Pacific delegates in the United States Congress are warning efforts to fast-track deep-seabed mining could sideline island communities and cause irreversible damage to fragile ocean ecosystems.

The concerns were raised at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington last week, held a day after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finalised new rules streamlining permits for seabed mining.

The changes allow companies to apply for exploration and potential commercial recovery through a single process, replacing regulations dating back to the 1980s.

NOAA says the update reflects advances in deep-sea science and technology and does not weaken environmental safeguards.

But Guam Delegate James Moylan said decisions made in Washington had real and lasting consequences in the Pacific.

“The ocean is how we live. It feeds our families, holds our history, and connects our people to generations before us,” Moylan said.

American Samoa Delegate Aumua Amata Radewagen warned seabed mining could threaten fisheries, which she described as the lifeblood of island economies.

Northern Marianas Delegate Kimberlyn King-Hinds said Pacific territories “don’t get the luxury of being wrong” on ocean policy, warning that damage to the seabed would be permanent.

Industry representatives told lawmakers the streamlined process would provide certainty without weakening environmental reviews, while scientists warned deep-sea ecosystems could take decades to recover, if at all.

For Pacific delegates, the message was clear — faster permitting must not come at the expense of island voices or ocean protection.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Internationally, we are marking the 2025 Human Rights Day at a time of extraordinary retreat from human rights protection across the World. Every human right, every breach of human right and every advance in the protection of human rights must matter equally to us.

The frameworks for human rights protection are well established internationally reflecting the genesis of the international system in the horrors of the Second World War. Social, cultural, political, women’s, indigenous, children’s, and all fundamental human rights are well protected in international laws that have evolved since then.

What may seem like a paralysis in protection of fundamental human rights internationally today does not arise from the absence of protections in international law but from the fractures that characterise the international interstate system in a phase of severe disruption.

The significant advances in protection of human rights internationally arose from a rare postwar geopolitical consensus. That global consensus is dead.

Though the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have their origins in this context, it was not until 2008 that the UN made an explicit resolution on human rights and climate change stating that climate change posed a real and substantial threat to the full enjoyment of human rights.

The Pacific’s human rights story
When the Blue Pacific discusses human rights impacts of climate change, it is shaped by our lived realities. The fundamental right to life in the Pacific is persistently harmed by heat stress.

It is estimated that more than 1200 deaths annually are now attributed to heat stress.

The fundamental right to health is eroded by growing illnesses and diseases arising from rising temperatures. Across the Pacific, well in excess of 1000 deaths are already attributed to climate change related illnesses annually.

The fundamental right to water faces worsening pressures arising from sea water intrusion into ground water, more frequent and prolonged droughts and sewage contamination of water systems as a result of floodings.

The fundamental right to food is persistently harmed by rising surface and ocean temperatures and experienced through failed crops, subsistence farms destroyed by winds and rains, collapse of coral reef systems and with that oceanic foods.

Indigenous people’s rights are similarly persistently harmed as communities across Melanesia undertake climate change induced migration without corresponding transfer of land and other social and cultural rights.

In Tuvalu and atoll states these are likely to lead to more unsettling outcomes as their small and culturally compact communities get thinly dispersed across larger countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Fiji.

Policy choices are needed to respond to worsening human rights protection that are a consequence of climate change.

Climate change and human rights in Pacific education
The right to education is one of foundational rights in international law. Having access to continuous, safe and quality education is the foundation for the enjoyment of this right.

Every time a student misses school because the river that she crosses is flooded or at risk of flooding, that student is denied the full enjoyment of this right. Learning days lost are increasing in Fiji and Melanesia generally. This has lifelong consequences.

The more painful reality is that learning loss is felt so unevenly. It is often people in our poorest households who stay in most flood-prone areas.

In Fiji’s case it is also the case too many I-Taukei settlements/villages are in flood prone areas or in areas more likely to be cut off from school access roads and bridges.

The average day time surface temperatures has increased between 1-3 degrees Celsius across the Pacific within a space of four decades. It may be much higher in schools in urban areas. The safe classroom temperatures for children are 24-26 degrees Celsius at the upper end.

In many schools, classroom temperatures are well above 30C for days on end. The health impacts of prolonged exposure to these temperature are seen through general weaknesses, fainting, headaches and fatigue.

I know of no school that systematically monitors classroom temperatures. I have heard of schools closing down for a day or two when the risks of flooding are high. I have not heard of schools being closed when temperatures are in the mid-30s during periods of high humidity.

Quite shockingly, school building and major repairs are still being carried out in so many schools in exactly the same way as they were done 4-5 decades ago.

The human rights context in education is profoundly gendered. Some of these simply arise from the fact that decisions are made by male leaders.

When reconstruction of several schools in Vanua Levu happened a few years back, boys’ and girls’ hostels needed to be rebuilt following one of the recent cyclones.

The boys’ hostels were reconstructed within a year of two back-to-back cyclones. A 100 percent of the hostel boys were back in school.

The girl’s hostel took another year to be up and running. Only one girl returned to school from those who were resident in hostels during the cyclone year.

A whole generation of girls in the middle to high schools from one of the most disadvantages regions of our country and from some of the most economically disadvantaged communities had simply dropped out of school.

This is a story that repeats itself in so many ways each across the Pacific.

Health, human rights and climate change
As with education, universal access to the sufficient health care constitutes yet another core human right.

One of the worst and least understood aspects of the health and climate change interface in the Pacific is its impacts on mental health.

Following extreme weather events — mental health consequences linger for long periods and most intensely among young children. When winds pick up ever so slightly, many children in schools get frightened — scared — quietly reliving their trauma in full view of teachers who are poorly trained to understand what is happening.

But the health consequences of climate change are far broader. Influenza, dengue including in off seasons, leptospirosis are profoundly impacting our communities. Loss of concentration, performance and worsening learning outcomes are some of these harsh trendlines inside classrooms.

Growing food insecurity
The right to food is a core part of our global human rights architecture. A few years back I had the great pleasure of visiting several schools in Vanua Levu.

I have taught in Fiji’s high schools. I know what I am talking about in a deeply personal way. Nothing prepared me for this.

The numbers/percentages of children who came to schools without lunch was just shocking. Nearly a third of students in one the classes that I visited came to school without lunch that morning.

Rates of stunting rates of children in primary schools (in peri and urban areas) in Fiji can be as high as 10 percent. Stunting rates are much higher in PNG at nearly 50 percent — one of the highest in the world.

Nutritional deprivation leads to delayed cognitive development and over time harms performance. Damage from stunting has life long and intergenerational consequences.
How does climate change feature in this?

The most obvious one is that global warming impacts on our coral reef systems. There is a near collapse of oceanic foods across so many Pacific’s coastal communities.

Equally on the high lands of PNG, delayed precipitation, prolonged rains and droughts harm and overtime irreversibly erode food security. This has widespread consequences.

Food insecurity, gender violence and inter-community conflict are a growing part of the Blue Pacific’s climate story.

Human rights, climate change and cultural and political rights
Nowhere does climate change demonstrate the scale of its destructiveness as in our closest atoll state neighbour.

Tuvalu may be uninhabitable within 4-6 decades even with the adaptation measures underway. It is forced to contemplate the real prospects of near total loss of land. The state has taken protective measures by amending its constitution to preserve sovereignty under any scenario.

Fiji and fellow PIF members have undertaken to respect its sovereignty under any climate scenario.

Compared with PNG, Solomon Islands and Fiji where communities are being relocated, the human rights and climate story of Tuvalu is of a different order altogether. Land rights, cultural rights are rooted and grounded. They do not move when communities are relocated. Relocations are deeply disrespectful of all rights — including cultural, social rights.

It is indeed possible that its whole populations in time may come to be dispersed outside of Tuvalu — in Australia through the Falepili Treaty, in Fiji and in New Zealand. Small and dispersed communities will over time lose their language. They are over time likely to lose many elements of their Tuvaluan identity.

Indigenous and cultural rights are rooted to land and oceans in such deep ways. These rights are recognised as fundamental human rights internationally. Global warming and rising seas treat these rights with callous disregard.

From a 1.5 to 2.8C world
The Blue Pacific has to fight the battle of our lives to return the planet to a 1.5C pathway. No one will do this for us. All our economic forecasting today are based on 1.5C  temperature increase. But the reality is that we are on course for a 2.8C or perhaps even a post 3.0C world.

The consequences of a 3.0C future on human rights of people across the Pacific Islands are unimaginable. For a start, most of the existing infrastructure, school buildings , health centres, data centers are simply not built to withstand 450 km/h winds.

Most of the Pacific’s towns and settlements are coastal. Our entire tourism infrastructure is barely a few metres above sea level. In Melanesia alone there are more than 600 schools that need to be relocated and/or rebuilt.

Several hundred health centres need to be moved. These are estimates based on 1.5C — not twice that. The near total collapse of coastal fisheries is almost a foregone conclusion at anywhere above 2.0C. The silliest thing we can do as a region and as a people is to not prepare for a 3.0C world.

Shaping our story of hope
On the 2025 Human Rights Day, I have reflected on the broad and deep impacts on human rights that directly result from climate change. Ours is a story of hope.

On this day, then let me celebrate the extraordinary leadership shown by Pacific’s students who took the world to court — to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and won.

We owe such an extraordinary gratitude to Fiji’s Vishal Prasad, Cynthia Houniuhi, Solomon Yeo from Solomon Islands and that small group of university students at USP who decided to take on the world. We celebrate Vanuatu’s leadership on all our behalf. Collective action matters.

We make a difference as individuals. We make a difference as a people and as large ocean states. I urge that we deepen our shared understanding of the unfolding universe of elevated human rights vulnerabilities across the Pacific.

Sharing our stories, deepening our understanding of interlinkages between human rights and global warming and beginning honest conversations about things taboo are foundational starting points.

In universities, this may mean adding climate change and human rights legal studies so that graduates leave with a firmer understanding of the world they will enter into.

At medical schools, this means integrating climate change into how human health is studied and researched.

In social science schools, that means advancing our understanding of the rapid evolution of kinship, leadership and culture in traditional Fijian and Pacific societies in a climate changed context.

In communications and journalism programmes, this may mean preparing students to communicate climate crisis with humility, sensitivity and empathy.

As responsible employers, we may be able to lead by ensuring that human rights protection arising from climate change are as mainframed as is possible. Being able to provide the level of sociopsychological support to students and staff bearing the silent scars of slow onset or climate catastrophes would be another great start.

This may include, as well, the simplest of things such as allowing paid compassionate leave for staff to recover from climate change related extreme weather events. In the longer term, the employment laws of Pacific Island states will need to catch up.

I have advised many Pacific island countries to take a hard look at even their school calendar. Few schools measure class room temperatures today.

Our colonial legacy has shaped the school year. We today subject our students to their final examinations when the temperatures inside class rooms are the highest. We today pressure students to prepare for their exams in the months when the chances of catastrophic events are the highest and the chances of illness that are climate change induced are the highest.

A school calendar that is climate informed and that protects human rights in the education context is more likely to commence the school year in September (third term) and conclude exams by August (end of second term).

All of these things are within our gift. We do not need international conferences or even international assistance to do all of these as the changes needed are so simple and so basic.

Building blocs for advancing human rights in a climate changed world:

• First is that individual and communities need to know how their fundamental rights are impacted by climate change. This is a task for all of us — not governments alone.
• Across the region, so many laws and legislative frameworks need to be revised to reflect how climate change and human rights play out. How many hours should an agricultural worker or road construction worker be working when temperatures are higher than 1.5C.
• For employers and service providers, what are the human rights obligations in a climate changed context? What does the waiting room in a health care facility look like in a 1.5C temperature increase and in a 3.0 degree world? They surely cannot be the same.
• National human rights and legal settings need to pay systematic attention to human rights and climate change. This means ensuring that national human rights agencies and courts build up their capabilities to provide the necessary jurisprudence; and our citizens both supported and empowered to approach courts and relevant agencies.
• Internationally, the Pacific Island states including Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) are well advised to ramp up their presence internationally. The next decade must be the decade when the region pushes the boundaries of international law. The decade following that may just be too late.

A Pacific Pre-COP31
I am delighted to have been invited to deliver my remarks so soon after COP30 and well in time for reflections for Pacific’s preparations for Pre-COP31. This climate conference to be held in the Pacific next year will be a great opportunity to bring a consolidated understanding of how fundamental human rights are being harmed by runaway climate change.

Shape this well — together, respectfully and with humility. We can present our agenda for advancing human rights protection in the Pacific powerfully at this Pre-COP.

As a region, we need to begin to win the argument about climate change in the theatres of international public opinion. Lobbyists and interests groups — including much of the global mainstream media — so wedded to petro interests appear to be winning.

We need to tell our stories with clarity and with impact. We need to back that with strategic bargains in all our international relations. A Pre-COP in the Pacific gives us a real chance of doing so.

Thank you for marking the 2025 International Human Rights Day in this way.

This speech about climate change and human rights was delivered by Dr Satyendra Prasad, the climate lead at Abt Global and Fiji’s former ambassador to the United Nations, during the 2025 Human Rights Day on December 10 at the University of Fiji. It is republished from Wansolwara News as part of Asia Pacific Report’s collaboration with the University of the South Pacific Journalism Programme.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The future of the Manawanui wreckage and potential compensation payments remain a major talking point in Samoa.

The Royal New Zealand Navy vessel ran aground on a reef off the south coast of Upolu in October last year and sank.

New Zealand paid NZ$6 million to the Samoan government over it — however communities are yet to see any money.

Tafitoala village has been directly affected by the maritime disaster.

Resident Fagailesau Afaaso Junior Saleupu said the New Zealand High Commission and Samoa government held a short meeting regarding potential compensation options this week.

Three options were tabled around the distribution process. One involved the Samoa government being responsible for the distribution of payments among families and affected businesses. Another involved the district authority being responsible for distributing payments.

The Samoa government has previously said it intends to finalise the compensation process once it passes a budget, which it reportedly intends to do at the end of this month.

Tight timeframe
Fagailesau said this week’s meeting, which involved representatives from Samoa’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, seemed to be on a tight timeframe.

“It’s not enough time for us to raise questions and . . . give them our opinion about the problem.”

He believed the Samoa government should be responsible for distributing the money directly to those affected and said many people were concerned that the wreckage remained on the reef.

“I don’t think it’s good for us in the long run.”

Fagailesau also said many locals feared the compensation amount — which equates to WST$10 million — simply was not enough to manage the long-term impacts of the wreckage on the environment.

He also said families in Tafitoala had been severely limited by the 2km prohibition zone around the wreckage.

“My village — we are fighting for a big amount for us because we are the . . .  people that are really affected.

“The 2km zone — it covers the area that we access for fishing every day. We’re eating tinned fish.”

More meetings
Fagailesau also said the Samoa government told locals it intended to hold more meetings over compensation in the future.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters said he had not been aware of any locals eating tinned fish due to the wreckage.

Peters spoke to RNZ Pacific Waves about the Manawanui. He reiterated that the Sāmoa government was leading the ongoing process around compensation and the wreckage, which included any discussion around its removal.

He also denied there was any cover-up over the environmental impacts of the wreckage.

To date, no environmental report on the impacts of Manawanui sinking has been made public.

“It’s not a matter of being covert or secretive about it,” Peters said.

“It’s analysing what we’re dealing with, and I think that probably better explains what’s happening here.”

Open and transparent
Peters said the New Zealand government had been open and transparent in it’s dealing and continued to work with the Sāmoa government over the Manawanui incident.

“This terrible tragedy happened, which we massively regret — no one more than me.”

But Samoa surf guide Manu Percival said the New Zealand government’s behaviour had not been good enough.

For months, Percival had been in contact with the New Zealand High Commission about compensation for the boat fuel he used in the immediate aftermath of the disaster to assist with clean-up.

“It’s real crazy. No one’s got any compensation.”

He also said it had been difficult to get any concrete answers from the Sāmoa government over the future of the wreckage and compensation.

“It’s kind of getting tossed between two different government departments.”

Percival believed New Zealand should remove its wreckage and that the compensation amount paid to the Samoa government was “an absolute joke”.

However, Peters said the NZ$6 million was the amount requested by the Samoa government.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Greenpeace says moves to weaken ocean protection through dodgy fisheries “reforms” will be met with strong opposition, as Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announces he wants to proceed with a raft of proposed changes to fisheries laws.

The controversial changes are some of the largest in decades, and would restrict public access to cameras on boats footage, remove the requirement for fishers to land all their catch, and stop legal challenges to catch limits that have been successful in protecting species in recent years.

The reforms will also give the minister the ability to set catch limits for five years.

Greenpeace oceans campaigner Ellie Hooper said these proposals would give the industry carte blanche on ocean destruction, weaken transparency and block the public from having input into fisheries decisions.

“These changes spell disaster for the already struggling ocean around us,” she said.

‘More destruction’
“These reforms will mean more destruction, more decline in fish populations, and will allow the industry to go back to operating in the dark — hiding the impact they have.”

“There are far more people in this country than just the commercial fishing industry who have a right to know how the ocean is being impacted, and have a say on what happens about protecting it.”

“During a biodiversity and ocean crisis, we will strongly oppose moves to expedite destruction at the hands of the commercial fishing industry, as will the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who also back ocean protection.”

Republished from Greenpeace News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Greenpeace activists on board the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior disrupted an industrial longlining fishing operation in the South Pacific, seizing almost 20 km of fishing gear and freeing nine sharks — including an endangered mako — near Australia and New Zealand.

Crew retrieved the entire longline and more than 210 baited hooks from a European Union-flagged industrial fishing vessel, including an endangered longfin mako shark, eight near-threatened blue sharks and four swordfish.

The crew also documented the vessel catching endangered sharks during its longlining operation.

The at-sea action followed new Greenpeace Australia Pacific analysis exposing the extent of shark catch from industrial longlining in parts of the Pacific Ocean.

Latest fisheries data showed that almost 70 percent of EU vessels’ catch was blue shark in 2023 alone.

The operation came ahead of this week’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, where world leaders are discussing ocean protection and the Global Ocean Treaty.

On board the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Georgia Whitaker said: “These longliners are industrial killing machines. Greenpeace Australia Pacific took peaceful and direct action to disrupt this attack on marine life.

“We saved important species that would otherwise have been killed or left to die on hooks.

“The scale of industrial fishing — still legal on the high seas — is astronomical. These vessels claim to be targeting swordfish or tuna, but we witnessed shark after shark being hauled up by these industrial fleets, including three endangered sharks in just half an hour.

Rainbow Warrior crew disrupt longline fishing in the Pacific.  Video: Greenpeace

“Greenpeace is calling on world leaders at the UN Ocean Conference to protect 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030 from this wanton destruction.”

Stingray caught as bycatch is hauled onboard the Lu Rong Yuan Lu 212 longliner vessel in the Tasman Sea.

The Rainbow Warrior is in the South Pacific ocean to expose longline fishing and call on governments to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty and create a network of protected areas in the high seas.

Greenpeace Aotearoa is calling on the New Zealand government to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty and help create global ocean sanctuaries, including in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand signed the agreement in 2023.

More than two-thirds of sharks worldwide are endangered, and a third of those are at risk of extinction from overfishing.

Over the last three weeks, the Rainbow Warrior has been documenting longlining vessels and practices off Australia’s east coast, including from Spain and China.

Emma Page is Greenpeace Aotearoa’s communications lead, oceans and fisheries. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

French Polynesia’s president has announced his administration will establish one of the world’s largest networks of highly protected marine areas (MPAs).

The highly protected areas will safeguard 220,000 sq km of remote waters near the Society Islands and 680,000 sq km near the Gambier Islands.

Speaking at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, President Moetai Brotherson pledged to protect nearly 23 percent of French Polynesia’s waters.

“In French Polynesia, the ocean is much more than a territory — it’s the source of life, culture, and identity,” he said.

“By strengthening the protection of Tainui Atea (the existing marine managed area that encompasses all French Polynesian waters) and laying the foundations for future marine protected areas . . .  we are asserting our ecological sovereignty while creating biodiversity sanctuaries for our people and future generations.”

Once implemented, this would be one of the world’s single-largest designations of highly protected ocean space in history.

Access will be limited, and all forms of extraction, such as fishing and mining, will be banned.

Together, the zones encompass an area about twice the size of continental France.

President Brotherson also promised to create additional artisanal fishing zones and two more large, highly protected MPAs within the next year near the Austral and Marquesas islands.

He also committed to bolster conservation measures within the rest of French Polynesia’s waters.

Donatien Tanret, who leads Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy’s work in French Polynesia, said local communities had made it clear that they wanted to see stronger protections that reflected both scientific guidance and their ancestral culture for future generations.

“These protections and commitments to future designations are a powerful example of how local leadership and traditional measures such as rāhui can address modern challenges.”

Samoa announces MPAs
Before the conference, Samoa adopted a legally binding Marine Spatial Plan — a step to fully protect 30 percent and ensure sustainable management of 100 percent of its ocean.

The plan includes the establishment of nine new fully protected MPAs, covering 36,000 sq km of ocean.

Toeolesulsulu Cedric Schuster, Samoa’s Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, said Samoa was a large ocean state and its way of life was under increased threat from issues including climate change and overfishing.

“This Marine Spatial Plan marks a historic step towards ensuring that our ocean remains prosperous and healthy to support all future generations of Samoans — just as it did for us and our ancestors.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Trump administration has issued a new executive order opening up vast swathes of protected ocean to commercial exploitation, including areas within the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.

It allows commercial fishing in areas long considered off-limits due to their ecological significance — despite overwhelming scientific consensus that marine sanctuaries are essential for rebuilding fish stocks and maintaining ocean health.

These actions threaten some of the most sensitive and pristine marine ecosystems in the world.

Condeming the announcement, Greenpeace USA project lead on ocean sanctuaries Arlo Hemphill said: “Opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing puts one of the most pristine ocean ecosystems on the planet at risk.

“Almost 90 percent of global marine fish stocks are fully exploited or overfished. The few places in the world ocean set aside as large, fully protected ocean sanctuaries serve as ‘fish banks’, allowing fish populations to recover, while protecting the habitats in which they thrive.

“President Bush and President Obama had the foresight to protect the natural resources of the Pacific for future generations, and Greenpeace USA condemns the actions of President Trump today to reverse that progress.”

President Trump signs executive order on Pacific fisheries     Video: Hawai’i News Now

Slashed jobs at NOAA
A second executive order calls for deregulation of America’s fisheries under the guise of boosting seafood production.

Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said: “If President Trump wants to increase US fisheries production and stabilise seafood markets, deregulation will have the opposite effect.

“Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already slashed jobs at NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and is threatening to dismantle the agency responsible for providing the science that makes management of US fisheries possible.”

“Trump’s executive order on fishing could set the world back by decades, undoing all the progress that has been made to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks and America’s fisheries.

“While there is far too little attention to bycatch and habitat destruction, NOAA’s record of fisheries management has made the US a world leader.

“Trump seems ready to throw that out the window with all the care of a toddler tossing his toys out of the crib.”

‘Slap in face to science’
Hawai’i News Now reports that a delegation from American Samoa, where the economy is dependent on fishing, had been lobbying the president for the change and joined him in the Oval Office for the signing.

Environmental groups are alarmed.

“Trump right here is giving a gift to the industrial fishing fleets. It’s a slap in the face to science,” said Maxx Phillips, an attorney for the Centre for Biological Diversity.

“To the ocean, to the generations of Pacific Islanders who fought long and hard to protect these sacred waters.”

Republished from Greenpeace USA with additional reporting by Hawai’i News Now.

The executive orders, announced on April 17, 2025, are detailed here:

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Norway is stopping the first licensing round for deep sea mining in Arctic waters — and Greenpeace Aotearoa says this is putting pressure on the Luxon government to follow suit.

“This move by Norway to stop the seabed mining in its tracks is a historic win for ocean protection and for the growing movement opposed to the damaging new extractive industry,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Juan Parada.

“This puts the spotlight firmly on the Luxon government to do the same.”

In January 2024, the Norwegian government opened its Arctic waters to deep sea mining across an area equivalent to the size of Italy, but after resistance grew across civil society and the fishing industry, the government has agreed to stop the first licensing round for at least the whole of 2025.

“This decision by Norway puts even more pressure on the Luxon government not to be the first in the world to allow commercial seabed mining to take place in its waters,” Parada said.

“Millions of people across the world are now calling on governments to resist the dire threat of seabed mining to safeguard oceans worldwide and one by one they are listening.

“The Luxon government needs to read the room, listen to the growing opposition and put an end to the Australian-owned mining company Trans-Tasman Resources’ destructive plans to mine the South Taranaki Bight.” says Parada.

Last week, Greenpeace activists, along with representatives of Taranaki iwi Ngāti Ruanui, disrupted the annual general meeting of Manuka Resources, the owners of TTR.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Ocean Declaration that will be agreed upon at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) this week will be known as the Apia Ocean Declaration.

In an exclusive interview with the Samoa Observer, Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland said members were in a unique position to bring their voices together for the oceans, which have long been neglected.

“The Apia Ocean Declaration aims to address the rising threats to our ocean faces, especially from climate change and rising sea levels,” she said.

Commonwealth pushes for ocean protection with historic Apia Ocean Declaration. Video: Samoa Observer

Scotland, reflecting on her tenure as Secretary-General, noted the privilege of serving the Commonwealth, a diverse family of 56 countries comprising 2.7 billion people.

“I am very much the child of the Commonwealth. With 60 percent of our population under 30 years, we must prioritise their future.”

Scotland reflected that upon assuming her role, she recognised immediately that addressing climate change would be a key priority for the Commonwealth.

“Why? Because we have 33 small states, 25 small island states and we were the ones who were really suffering this badly,” she said.

Pacific a ‘big blue ocean state’
“We also knew in 2016 that nobody was looking at the oceans. Now, the Pacific is a big blue ocean state.

“But it’s one of the most under-resourced elements that we have. And yet, look at what was happening. The hurricanes and the cyclones were getting bigger and bigger.

“Why? Because our ocean had absorbed so much of the heat, so much of the carbon, and now it was starting to become saturated. So before, our ocean acted as a coolant. The cyclone would come, the hurricane would come, they’d pass over our cool blue water, and the heat would be drawn out.”

The Apia Ocean Declaration emerged from a pressing need to protect the oceans, especially given the devastating impact of climate change on coastal and island nations.

“We realised that while many discussions were happening globally, the oceans were often overlooked,” Scotland remarked.

“In 2016, we recognised the necessity for collective action. Our oceans absorb much of the carbon and heat, leading to increasingly severe hurricanes and cyclones.”

Scotland has spearheaded initiatives that brought together oceanographers, climatologists, and various stakeholders.

Worked in silos ‘for too long’
“We worked in silos for too long. It was time to unite our efforts for the ocean’s health.

“That’s when we realised that nobody had their eye on our oceans, but of the 56 Commonwealth members, many of us are island states, so our whole life is dependent on our ocean. And so that’s when the fight back happened.”

This collaboration resulted in the establishment of the Commonwealth Blue Charter, a significant framework focused on ocean conservation.

“Fiji’s presidency at the UN Oceans Conference was a turning point. Critics said it would take years to establish an ocean instrument, but we achieved it in less than ten months.”

“We are not just talking; we are implementing solutions.”

Scotland also addressed the financial challenges faced by many small island states, particularly regarding climate funding.

“In 2009, $100 billion was promised by those who had been primarily responsible for the climate crisis, to help those of us who contributed almost nothing to get over the hump.

Hard for finance applications
“But the money wasn’t coming. And in those days, many of our members found it so hard to put those applications together.”

To combat this issue, the Commonwealth established a Climate Finance Access Hub, facilitating over $365 million in funding for member states with another $500 million in the pipeline.

“But this has caused us to say we have to go further,” she added.

“We’re using geospatial data, we have to fill in the gaps for our members who don’t have the data, so we can look at what has happened in the past, what may happen in the future, and now we have AI to help us do the simulators.

“The Ocean Ministers’ Conference highlighted the importance of ensuring that countries at risk of disappearing under the waves can maintain their maritime jurisdiction,” Scotland asserted.

“The thing that we thought was so important is that those countries threatened with the rising of the sea, which could take away their whole island, don’t have certainty in terms of that jurisdiction. What will happen if our islands drop below the sea level?

“And we wanted our member states to be confident that if they had settled their marine boundaries, that jurisdiction would be set in perpetuity. Because that was the biggest guarantee; I may lose my land, but please don’t tell me I’m going to lose my ocean too.

Target an ocean declaration
“So that was the target for the Ocean Ministers’ Conference. And out of that came the idea that we would have an ocean declaration.

“It is that ocean declaration that we are bringing here to Samoa. And the whole poignancy of that is Samoa is the first small island state in the Pacific ever to host CHOGM. So wouldn’t it be beautiful if out of this big blue ocean state, this wonderful Pacific state, we could get an ocean declaration which could in the future be able to be known as the Apia Ocean Declaration? Because we would really mark what we’re doing here.

“What the Commonwealth has been determined to do throughout this whole period is not just talk, but take positive action to help our members not only just to survive, but to thrive.

“And if, which I hope we will, we get an agreement from our 56 states on this ocean declaration, it enables us to put the evidence before everyone, not only to secure what we need, but then to say 0.05 percent of the money is not enough to save our oceans.

“Oceans are the most underfunded area.

“I hope that all the work we’ve done on the Universal Vulnerability Index, on the nature of the vulnerability for our members, will be able to justify proper money, proper resources being put in.

“And you know what’s happening in this area; our fishermen are under threat.

“Our ability to use the oceans in the way we’ve used for millennia to feed our people, support our people, is really under threat. So this CHOGM is our fight back.”

As the meeting progresses, the emphasis remains on achieving consensus among the 56 member states regarding the Apia Ocean Declaration.

Republished from the Samoa Observer with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Caledonia’s domestic carrier Air Calédonie is set to launch a biweekly international connection to neighbouring Vanuatu.

The new link is set to start operating from October 3 with two return flights, one on Mondays and the other on Thursdays.

The company said this followed a recent code-share agreement with New Caledonia’s international carrier Air Calédonie international (Air Calin).

The domestic company’s ATR 72-600 planes will be used to link Nouméa’s international La Tontouta airport to Port Vila, the company said.

Air Calédonie said the new agreement to fly to Vanuatu comes at a “difficult time”, almost four months after riots broke out in the French Pacific archipelago.

Seeking new markets
The ongoing unrest has made a huge negative impact on the economy and — because of long periods of curfew and state of emergency — has also heavily impacted domestic and international flights, causing in turn huge losses in business for the airlines.

“This new connection therefore is a vital opportunity to maintain employment and a sufficient level of business that are necessary to the company’s survival”, said Air Calédonie CEO Daniel Houmbouy, who also mentioned a “necessary capacity to adapt and evolve”.

New link to Paris
As part of a stringent cost-cutting exercise, Air Calin has had to cut staff numbers as well as reduce its regional connections.

It is also currently considering putting one of its aircraft on lease.

However, Air Calin is also preparing to launch a new direct Paris-Nouméa connection, via Bangkok, sometime in 2025, using a 291-seater Airbus A330-900neo on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

The company is currently recruiting 12 pilots and 20 navigating flight assistants who would be based mainly in Paris-Charles de Gaulle airport.

Here again, the plan is directly connected to New Caledonia’s unrest and its impact on the economy.

“It’s all about continuing to generate an acceptable level of revenue to be able to bear fixed costs, in response to the consequences of the local economic context’s recent upsets”.

On a similar destination, Air Calin has also recently opened another connection via Singapore.

But regional routes have also been affected, sometimes suspended (Melbourne), sometimes significantly contracted (Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland, Papeete).

As part of the restructuration, the new long-haul route via Bangkok would effectively replace the older connection to Paris via Tokyo-Narita.

“This will directly threaten the future of our industry. The repercussions will be catastrophic both in terms of employment in our industry and for [New Caledonia’s] economy,” commented Mario Lopez, who heads local tuna fishing company Armement du Nord, writing on social networks.

He said what was at stake was “300 to 400 tonnes of yellowfin sashimi-grade tuna which until now were sent each year for auction on Japanese markets”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Vanuatu has taken a leading role in a bloc of nations fighting to keep marine environment protection on the main agenda of the UN organisation responsible for developing global regulations for seabed mining.

The assembly of the Kingston-based International Seabed Authority is meeting this week with a packed programme, including a vote to pick the next secretary-general who could significantly influence the environmental constraints set on mining.

Deep-sea mineral extraction has been particularly contentious in the Pacific, where some economically lagging island nations see it as a possible financial windfall and solution to their fiscal challenges but many other island states are strongly opposed.

Vanuatu Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu, at the ISA meeting of the 168 member nations plus the European Union, said an environmental policy was “critical” because it’s likely the body will receive an application to approve commercial seabed mining by the end of this year.

“When you make deliberations in the coming days, please think beyond your national boundaries and think as custodians of our ocean and of the real threat mining the seabed poses for the Pacific region,” Regenvanu said in remarks he explicitly directed at the Pacific island nations which favour deepsea mining.

“Financial exploitation of our ocean may be beneficial for the next decade for our nations, but it could be devastating for the future generations,” he said.

Mining of the golf ball-sized metallic nodules that litter swathes of the sea bed is touted as a source of the rare-earth minerals needed for green technologies, like electric vehicles, as the world reduces reliance on fossil fuels.

Irreparable damage
Sceptics say such minerals are already abundant on land and warn that mining the sea bed could cause irreparable damage to an environment that is still poorly understood by science.

Deep-sea mining opponents have been pushing for the ISA to prioritize protection of the marine environment at the full assembly rather than keep discussion of the issue within its smaller policy-setting council.

Some see such a policy as the prerequisite for an international moratorium on deep-sea mining in the vast ocean areas outside national boundaries that fall under the ISA’s jurisdiction.

Along with Vanuatu, several nations including Spain, Chile and Canada expressed backing for the assembly to begin discussion of an environmental policy.

China, a powerful voice at the ISA, reiterated its reservations because of the packed agenda, but said it was willing to be flexible. Saudi Arabia was among the nations that criticised the proposal sponsored by Vanuatu and seven other nations but did not formally object.

The assembly is also expected to vote on candidates for the ISA’s secretary-general. The long serving incumbent Michael Lodge has been criticized by organizations such as Greenpeace, who say he has taken the part of deep-sea mining companies rather than being a neutral technocrat.

The British lawyer’s candidacy is sponsored by the pro-mining Pacific nation of Kiribati against Brazil’s Leticia Carvalho, an oceanographer and former oil industry regulator of the South American nation, who has also been critical of his leadership.

Vanuatu also made its mark at the assembly by blocking two organisations linked to deep-sea mining companies from gaining NGO observer status at the ISA.

Regenvanu told the assembly that one of the organisations was made up of subsidiaries of The Metals Company, which has been testing its equipment for hoovering up the metallic nodules from the ocean floor.

The Metals Company is working with the Pacific island nations of Nauru, Kiribati and Tonga to possibly exploit their licence areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The 4.5 million square kilometer area in the central Pacific is regulated by the ISA and contains trillions of polymetallic nodules at depths of up to 5.5 km.

Nauru in June 2021 notified the seabed authority of its intention to begin mining, which started the clock on a two-year period for the authority’s member nations to finalise regulations.

The Cook Islands, meanwhile, is allowing nodule exploration by other companies in its own waters and does not need ISA approval to mine in them.

Sonny Williams, Assistant Minister to the Cook Islands Prime Minister, told the assembly that his country is proceeding with caution to ensure both conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.

“Deep seabed minerals hold immense potential for our prosperity,” he said. “To unlock and develop this potential we must do so responsibly and sustainably, prioritising the long-term wellbeing of our people.”

Greenpeace deep-sea mining campaigner Louisa Casson said the ISA assembly would not complete the complicated process of agreeing on deep-sea mining rules at its current meeting.

Non-governmental organisations and governments that want to take a cautious approach to deep sea mining are hoping the assembly meeting will make incremental progress toward achieving a moratorium on mining, she told BenarNews.

Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with permission of BenarNews.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is being held in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

Adam Wolfenden, who is there on behalf of Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), says the concerns of small Pacific nations centre on the subsidy provided by larger nations to fishing companies.

He said Fiji, in particular, was seeking a strong outcome on fisheries subsidies’ negotiations.

Wolfenden said the reason they were so concerned around fisheries subsidies was because of “the revenue and the importance of fisheries to the Pacific both at a governmental level, but also for the livelihoods of Pacific Islanders is enormous”.

He said this then raised concerns about how countries deal with overfishing and overcapacity, but did not prevent the small island nations from “developing their own domestic fleets to fish their resources and create a development pathway built on fisheries”.

Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister, Manoa Kamikamica, who is at the meeting, said: “Fiji will ask from its partners for stronger disciplines on subsidies contributing to overfishing and overcapacity in the negotiations that has caused the global depletion of fish stocks.”

“For us, this is more than a matter of national interest — it is a matter of national survival,” he said.

“Additionally, Fiji will highlight the importance of special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries, including small island states, to ensure that trade policies take into account the specific challenges and vulnerabilities faced by these nations.”

Solomon Islands Foreign and Trade Minister, Jeremiah Manele, said the deliberations continued to undermine the responsible growth in his country’s fisheries sector “and further, the preservation of our fishing arrangements and differential licensing arrangements”.

“The current text maintains the status quo, leaning favourably towards the major subsidisers, with a mere focus on notifications and sustainability.”

MC13 is also focusing on reform of the WTO and Samoa’s Trade Negotiations Minister, Leota Laki Lamositele, said last year that “we reaffirmed that special and differential treatment for developing and Least Developed Country Members is an integral part of the WTO and its agreements”.

“As such, Samoa concurs with others in supporting the work of the WTO and that MC13 should ensure inclusive, transparent, and rules-based outcomes, to accommodate the diversity of WTO Membership in implementing current.”

‘A lot of uncertainty’
Civil society organisations have found themselves being shut out at this WTO meeting.

Wolfenden said there was a lot of concern about how non-government organisations were being treated in Abu Dhabi.

He said a lot of the activities that the groups would normally have been able to do — even just providing leaflets to journalists or directly engaging in advocacy — was being restricted.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty and a lack of clarity around what the security situation is with, you know, colleagues being detained for sending information to journalists for taking photos.

“We have sent a letter to the WTO director-general, I know this has been raised by a number of governments, including New Zealand, and the concerns around the way civil society is being treated.

“Yet there’s still no clarity and if anything, it feels like the way that we have been dealt with by local security is escalating.”

He added there was a lot of concern for participants and their safety within the conference venue.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The University of the South Pacific’s (USP) Tuvalu Campus, located in the capital Funafuti, is perhaps the smallest university in the world, but it offers a distinctive service.

The nation of Tuvalu comprises nine small atoll islands which have a combined population of just 11,400. The Tuvalu Campus itself is restricted to one small building with three classrooms, a conference room, a couple of office spaces and several mobile teaching and learning units.

Regardless of the size of the campus, USP Tuvalu’s campus director Dr Olikoni Tanaki from Tonga is positive about the university’s role and contribution.

In a message on its website, he argues it is the people that “make this campus distinctive and we continuously strive to explore better ways to provide the best services to our communities, and that sustains our distinctiveness”.

In an interview in Funafuti, Isikeli Naqaya, a student-learning specialist at USP Tuvalu, said: “Every semester, the university caters to about 330 students who come from all nine islands.”

He added that some students were based in outer islands and study online, while the majority were based in Funafuti.

The campus was first established as an extension centre in the early 1980s. It is referred to as USP Tuvalu because of the multi-campus nature of USP.

USP is a single university with 11 branch campuses across the Pacific.

It is one of two regional universities in the world — the other is in the Caribbean — and is owned by 12 Pacific Island countries, with Tuvalu being one of them.

USP’s main campus is located in Suva, Fiji, and is known in the region as Laucala Campus, which is also the university’s administrative centre.

Catering to local needs
Tuvalu Campus is basically a regional centre of USP which helps to deliver courses that are designed at the Laucala Campus.

Local students can take certificate, diploma or degree courses of USP via the Tuvalu Campus but they need to register through the central administration at Laucala. USP Tuvalu also offers short courses and workshops catering to local needs.

“The majority of our students do the online mode, particularly those who are involved in degree courses,” Naqaya said. “A majority of those doing face-to-face [courses] are those who do foundation programmes”.

The foundation programmes include the compulsory module, English language skills for tertiary studies, that is taught in-person by Naqaya.

He explains that there are three delivery methods on campus: if there is a tutor available on campus to deliver the programme, it’s face to face. If there is no tutor, it is usually a blended mode or purely online.

Many of the in-person courses are short courses offered as adult education programmes to improve the skills levels needed for the local economy.

“We have just completed one on business communication with our Department of Fisheries here in Tuvalu. It went on for two weeks. These programmes are very popular here.

“Different government ministries and even non-governmental organisations come to us for this type of programme,” said Naqaya. “We have also delivered a course in the small seafood business.”

Fisheries staff
Most of the students for the small business course were staff of the Tuvalu Fisheries Department. USP Tuvalu advertised the course and staff interested in it sent in their applications which went to Laucala campus for selection.

The certificates for the graduates of the short courses are issued by USP in Fiji.

Because it is a branch campus, for USP Tuvalu to deliver a programme, it has to undergo a process. First, the Fiji campus consults with their Tuvalu counterparts to see whether they have a suitable person to deliver the course.

If there is one, Tuvalu receives the course material from Suva and the course is delivered in Tuvalu.

“If we don’t have the specialised staff, like [for a subject such as] cybercrime, for example, we would have someone to come over and deliver it. We first advertise it locally and if there is someone qualified here to do it, they will come and deliver it,” said Naqaya.

“Many of the small courses I have been delivering.”

School leadership programme
On November 27, USP Tuvalu officially launched the Graduate Certificate of School Leadership (GCSL) programme in Tuvalu, marking a crucial step towards empowering the country’s school leaders.

This is a collaborative effort between the USP’s Institute of Education (IoE), the Tuvalu Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports, and the Tuvalu Learning Project. The GCSL programme was developed in response to a request from Tuvalu, and emphasises the collaborative effort required for success.

IoE director Dr Seu’ula Johansson-Fua, delivering the opening remarks at the launch of the GCSL programme, described it as an uncommon instance of a member country seeking university-designed programmes, and highlighted the institution’s commitment to tailoring education to meet the specific needs of member countries.

The guest of honour for the launch ceremony, Director of the Tuvalu Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Neaki Letia, highlighted the necessity of the GCSL programme and acknowledged the challenges faced by school leaders in the absence of proper leadership and management training.

“In your role as school leaders we demand reports, we demand . . . attainments. At one point in time, we sit around the table and ask each other, ‘Have we provided proper training for the tools that we ask them to provide?’ and the answer is ‘No, we have not’,” he said.

“So, this is why we requested USP, especially the Institute of Education, for support — to help us contribute ideas and instil knowledge to be a leader,” he explained.

Local research capacity
Another role of USP Tuvalu is to develop local research capacity, especially in local knowledge to tackle climatic change.

Vasa Saitala, a Tuvaluan, was the community research officer at USP Tuvalu until recently. She told University World News that a campus like Tuvalu is important to unite communities as some Tuvaluans have never been to school.

“There are changes due to climate change and through consultations with communities they would . . .  learn of what’s happening around us,” she said. “We have to do the studies about traditional knowledge and peoples’ awareness of climatic change, etcetera.”

Saitala has conducted a research project on gathering traditional knowledge about local indicators for different seasons and has developed a curriculum for community training on how to use this knowledge to protect against cyclones, droughts and so on. She has also been involved in a regional project of USP that gathers information about community understandings of climatic change issues.

“USP Laucala outsources the research to us. We do the research here and send the reports to Laucala,” she said.

“For short-term fisheries training and also gender issues, people from USP Fiji come here and work with us.”

Kalinga Seneviratne is a journalist, radio broadcaster, television documentary maker, media and international communications analyst. During 2023, he was a journalism programme consultant with The University of the South Pacific. This article was first published by University World News and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Japanese government spokesperson says it is “not wilfully trying to divide the Pacific” over the Fukushima treated nuclear wastewater release.

Japan is set to start discharging more than one million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow (local time).

This comes 12 years after a tsunami slammed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting in what has been labelled as the largest civil nuclear energy disaster since Chernobyl.

Palau, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia have publicly backed the plan or at least placed their faith in Japan’s word that it will be safe.

The release is forecast to take 30 to 40 years to complete.

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is the most recent Pacific leader to speak out in defence of Japan.

He said he is satisfied their plan is safe after reading the UN nuclear agency’s report.

Rabuka’s voice is important because he is in the Pacific Islands Forum leadership team — known as the Troika — as the past chair of the Forum. The other two are current chair Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and future chair, the Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni.

Since making that statement Rabuka has apologised for speaking ahead of the recent Troika meeting, but he has not backtracked on his view.

‘Discharged’ into Japan’s own backyard
Rabuka has taken to social media in response to criticism of his statement of support.

“Comparisons between the nuclear legacy in the Pacific and Japan’s nuclear wastewater release is fear-mongering,” he wrote.

He also said the wastewater was not being dumped but discharged into Japan’s “own backyard”, over 7000km from Fiji.

1/3 One of my critics at the weekend appeared to be somehow connecting the wastewater discharge with the cataclysmic power of the nuclear bombs dropped in the Pacific as part of weapons testing.

— Sitiveni Rabuka (@slrabuka) August 22, 2023

That in itself has been the centre of debate with nuclear activists continuing to call it a dump.

One nuclear expert appointed by the Pacific Islands Forum said there was an argument that it was a dump over a release.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency has gone to great lengths — even travelling to New Zealand and Rarotonga — to explain why this is not a dump.

Director-General Rafael Grossi told RNZ Pacific earlier this year that he condemned dumping which he said had happened in the past and was not the case for Japan’s plan.

Against and on the fence
Vanuatu’s Foreign Minister has drafted a declaration urging Japan to stop the discharge.

He wants the leaders of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting in Port Vila today to support the declaration.

Tuvalu has also spoken out, expressing opposition to Rabuka’s stance.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Finance, Seve Paeniu told FBC News that if Japan was genuinely confident, why did it not consider disposing of it within its own lakes and waters.

TEPCO assures the Pacific
Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO) spokesperson Junichi Matsumoto told the first media briefing today that his team was “moving quickly” to prepare the release which would depend on the conditions.

“The final decision will be made on the morning of the [August] 24 based on the climate conditions or weather conditions,” he said.

“A very small amount will be carefully discharged using a two-step process.”

RNZ asked TEPCO about the nuclear legacy in the Pacific.

“To the members of the PIF, we have been providing explanations on the discharge into the sea,” Matsumoto said.

“So we would like to continue to provide the explanation on our initiative.

“And in terms of assurance, it may be a bit different in terms of nuance, but the result of sea area monitoring will be communicated.

Matsumoto said anyone wishing to could check the results of the sea area monitoring on the TEPCO website.

When questioned about when Pacific nations would see the effects of the release, he said that according to dispersion models particles would arrive on the shores of Papua New Guinea and Fiji in “a few years’ time or a few decades”.

“It will be impossible to distinguish that [discharged] tritium [in the Pacific Ocean] from that already existing in nature,” Matsumoto said.

A Japan government spokesperson said Tokyo was not wilfully trying to divide the Pacific and no compensation would be given to Pacific nations for potential reputational damage.

“The Japanese government has been taking opportunities at international conferences and at bilateral meetings to thoroughly and meticulously explain and disseminate information to the world through its website, as well as through social network media including X [formerly Twitter],” the spokesperson said.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As Pacific communities protest the Japanese government’s plan to dump more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, Australian anti-nuclear activists are highlighting the complicity of Australian uranium exporting companies.

While the Fukushima Daiichi power station operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), claims that the water will be treated to reduce radioactive content, anti-nuclear activists have no faith in TEPCO’s assurances.

The Candlelight Alliance, a Korean community group in Sydney, is organising a protest outside the Japanese consulate this Saturday.

Spokersperson Sihyun Paik told Green Left: “We have a great fear that it may already be too late to stop Japan’s release of radioactively contaminated waste water into our largest ocean, an action by which every Pacific Rim nation will be impacted.

“There are serious, global ramifications,” he said. “It will directly endanger the marine life with which it comes into contact, as well as devastate the livelihoods of those reliant on such marine life, such as fisherfolk.

“All living organisms will be implicitly affected, whether it is the unwitting consumer of contaminated produce, or even beachgoers.

“The danger posed by the plan cannot be contained within just the Northeast Asia region. In two to three years, it will eventually reach and contaminate all ocean waters to certain, yet significant degrees according to scientists.

Korean fishery victims
“The local Korean fishery industry is the first commercial victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and it raised deep concerns to the Korean government immediately after the explosion of the nuclear reactors.

“This was in conjunction with Korea’s progressive action groups during the term of the previous Moon Jae-In administration.

“However, since the current administration (2022), the voice of protest has been extinguished at the government level, invariably raising suspicion of possible under the table dealings between Japan’s Kishida government and current Korean President Yoon [Suk Yeol] during the latter’s recent visit to Japan.”

Epeli Lesuma, from the Fiji-based Pacific Network on Globalisation, told Green Left that “for Pacific people the Ocean represents more than just a vast blue expanse that Japan can just use as a dumpsite.

“Our Ocean represents the economic, spiritual and cultural heart of Pacific countries.

“Pacific people know all too well the cost of nuclear testing and dumping. The Pacific was used as a nuclear test site by the UK, France and the USA who carried out a total of 315 tests on Christmas Island in Kiribati, Australia, Māohi Nui or French Polynesia and the Marshall Islands.

“These nuclear legacies have cost us countless lives and continue to impact the health and well-being of our people; it has impacted access to our fishing grounds and land to plant crops to support our families; and it has cost us our homes, with Pacific people displaced (on Bikini and Enewetak) due to nuclear contamination.

Japan, Pacific share trauma
“Japan and the Pacific share the trauma of nuclear weapons and testing.

“So it comes as a deep disappointment to us that the Japanese government would consider actions that threaten not only Pacific people and our Ocean but the health and well-being of all the planet’s oceans and the people who depend upon them.

“The Pacific Ocean also contains the largest tuna fish stocks which are a source of economic revenue for our countries. The Japanese government’s plans to dump its nuclear wastewater into our Ocean pose a direct threat to the economic prosperity of our countries and in turn our developmental aspirations as well as being a fundamental breach of Pacific people’s rights to a clean and healthy sustainable environment.”

Australian anti-nuclear activist Nat Lowrey delivered a statement of solidarity from the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance when she visited affected local communities in Fukushima in March.

The statement acknowledged that uranium from the Ranger and Olympic Dam mines was in TEPCO’s Fukushima reactors when the meltdowns, explosions and fires took place in March 2011.

The ANFA statement said that “Australian governments, and mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto, are partly responsible for the death and destruction resulting from the Fukushima disaster. They knew about the corruption in Japan’s nuclear industry but kept supplying uranium.”

Lowrey said that since it was Australian uranium that fuelled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, “the Australian government has a responsibility to stand with local communities in Fukushima as well as communities in Japan, Korea, China and Pacific Island states in calling on the Japanese government not to dump radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean”.

‘Fundamental self-determination right’
“We must support Pacific peoples’ fundamental right to their sovereignty and self-determination against Japan’s nuclear colonialism.

“If Japan is to go ahead with the dumping of radioactive waste, Australia should play a lead role in taking a case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea against Japan.”

Paik said no Australian government had taken serious action since the Fukushima disaster.

“Despite the Japanese government’s decision to release nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, no official statement or comment has been made by the [Anthony] Albanese government.

“We did not expect any form of government level protest on this issue due to conflicts of interest with Australia’s member status in the Quad partnership which is a key pillar in Australia’s foreign policy, and an influential determinant of our stance on nuclear energy.”

When the G7 met in Tokyo, the Japanese government urged the summit to approve the planned radioactive water release.

Tanaka Shigeru, from the Pacific Asia Resource Centre in Japan, said: “Japan did not get the approval by the G7 as it had hoped, but it stopped at saying the G7 will adhere to the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

‘IAEA approves release’
“The IAEA is of course approving of the release, so it is a way for them to say they have approved without explicitly saying so.”

Shigeru said that despite a three-year propaganda campaign over Fukushima, most people polled in Japan in April said that “the government has not done enough to garner the understanding of the public”.

Only 6.5 percent of those polled believe that the Japanese government has done enough.

Yet it has “done enough to keep people from the streets”, Shigeru said.

“While there are, of course, people who are still continuing the struggle, I must say the movement has peaked already after what has been a fervent three-year struggle.”

Japanese opponents of the radioactive water release, including fisherfolk, have been fighting through every administrative and legal step but now “there are no more domestic hurdles that the Japanese government needs to clear in order to begin the dumping”, Shigeru said.

“The opposition parties have been so minimised in Japan that there is very little realistic means to challenge the situation except for maybe international pressure. That is really the only thing standing in the way of the dumping.

Ambassador propaganda
“So Japan has been taking ambassadors from the Pacific nations on lucrative paid-for trips to Fukushima to spread the propaganda that the dumping will be safe.”

Lesuma confirmed the impact on swaying some Pacific Island governments, such as Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Pacific Islands Forum member states have been some of the most vocal opponents at the international level of the Japanese government’s plans to dump their nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean,” he said.

“The PIF leaders had appointed an Independent Panel of Experts who have engaged with TEPCO scientists and the IAEA to provide advice to Pacific governments on the wastewater disposal plans … the Panel has concluded unanimously that Japan should not release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean and should explore other alternatives.

“The Fiji government has been one such Pacific government consistent in coming out strongly in opposing Japan’s plans.

“The PNG Fisheries Minister, Jelta Wong, has also been vocal and consistent in expressing his disapproval of the same, going as far as saying that the nuclear wastewater discharge would create a ‘Pacific Chernobyl’ with the potential to cause harm to Pacific people for generations to come.”

Peter Boyle is a Green Left activist and contributing writer. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz