The Centre for Climate Crime and Justice at Queen Mary University of London will host a Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on State and Environmental Violence in West Papua later this month.

A panel of eight tribunal judges will hear evidence on June 27-29 from many international NGOs and local civil society organisations, as well as testimonies from individuals who have witnessed human rights violations and environmental destruction, said a statement from the centre.

West Papua is home to the world’s third-largest rainforest, currently under threat from industrial development. Due to its global significance, the ongoing state repression and environmental degradation in the region have far-reaching impacts.

This tribunal aims to bring global attention to the need to protect this crucial rainforest by exploring the deep connection between democracy, state violence, and environmental sustainability in West Papua, said the statement.

“There are good reasons to host this important event in London. London-based companies are key beneficiaries of gas, mining and industrial agriculture in West Papua, and its huge gold and other metal reserves are traded in London,” said Professor David Whyte, director of the Centre for Climate Crime and Justice.

“The tribunal will expose the close links between state violence, environmental degradation, and profiteering by transnational corporations and other institutions.”

The prosecution will be led by Dutch Bar-registered lawyer Fadjar Schouten Korwa, who said: “With a ruling by the eminent Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on the crimes against the Indigenous Papuan people of West Papua and the failure of the state of Indonesia to protect them from human rights violations and impunity, we hope for a future without injustice for West Papua.”

‘Long history of destruction’
A leading West Papuan lawyer, Gustaf Kawer, said: “The annexation of West Papua into the State of Indonesia is part of a long history of environmental destruction and state violence against Papua’s people and its natural resources.

“Our hope is that after this trial examines the evidence and hears the statements of witnesses and experts, the international community and the UN will respond to the situation in West Papua and evaluate the Indonesian state so that there can be recovery for natural resources and the Papuan people.”

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on State and Environmental Violence in West Papua seeks to initiate a series of events and discussions throughout 2024 and 2025, aiming to engage the UN Human Rights Council and international civil society organisations.

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on West Papua will take place on Thursday, June 27 – Saturday, 29 June 2024, at Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Campus.

The panel of judges comprises: Teresa Almeida Cravo (Portugal), Donna Andrews (South Africa), Daniel Feierstein (Argentina), Marina Forti (Italy), Larry Lohmann (UK), Nello Rossi (Italy), and Solomon Yeo (Solomon Islands).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

About 20,000 protesters marched through the heart of New Zealand’s largest city Auckland today demonstrating against the unpopular Fast Track Approvals Bill that critics fear will ruin the country’s environment, undermine the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi with indigenous Māori, and open the door to corruption.

Holding placards declaring the coalition government is “on the fast track to hell”, “Greedy lying racists”, “Preserve our reserves”, “Kill the bill”, “Climate justice now”, “I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues”, and other slogans such as “Ministers’ corruption = Nature’s destruction”, the protesters stretched 2km from Aotea Square down Queen St to the harbourside Te Komititanga Square.

One of the biggest banners, on a stunning green background, said “Toitu Te Tiriti: Toitu Te Taiao” — “Honour the treaty: Save the planet”.

Speaker after speaker warned about the risks of the draft legislation placing unprecedented power in the hands of three cabinet ministers to fast track development proposals with limited review processes and political oversight.

The bill states that its purpose “is to provide a streamlined decision-making process to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits”.

A former Green Party co-leader, Russel Norman, who is currently Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director, said the the draft law would be damaging for the country’s environment. He called on the protesters to fight against it.

“We must stop those who would destroy nature for profit,” he said.

“The vast majority of New Zealanders — nine out of 10 people, when you survey them — say they do not want development that causes more destruction of nature.”

Other protesters on he march against the “War on Nature” included Forest and Bird chief executive Nicola Toki and actress Robyn Malcolm.

RNZ News reports that Norman said: “Expect resistance from the people of Aotearoa. There will be no seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki. There will be no new coal mines in pristine native forest.

“We will stop them — just like we stopped the oil exploration companies. We disrupted them until they gave up.”

The government would be on the wrong side of history if it ignored protesters, Norman said.

Public service job cuts ‘deeply distressing’
In Wellington, reports RNZ News, thousands of people congregated in the city to protest government cuts to public service jobs.

Protesters met at the Pukeahu National War Memorial for speeches before walking down to the waterfront.

Public Service Association spokesperson Fleur Fitzsimons told the crowd that everyone at the rally was sending a message of resistance, opposition and protest to the government.

She accused the coalition government of having an agenda against the public service, and said the union was seeing the destructive impact of government policies first hand.

“It is causing grief, anguish, stress, emotional collapse,” she said.

“It is deeply distressing to the workers who are losing their jobs. They are not only distressed for themselves, and their families, but they are deeply worried about what will happen to the important work they are doing on behalf of us all.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In 1992, 1700 scientists warned that human beings and the natural world were “on a collision course”. Seventeen years later, scientists described planetary boundaries within which humans and other life could have a “safe space to operate”.

These are environmental thresholds, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and changes in land use.

Crossing such boundaries was considered a risk that would cause environmental changes so profound, they genuinely posed an existential threat to humanity.

This grave reality is what our major research paper, published today, confronts.

In what may be the most comprehensive evaluation of the environmental state of play in Australia, we show major and iconic ecosystems are collapsing across the continent and into Antarctica. These systems sustain life, and evidence of their demise shows we are exceeding planetary boundaries.

We found 19 Australian ecosystems met our criteria to be classified as “collapsing”. This includes the arid interior, savannas and mangroves of northern Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, Shark Bay, southern Australia’s kelp and alpine ash forests, tundra on Macquarie Island, and moss beds in Antarctica.

We define collapse as the state where ecosystems have changed in a substantial, negative way from their original state – such as species or habitat loss, or reduced vegetation or coral cover – and are unlikely to recover.

The good and bad news
Ecosystems consist of living and non-living components, and their interactions. They work like a super-complex engine: when some components are removed or stop working, knock-on consequences can lead to system failure.

Our study is based on measured data and observations, not modelling or predictions for the future. Encouragingly, not all ecosystems we examined have collapsed across their entire range. We still have, for instance, some intact reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, especially in deeper waters. And northern Australia has some of the most intact and least-modified stretches of savanna woodlands on Earth.

Still, collapses are happening, including in regions critical for growing food. This includes the Murray-Darling Basin, which covers around 14 percent of Australia’s landmass. Its rivers and other freshwater systems support more than 30 percent of Australia’s food production.

The effects of floods, fires, heatwaves and storms do not stop at farm gates; they’re felt equally in agricultural areas and natural ecosystems. We shouldn’t forget how towns ran out of drinking water during the recent drought.

Drinking water is also at risk when ecosystems collapse in our water catchments. In Victoria, for example, the degradation of giant Mountain Ash forests greatly reduces the amount of water flowing through the Thompson catchment, threatening nearly five million people’s drinking water in Melbourne.

This is a dire wake-up call — not just a warning. Put bluntly, current changes across the continent, and their potential outcomes, pose an existential threat to our survival, and other life we share environments with.

In investigating patterns of collapse, we found most ecosystems experience multiple, concurrent pressures from both global climate change and regional human impacts (such as land clearing). Pressures are often additive and extreme.

Take the last 11 years in Western Australia as an example.

In the summer of 2010 and 2011, a heatwave spanning more than 300,000 sq km ravaged both marine and land ecosystems. The extreme heat devastated forests and woodlands, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs. This catastrophe was followed by two cyclones.

A record-breaking, marine heatwave in late 2019 dealt a further blow. And another marine heatwave is predicted for this April.

These 19 ecosystems are collapsing: read about each

What to do about it?
Our brains trust comprises 38 experts from 21 universities, CSIRO and the federal Department of Agriculture Water and Environment. Beyond quantifying and reporting more doom and gloom, we asked the question: what can be done?

We devised a simple but tractable scheme called the 3As:

• Awareness of what is important
• Anticipation of what is coming down the line
• Action to stop the pressures or deal with impacts.

In our paper, we identify positive actions to help protect or restore ecosystems. Many are already happening. In some cases, ecosystems might be better left to recover by themselves, such as coral after a cyclone.

In other cases, active human intervention will be required – for example, placing artificial nesting boxes for Carnaby’s black cockatoos in areas where old trees have been removed.

“Future-ready” actions are also vital. This includes reinstating cultural burning practices, which have multiple values and benefits for Aboriginal communities and can help minimise the risk and strength of bushfires.

It might also include replanting banks along the Murray River with species better suited to warmer conditions.

Some actions may be small and localised, but have substantial positive benefits.

For example, billions of migrating Bogong moths, the main summer food for critically endangered mountain pygmy possums, have not arrived in their typical numbers in Australian alpine regions in recent years. This was further exacerbated by the 2019-20 fires. Brilliantly, Zoos Victoria anticipated this pressure and developed supplementary food — Bogong bikkies.

Other more challenging, global or large-scale actions must address the root cause of environmental threats, such as human population growth and per-capita consumption of environmental resources.

We must rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero, remove or suppress invasive species such as feral cats and buffel grass, and stop widespread land clearing and other forms of habitat destruction.

Our lives depend on it
The multiple ecosystem collapses we have documented in Australia are a harbinger for environments globally.

The simplicity of the 3As is to show people can do something positive, either at the local level of a landcare group, or at the level of government departments and conservation agencies.

Our lives and those of our children, as well as our economies, societies and cultures, depend on it.

We simply cannot afford any further delay.

Dr Dana M Bergstrom, principal research scientist, University of Wollongong; Dr Euan Ritchie, professor in wildlife ecology and conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Dr Lesley Hughes, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, and Dr Michael Depledge, professor and chair, Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In this new covid-19 world, environmental and climate crisis defenders are developing new ways to cope and operate under the pandemic constraints.

Groups as diverse as the local branch of the global environmental campaigner Greenpeace Pacific, Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the Green Party in French Polynesia and Greenpeace New Zealand have found solutions.

They have followed in the traditions of the Fiji-based Pacific Climate Warriors – part of the global 350 movement – who have drawn attention to environment and climate crisis issues with colourful and dramatic protests.

Climate Warriors coined the phrase: “We are not drowning, we are fighting.”

The Pacific faces mounting climate change issues, environmental degradation, rapidly rising sea-levels, massive king tides with the salty sea affecting arable land, coral acidification, pollution and – just to make matters worse – wildlife poaching as the plundering of the region’s fisheries goes unabated.

“Climate change could produce 8 million refugees in the Pacific Islands alone, along with 75 million in the Asia-Pacific region within the next four decades [has] warned a report by aid agency Oxfam Australia,” wrote the Pacific Media Centre’s director Professor David Robie in Dreadlocks a decade ago signalling the dire need even then for environmental defenders to pick up the pace.

Greenpeace head of Pacific Auimatagi Joseph Sapati Moeono-Kolio realises that need and is thankful that most parts of Pacific are being largely spared from the covid-19 pandemic that has raged across the world, leaving his organisation free to pursue its green goals.

“Fortunately, many island nations in the Pacific are free of covid-19. As a result, Pacific climate leaders are able to continue our moral and ethical fight for climate justice,” says the Samoan climate change campaigner.

“We are doing so by leading the world in transitioning to renewable energy – in fact Samoa is on track for 100 percent renewables by 2025.

“So, while covid-19 has slowed several things down, the transition to renewables, as an important pillar of climate action, has stepped up.”

Climate change on back burner
The pandemic has forced leading climate change advocates of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), such as Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, who was president of the 2017 Conference of the Parties COP23 to push the issue onto the back burner.

Pacific Island climate frontline states such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tokelau and Marshall Islands along with Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea (Carteret Islands) and the Federated States of Micronesia require a champion for their cause. However, the pandemic has put paid to that, as Auimatagi points out.

“Because of covid-19 our global advocacy moments to elevate the voices of Pacific leaders demanding climate action are limited,” says Auimatagi.

“We are also working on a documentary called Finding Hope: Samoa, where we will meet with people from all walks of life and share their truth of what is happening in their villages as oceans rise and warm.

“With covid-19 and climate change combined, we are seeing dual impacts such as in Vanuatu during the most recent cyclone  – Harold in April 2020.

“Communities and families were all social distancing and then the cyclone hit so they needed to decide whether to stay apart at home or take shelter in emergency refuge centres,” he says.

From that occurrence emerges the real and immediate threat of making climate change of secondary importance despite an increase in adverse climate events.

Working hard for the Pacific
“Pacific communities are among the first to feel the full impacts of climate change, and there is a threat that while the world is focused on covid-19, that climate action takes a back seat,” says Nick Young of Greenpeace New Zealand.

“Greenpeace internationally is working hard to make sure that isn’t the case.

“The covid-19 recovery also offers a unique opportunity in this regard as billions are spent to stimulate economies around the world and Greenpeace in New Zealand and elsewhere in the world is pushing for a Green Covid-19 Recovery that invests in climate resilience.”

Greenpeace initiatives and campaigns as environmental defenders are still continuing, albeit at a slower pace than usual.

“All of the core Greenpeace campaigns around transforming agriculture and energy, protecting the oceans and shifting away from single-use plastics remain active,” Young says.

However, it is more than the pollution that is a concern with the ocean. Auimatagi talks about this.

Ocean poaching problem
“Ocean poaching is ongoing, carried out by the Chinese and Japanese flagged vessels. While Samoa has one of the smallest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), places like Micronesia and Kiribati are much harder to enforce as they have much larger EEZs.”

As Jacky Bryant, president of the Green Party in French Polynesia points out: “The 5 million km/2 of the EEZ (Exclusive and Economic Zone) are open to all kinds of abuse by foreign ships and is under surveillance by only one ship belonging to the French state.

“From time to time we have a fishing vessel that gets stranded on the reef carrying tonnes of fish, some legal, some illegal.”

Last month, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) continued its coordination and commitment to regional fisheries surveillance operation.

The 17-nation organisation is based in Honiara, Solomon Islands and its members comprise: Australia, Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

The FFA is charged with protecting Pacific fisheries from poaching among other cooperative activities.

It has recently completed its “Operation Island Chief” (August 24-September 4), conducting surveillance over the EEZs of Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu this year.

Challenging pandemic times
FFA’s Director-General Dr Manu Tupou-Roosen says: “During these challenging times with the focus of the world on the pandemic, we welcome the commitment and cooperation demonstrated across the region to deter illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in our waters.”

That concerns Greenpeace as well. Young says: “Illegal and unregulated fishing is still an issue in many places, and certainly in the Pacific.

“It threatens ocean life as well as the resilience of Pacific communities who rely on the oceans for their food and way of life.”

The FFA Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre (RFSC) team, supported by three officers from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF), had an increased focus on intelligence gathering and analysis, providing targeted information before and during the operation in order to support surveillance activities by member countries,” the FFA said in a statement.

Aerial surveillance of the nations of the EEZ was provided by New Zealand, Australia, USA and France, assisting the fragile small island developing states in protecting them from poaching or overfishing.

In addition to that the cooperation goes as far as working together to prevent covid-19 from being transmitted in the fisheries operations allowing them to continue contributing Pacific Island economies.

“It is crucial for fisheries to continue operating at this time, providing much-needed income to support the economic recovery as well as to enhance contribution to the food security of our people,” says Dr Manu Tupou-Roosen.

Pollution and climate change still major
Greenpeace Pacific’s Auimatagi says that other than poaching, pollution and climate change remain major issues in the Pacific.

“While marine wildlife poaching is, of course, a big issue, the biggest polluter is one of our nearest neighbours. Australia digs up, burns and exports climate destruction to the whole world in the form of coal.

“Climate change is the number one issue on all fronts, including the environment as it is a threat multiplier. The impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and warming oceans make the impacts of cyclones and ocean wildlife poaching more severe and more difficult to manage.”

Not so in Tahiti as Bryant explains, where covid-19 has taken hold on that part of the Pacific paradise.

Covid-19 cases in French Polynesia (population 280,000) have now reached more than 2700 cases – including territorial President Edouard Fritch and 10 deaths, and Bryant say this crisis has pushed climate change and environmental issues into a secondary status.

“Attacks to our natural environment such as the exploitation of the biodiversity, our cars’ carbon emissions (Papeete has 120,000 cars but luckily, we are an island with regular easterlies) are of governmental responsibilities,” says Bryant.

“There is no clear scrutiny of the climatic effects on the town planning code for example; no compulsory measures for double glazing; using solar panels is not mandatory and the same for photovoltaic, not even for experimental purposes on
an urban area.

No environmental friendly designing
“There are no projects towards designing more environmentally friendly interisland means of transport in order to anticipate any energy crisis with petrol, for example. We carry on training our youth for the combustion engine,” he adds.

While Bryant laments the lack of action in Tahiti, the Greenpeace organisation remains committed to making a better, environmentally safer world.

“We have pushed for a green covid-19 recovery that puts people and nature first, and we are calling for the replacement of current industrial agriculture system with regenerative farming methods – where we farm in harmony with nature and don’t use synthetic nitrogen fertiliser,” says Young.

“Regenerative farming involves growing a large diversity of crops, plants and animals. Synthetic inputs like nitrogen fertiliser are replaced with practices that mimic natural systems to access nutrients, water and pest control required for growth.

“Replace unnecessary single-use products like plastic drink bottles with reusable and refillable options, including glass. Plastic bags, and bottles are just the tip of the iceberg,

“All of the core Greenpeace campaigns around transforming agriculture and energy, protecting the oceans and shifting away from single-use plastics remain active,” he says.

The last word on the issue comes from the Samoan who has been a strong activist for a greener world, Auimatagi Moeono-Kolio.

“When it comes to the environment, Pacific Islanders are always vigilant no matter what is happening in the outside world: It’s a question of means and resources and geopolitics, it’s a very complicated web.”

This is the fifth of a series of articles by the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch as part of an environmental project funded by the Internews’ Earth Journalism Network (EJN) Asia-Pacific initiative.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

Fiji’s opposition has called for a full investigation by an impartial committee into allegations of collusion by government officials in the destruction of reefs, foreshore and land on Malolo Island.

Earlier this month, the Chinese-backed company Freesoul Real Estate Development was ordered to repair the damage which it had caused during months of unconsented work on the reef and on land it did not own.

Opposition leader Sitiveni Rabuka said no action had been taken by ministers or senior government officials despite direct repeated attempts throughout 2018 by landowners seeking assistance.

READ MORE: Newsroom investigates Malolo destruction

Fiji Opposition Leader Sitiveni Rabuka … intimidated and cowed media. Image: Sri Krishnamurthi/PMC

He said Fiji officials had been given drone footage and photographs of the ongoing destruction in breach of the environmental and planning approvals.

Rabuka said the rot and culture of fear in the civil service, the intimidated and cowed media and the country was so ingrained now, that it took foreign investigative journalists to break the story.

-Partners-

The three New Zealand Newsroom journalists reporting about Malolo were this month arrested but Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama ordered their release a day later and apologised to them personally for their ordeal.

Rabuka said the apology was not enough to cover the fact that media in Fiji were now so scared of him and those close to him, that they dared not cover the story.

He said there had to be a probe into the action, inaction or negligence of any ministers, officials, former civil servants or police officers who facilitated the environmental destruction, the flouting of environmental and planning laws, failed to act to prevent it or halt it, or who participated in the illegal detention of the journalists covering the issue.

He also said the prime minister had to come clean on how the extensive environmental destruction would be reversed, if at all possible.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Dr Dominic O’Sullivan

It is not unusual for Fiji to intimidate and imprison journalists.

Journalists provide checks on government, parliament and business, which threatens the country’s authoritarian politics and the limited democracy its Constitution imagines.

What is unusual is Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s decisive intervention in favour of three New Zealand journalists, who were arrested last week as they investigated environmental degradation by a Chinese property developer building a new resort.

Since the journalists’ release, Fiji’s Department of Environment has revoked the project’s approval.

READ MORE: New Zealand’s Pacific reset: strategic anxieties about rising China

Media a government ‘ally’ – sometimes

-Partners-

The team’s earlier work had, in fact, prompted Fijian authorities to lay criminal charges against the company, Freesoul Real Estate Development.

Bainimarama insisted that there was no criminal inquiry in respect of the journalists and that they should be released. But it shouldn’t be assumed that he was declaring a new-found interest in freedom of the press.

Nor should one accept the police commissioner’s assurance that the journalists were arrested by “a small group of rogue officers”.

It is more likely that they just didn’t understand why the usual restrictions on press freedoms didn’t apply in this case. As Bainimarama told Parliament the following day:

It should be made clear: the news media has been an ally in accountability, helping to expose the [property development] company’s illegal environmental destruction.

Diplomatic sensitivities and Bainimarama’s genuine and long-held concern for environmental protection are at play in the apology that, according to New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, “seems” genuine.

Media restrictions affirmed day before arrests
Bainimarama took power by military force in 2006. Under international pressure to restore democratic government, elections were held in 2014 and 2018 under a Constitution Bainimarama approved after rejecting a proposal drafted by an expert international panel in 2013.

On Tuesday last week – the day before the New Zealanders’ arrests – the Fiji Parliamentary Reporters’ Handbook was published in Suva. The handbook, launched in the presence of New Zealand’s deputy high commissioner and prepared with the support of Australian Aid and the UN Development Programme, contextualised and affirmed the constitutional impediment to a free press.

There is scope in the Constitution to:

limit … the rights and freedoms [of the press] … in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the orderly conduct of elections.

Japan was also present at the launch. Like New Zealand and Australia, Japan is interested in promoting democracy and fundamental human freedoms, but also determined to restrict China’s growing influence in the region. Diplomacy requires complex compromise.

As Australia’s deputy High Commissioner Anna Dorney rather hopefully observed, democracy requires a media that:

… plays a critical role in society, providing crucial information that educates, enlightens and enriches the public to help inform the civil discourse crucial to a successful society.

The New Zealand journalists were arrested the following day.

Bainimarama’s diplomatic dilemma
Bainimarama faces a diplomatic dilemma. Fiji’s economy needs Chinese investment but not Chinese developers’ environmental degradation.

Bainimarama is well regarded in international forums for his environmental policy leadership. Climate change is a centre piece in Fijian foreign policy. In 2018, six of the prime minister’s 14 foreign policy speeches dealt with the issue.

New Zealand’s “Pacific reset” foreign policy makes it an ally to Fiji in climate change policy. In other respects, the relationship is not so strong.

New Zealand, like Australia, had demanded Fiji’s suspension from the Commonwealth and the Pacific Islands’ Forum in 2009, three years after Bainimarama’s coup. Fiji has been re-admitted to both. International observers concluded that its general election in 2018 was transparent and credible. While elections are essential, Fiji shows that they are not all a functioning democracy requires.

Fiji’s regional isolation encouraged its “Look North” foreign policy. Its relationships with China and Russia developed. Russia has provided Fiji with military equipment in return for its support at the UN on its disputes with Georgia and Ukraine. From New Zealand’s perspective, these disputes posed a risk to international security.

But it is on China that the Fijian economy depends heavily and whose influence most concerns Australia and New Zealand. The Pacific reset policy addresses this concern explicitly:

The Pacific’s strategic environment is becoming increasingly contested and complicated, and New Zealand’s relative influence in the region is consequently declining.

New Zealand’s relative influence in Fiji is low in part because because it insists on “transparent, accountable, inclusive and democratic government systems” across the region. These features of democratic government enable coherent environmental policy, which is where Fiji and New Zealand recognise scope for significant cooperation. Climate change and disaster risk management are Pacific reset priorities.

We seek to assist Pacific Island countries in achieving effective global action on climate change and in adapting to and mitigating its effects … New Zealand has an influential role to play in leading debate about appropriate policy responses.

Fiji is a small state, with great strategic significance in the Pacific. The New Zealand journalists’ prompt release on prime ministerial intervention shows why.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is associate professor of political science, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, in New South Wales, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished here by the Pacific Media Centre under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

INTERVIEW: Lars Ursin of 2°C talks to Elisabeth Holland

The Pacific Islands are already struggling with the consequences of climate change. But they are not giving in. Instead, they have become a force to be reckoned with in international climate diplomacy. How did that happen?

2°C: How are the Pacific Islands experiencing the effects of global warming today?

Elisabeth Holland: Tropical cyclone Winston’s 40-metre waves, that is one thing. The devastating peak winds of both tropical cyclones Pam and Winston, and the destructive storm surges they brought. The fact that recovery after Winston amounted to 30 percent of Fiji’s GDP. Also in Fiji, 676 of around 1800 villages have already said they need to move. Not just from storm surges, but from repeated inundation due to rising sea level or changing storm patterns. Or coastal erosion generated by storm surges and rising sea levels.

In Fiji, we now recommend that all newly married couples move to higher ground. This is because it is tradition to build new housing for newlyweds to give the communities a head start on the inevitable transition. The transitions needs to happen in a methodical, well-organised way with community buy-in.

What areas of the Pacific Islands are most vulnerable to further climate change?

That would be Tuvalu, Kiribati, The Republic of the Marshall Islands and Tokelau. What they have in common, is a maximum elevation of 3 metres. They are along with the Maldives part of what is called the Coalition of Low Lying Atoll Nations on Climate Change.

What is the outlook for the people living on these islands?

The new government of New Zealand is considering setting new immigration policy for their Pacific Island neighbours. Fiji is the only country which has said it would receive climate displaced refugees from the Pacific. Three countries, The Federated States of Micronesia, The Marshall Islands and Palau are part of the Compact of Free Association with the United States and eligible for US passports giving them the right to live, work and study in the USA. Migration, already underway, is to Hawai’i where the provision of some basic services can discriminate against people from these areas.

What practical measures are taken to prevent escalating damage?

There are several issues. Most important is what communities need today to be vibrant and healthy: Fresh water. So, for example, we have provided water tanks and reticulated water systems for more than 12.000 people, funded by the EU. Many of the Pacific Island countries have just begun to access the Green Climate Fund. Tuvalu residents refuse to leave, they say they will adapt. Their funds will be focused on coastal stabilisation, such as sea walls. Marshall Islands are considering which islands to sacrifice to protect the remaining islands. Tokelau has just gotten green climate funding. They are making similar decisions.

‘Migration with dignity’
And Kiribati, under president Anote Tong, a vocal climate spokesperson, has advocated “migration with dignity”. He is focused on ensuring that his population is as well-educated as possible, while at same time taking adaptative measures. Tokelau, by the way, claim to be first 100% renewable energy country, under a project funded by New Zealand.

At the Paris negotiations, you were ringside when the Pacific Islands announced an the High Ambition Coalition with the US and EU, that eventually paved the way for the Paris Agreement. Can you explain what happened?

First, when the High Ambition Coaltion was made public on Tuesday of the second week of negotiations, it was actually forged – in secrecy – during the Cartagena-dialogue earlier in the year. That strategy came about as a result of having learned the lessons of the failed Copenhagen negotiations when no developing country partners were part of the coalition.

That all changed in Paris. First of all, we were better prepared. We had worked with the French Embassy in preparing for the Paris COP. We had worked with the Fijian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Pacific leaders to draft the Suva declaration on Climate Change. The Pacific leaders drafted more than 10 declarations in the lead up to Paris. And still, we were plagued with self-doubt. I remember I met the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Dame Meg Taylor, on the airport on the way to Paris. She said: “I am afraid we haven’t done our strategic homework”. My reply was “I hope you are wrong”. And in the end, it took a lot of patience and persistence, and the determination of Pacific leaders.

In the Paris COP, I was a delegate for the Solomon Islands. My job was to make sure they had the best science available. So on Monday of the second week, during the high-level negotiations, I sat all night doing calculations for 1.5°C. And the results were upsetting, because it showed that we had less than 10 years before the 1.5 C goal was unattainable. Our press conference on the 1.5°C target was held at the same time as the Minister Tony deBrum’s announcement of the High Ambition Coalition.

However, in addition to representing the Solomon Islands, I was also informing the rest of the Pacific delegations. Also, a lot of my former students were now delegates – 20 in total – both for the Solomon Islands, but also with various other states. In addition, twice a year, I am invited by the secretariat of the ACP – a group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states – to present the science to the ACP ambassadors in Brussels.

So, when I was approached by Pendo Maro, the climate coordinator for the EU ACP secretariat, we marched across the Paris campus, I knew we had 79 countries in my pocket. By the end of Wednesday, 100 countries had signed onto the High Ambition Coation.

Imagine: After all the drafting had been done in Paris, Tony deBrum walked into the room, flanked by the EU and US lead climate negotiators, and they were given a standing ovation. That is the level of support they enjoyed. Because each of the Pacific countries had done their best in pulling in their respective coalitions. And I had no idea what I was doing at the time. I Just knew that when I was invited by the ACP to present the science, I had to do the best I could to deliver the message as clearly as I could.

This time around, all were committed to stand together. There were no breakaways.
Generally, in diplomatic negotiations like this, big countries like China or India will try to divide one Pacific Island off. But this time around, all were committed to stand together, to stand with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). There were no breakaways. We had the leadership of Fiji in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation. Three vocal spokespersons in addition. Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu. Minister deBrum of the Marshall Islands. President Anote Tong of Kiribati. Because they were most vulnerable countries, the rest of the Pacific let them carry the torch and word out to the rest of the world. But every other Pacific country was behind them, doing their negotiations, backing the high points.

What role have the nations of the South Pacific played since?

In Morocco, Fiji was given the COP23 presidency, and there have been a number of accomplishments under that presidency. One is the Indigenous Peoples’ Platform. A second one was the Gender Action Plan. And, finally, the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. But in addition to all of this, oceans are now being included in the climate negotiations.

What do you mean by that?

If you look in the text of the Paris Agreement, the word “oceans” is named only once. And yet, we all know how important oceans are in the global climate system. Therefore, we have worked to ensure that there is an Ocean Pathway, to make sure the ocean is featured more prominently in the negotiations to come. Diplomacy is never fast, but because Fiji was also president of the UN in 2017, and we had the UN Oceans Conference in 2017, this was a unique opportunity.

This is of course important to the island states of the South Pacific, whose very livelihood depends on the ocean. But it is also a point of confluence with Norway’s positions. Norway has oceans and climate as a priority as well.

And finally, the COP presidency will be handed over to Poland at COP24 in Katowice. However, Poland has asked Fiji to play a role going forwards, to help see the Talanoa facilitative dialogue through.

Speaking of which: Can you briefly explain the Talanoa dialogue and what it is meant to achieve?

There is a great description of it at the COP23 website. But essentially it is this: When people in a Fijian community want to come to a resolution, they convene a meeting. That meeting is called a Talanoa. Everybody comes as equal partners, respected, and in anticipation of being heard. It is done in a circle, generally kava is served to honour everybody. All participants’ views and perspectives are put on the table. And together, participants weave the cloth of the way forward.

This is an idealised description, of course. But it comes from the principle that we are all in the same canoe. And it is the Talanoa that will lay the foundation for the Paris rulebook, and the process called the global stock take. That is a key part in the five-year review process: Taking stock of emissions and comparing them to the temperature targets. And then, based on that, deciding on commitments and the way forward.

But can you actually produce results through that type of process?

Remember, Fiji is a country of less than 850,000 people. And yet, it is by way of the principles of participating in Talanoa that they achieved their role as both president of the UN and COP-president at the same time. So, does that mean that they have a better long term strategic focus?

In the year before, in 2016, Fiji also won an Olympic gold for rugby. Rugby is a strategic game. But so is Pacific diplomacy. Because it always puts the collective first. It is a way of thinking – not about one, but about all.

Is it also about shaking up the rules of the diplomacy game, to allow countries to approach the negotiations in new ways?

The Pacific Islands rank among the very top of disaster prone countries. But they also rank with the highest happiness indices.

Absolutely. Because they know they can trust one another. There is an interesting contrast: The Pacific Islands rank among the very top of disaster prone countries, because of tropical cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis. But they also rank with the highest happiness indices. And it is not because we are rich. And definitely not because we see ourselves as victims.

Going forward from Paris, what are the greatest obstacles facing the negotiations?

The unravelling of the commitment to high ambition. That is the biggest obstacle.

How can that be overcome?

By leading by example. Whether it is us as individuals, companies, cities or nations, the principle to begin with is leading by example. When the Copenhagen negotiations fell apart, Tony deBrum walked out, and he was wearing a flowered shirt. So the press could immediately identify him as being a Pacific Islander. A reporter asked him: “Minister deBrum, are you here to save your island?” to which he responded: “No, I’m here to save the world”.

That is the thinking we need. That we as small Pacific islands can become champions, not just for ourselves, but for the planet. And that we can achieve that through leading by example. And this is also why we through generations have set aside marine protected areas. It is part of our tradition. We are truly ocean stewards.

What role has scientists such as yourself played in the actual climate negotiations up until now?

Science without strategy, without key countries committed to it, and without good legal thinking, gets you nowhere. No matter how compelling.

The science come into the negotiations in in a couple of different ways. One is through the IPCC. That is a completely separate process, and not formally connected to UNFCCC. But the UNFCCC was formulated to include science perspectives. And it does so through the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice, or SBSTA.

But science without strategy, without key countries committed to it, and without good legal thinking, gets you nowhere. No matter how compelling. That part is hard for scientists to swallow. Because diplomatic negotiations are more about relationships than they are about science.

Leading up to Paris, we had something called the Structured Expert Dialogue, and the 2013-2015 Review. The 2013-2015 Review was a compelling report. That was where they asked the scientific community to take a look at the IPCC and all the available evidence to provide guidance on things like long term temperature goals. Like 1.5°C or 2°C warming. That we did, and in the intersessional between Lima and Paris, we got 1.5°C into the formal text of the Research and Systematic Observation report. And that then became the platform by which we could push through the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) and into the Paris Agreement. You can’t just ask for goals like that in a plenary session during negotiations, you need to work it into the other framework first.

However, the Saudis – and others – blocked the SED 2013-2015 Review report. By the end of the first week, we had no formal consensus that could have informed the Paris negotiations. But we had to close the two subsidiary bodies, SBSTA and SBI – the Subsidiary body for Implementation – to go to the second week, the high-level negotiations.

And it was not until Saturday night that first week that Amena Yauvoli, Fiji, gavelled the Structured Expert Dialogue. With that gavelling, there was a formal legal obligation for science to inform the negotiations. The text of the Paris agreement calls for for a global stocktake to be informed by “the best available science”.

So in the end science prevailed, but only because of good diplomacy and skilful negotiations. And that is something a lot of scientists find difficult to come to terms with. Which is understandable. After all, many of us were attracted to science to begin with because we are attracted to a world defined by black and white rather than grey. However, diplomacy is an exploration of the grey.

How can climate scientists contribute constructively in shaping climate policy in the future?

First, ensure the integrity of science and scientific processes. Second, participate fully in the IPCC processes. Third, make sure that the science can be “translated” and communicated so others can use it for evidence-based decision making.

And finally, understand that the science-policy interface requires time. And is challenging. And requires a lot of dialogue. That may sometimes be frustrating to scientists.

INTERVIEW FACT FILE:
Name: Elisabeth Holland
Position: Professor, University of the South Pacific, Fiji
Why: Holland is a renowned climate scientist. She has been a central figure in the international climate negotiations and has been a visiting scholar at the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research this year.

This article has been republished from the Norwegian ezine 2°C with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Moses Ompusunggu in Jakarta

Indonesia’s Jakarta Corruption Court has sentenced suspended Southeast Sulawesi governor Nur Alam to 12 years in prison in a case linked to several mining licences that led to environmental destruction in Buton, Southeast Sulawesi.

The court, which also ordered Nur to pay a fine of Rp 1 billion (US$72,700) and restitution of Rp 2.7 billion last Wednesday, found the National Mandate Party (PAN) politician guilty of misusing his authority to grant mining licences between 2009 and 2014 to nickel miner PT Anugerah Harisma Barakah (AHB) in which he owns a 2 percent stake under the name of his aide.

Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) prosecutors called for a sentence of 18 years.

Presiding judge Diah Siti Basariah said there had been mitigating factors behind the court’s verdict, such as Nur’s many awards he received while serving as governor.

The state losses, Rp 1.5 trillion, were also lower than the Rp 4.3 trillion the prosecutors argued in their indictment, which included Rp 2.7 trillion in environmental destruction caused by the miner.

Environmental destruction
The panel of judges said the environmental destruction was not Nur’s responsibility, but the company’s.

-Partners-

The company had tried to rehabilitate the area, the judges said.

The court also stripped him of his political rights for five years after he serves his time in prison, which was sought by KPK prosecutors.

Nur denied any wrongdoing and said he would “waste no time” to appeal against the verdict.

“I hope the respected judge can consider that I deserve a sense of justice because I have served as a state apparatus and given my best while on duty,” he added.

Moses Ompusunggu is a Jakarta Post journalist.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz