy resources in the country’s easternmost provinces.

READ MORE: Strategic partnership between India and Indonesia

In future, the ministry hopes mining for coking coal will support the domestic steel industry, while also bringing economic benefits to locals.

Rights activists, however, fear the launch of a new mining industry could deepen tensions in a region where existing extractive projects have damaged the environment and inflamed a long-running armed conflict.

Indonesia’s new coal frontier
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Jakarta last month, joint efforts to extract and process Indonesia’s fossil fuels, including coal, were on the agenda.

India’s interest in investing in a new coking coal mining concession in Papua can be traced to 2017, when officials from the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) and Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), both Indian government institutes, met with Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in Jakarta.

The bilateral plan was announced by then-ministry spokesman Sujatmiko after the first India Indonesia Energy Forum held in Jakarta in April 2017. “The focus is on new territories in Papua,” he said.

To follow up, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources sent a team to India in early May. The current energy ministry spokesman, Agung Pribadi, who was part of the delegation, told Mongabay that officials from state-owned energy giant Pertamina, major coal miner PT Adaro Energy, and state-owned electricity firm PLN also joined the meeting.

The Indonesian team presented research outlining the potential for mining high-caloric content coal in West Papua province, and lower-caloric coal in Papua province.

According to the team’s report, only 9.3 million tons of reserves have so far been identified. By contrast, Indonesia as a whole expects to export 371 million tons of coal this year. However, the true extent of coal deposits could be larger, said Rita Susilawati, who prepared the report presented during the meeting and is head of coal at the ministry’s Mineral, Coal and Geothermal Resources Centre. “Some areas in Papua are hard to reach due to the lack of infrastructure. We were unable to continue the research,” she explained.

During the visit, Indian and Indonesian officials discussed conducting a geological survey in Papua, Agung said. India would finance the survey using its national budget. With Indonesian President Joko Widodo prioritising infrastructure investment, the energy ministry has few resources to conduct such surveys.

Expected privileges
Indonesia also anticipates benefiting and learning from India’s experience in processing coking coal.

In exchange, India expected privileges from the Indonesian government, including the right to secure the project without a bidding process, Agung said.

Indonesia denied the request, and the talks were put on hold. Approving it would have been too risky, Agung said, since the bidding process is regulated in Indonesia. “We recommend they follow the bidding process or cooperate with a state-owned enterprise,” Agung said.

India’s ministry of coal did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Energy and mining law expert Bisman Bakhtiar said there was still a chance India could get the rights to develop any resulting coal concessions without having to go through an open bidding process. “It can proceed under the G-to-G (government-to-government) scheme by signing a bilateral agreement,” he said.

This form of agreement would supersede the ministerial regulations requiring competitive bidding, Bisman explained, although he said any such agreements should emphasise that any projects must be carried out according to local laws.

There is precedent in Indonesia for G-to-G schemes bypassing the open bidding process, Bisman said. For example, multiple projects have been carried out on the basis of cooperation agreements with the World Bank and Australia. In another instance, Indonesian media mogul Surya Paloh imported crude oil from Angola via a bilateral cooperation agreement with Angola’s state-owned oil company Sonangol.

Draft law
A draft law currently being discussed in the House of Representatives could also smooth the path for India. It says that if there is agreement between Indonesia and a foreign government to conduct geological studies, the country involved will get priority for the contract.

However, this would still require the country to meet market prices. “We called it ‘right to match.’ If there are other parties who offer lower prices, then they should follow that price,” Bisman said.

Another option would be for India to appoint one of its local companies to work with Indonesian private sector giant Adaro or state-owned coal miner PT Bukit Asam. Such a deal could be conducted as a business-to-business (B-to-B) agreement, and would be legal according to Indonesia’s Energy Law.

Or, Indonesia could assign a state-owned firm like Bukit Asam to work with India based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by both countries.

“But all these options have a potential risk,” Agung said. “They can be categorised as collusion by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).” He said a conventional bidding process should be prioritised.

Bisman said India needed to consider other risks, such as the social and political situation in Papua. The region is home to an armed pro-independence movement and has faced decades of conflict around the world’s largest and most profitable gold and copper mine, Grasberg, owned by US-based Freeport McMoRan.

‘Land grab’
Despite the presence of the mine, Papua remains Indonesia’s poorest province, with some of the worst literacy and infant mortality rates in Asia. Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), a state-funded body, has characterised Freeport’s concession as a “land grab,” for which the original stewards of the land, the Amungme and Kamoro indigenous people, were never properly consulted or compensated.

The Indonesian energy ministry’s own research says that any project must take into account the impact on Papua’s indigenous peoples, and must factor in specific local concepts of land ownership, leadership and livelihood.

Franky Samperante, executive director of rights advocacy group Yayasan Pusaka, said he was worried about the plan. “It is way too risky,” he said, pointing to the social and environmental fallout of the Grasberg mine.

“There should be communication between the mining company and indigenous Papuans,” he said, warning Jakarta to carefully calculate the social, environmental and national security impacts.

Local indigenous people need to be meaningfully involved in the decision-making process, he said, especially since the mining would occur in and near forests where indigenous people live and gather and hunt their food.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz