When the Pacific Islands Forum concluded in Honiara last month, leaders pledged regional unity under the motto “Iumi Tugeda” — “We are Together”.

Eighteen Pacific heads of government reached agreements on climate resilience and nuclear-free oceans.

They signed the Pacific Resilience Facility treaty and endorsed Australia’s proposal to jointly host the 2026 COP31 climate summit.

However, the region’s most urgent crisis was once again given only formulaic attention. West Papua, where Indonesian military operations continue to displace and replace tens of thousands of Papuans, was given just one predictable paragraph in the final communiqué.

This reaffirmed Indonesia’s sovereignty, recalled an invitation made six years ago for the UN High Commissioner to visit, and vaguely mentioned a possible leaders’ mission in 2026.

For the Papuan people, who have been waiting for more than half a century to exercise their right to self-determination, this represented no progress. It confirmed a decades-long pattern of acknowledging Jakarta’s tight grip, expressing polite concern and postponing action.

A stolen independence
The crisis in West Papua stems from its unique place in Pacific history. In 1961, the West Papuans established the New Guinea Council, adopted a national anthem and raised the Morning Star flag — years before Samoa gained independence in 1962 and Fiji in 1970.

Papuan delegates had also helped to launch the South Pacific Conference in 1950, which would become the Pacific Islands Forum.

However, this path was abruptly reversed. Under pressure from Cold War currents, the Netherlands transferred administration to Indonesia.

The promised plebiscite was replaced by the 1969 Act of Free Choice, in which 1026 hand-picked Papuans were forced to vote for integration under military coercion.

Despite protests, the UN endorsed the result. West Papua was the first Pacific nation to have its recognised independence reversed during decolonisation.

Systematic blockade
Since the early 1990s, UN officials have been seeking access to West Papua. However, the Indonesians have imposed a complete block on any international institutions and news media entering.

Between 2012 and 2022, multiple UN high commissioners and special rapporteurs requested visits. All were denied.

More than 100 UN member states have publicly supported these requests. It has never occurred. Regional organisations ranging from the Pacific Islands Forum to the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States have made identical demands. Jakarta ignores them all.

International media outlets face the same barriers. Despite former Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s 2015 declaration that foreign journalists could enter Papua freely, visa restrictions and surveillance have kept the province as among the world’s least reported conflicts.

During the protests in 2019, Indonesia shut down internet access across the territory.
Indonesia calculates that it can ignore international opinion because key partners treat West Papua as a low priority.

Australia and New Zealand balance occasional concern with deeper trade ties. The US and China prioritise strategic interests.

Even during his recent visit to Papua New Guinea, UN Secretary-General António Guterres made no mention of West Papua, despite the conflict lying just across the border.

Bougainville vs West Papua
The Pacific’s inaction is particularly striking when compared to Bougainville. Like West Papua, Bougainville endured a brutal conflict.

Unlike West Papua, however, Bougainville received genuine international support for self-determination. Under UN oversight, Bougainville’s 2019 referendum allowed free voting, with 98 per cent choosing independence.

Today, Bougainville and Papua New Guinea are negotiating a peaceful transition to sovereignty.

West Papua has been denied even this initial step. There is no credible mediation. There is no international accompaniment. There is no timetable for a political solution.

The price of hypocrisy
Pacific leaders are confronted with a fundamental contradiction. They demand bold global action on climate justice, yet turn a blind eye to political injustice on their doorstep.

The ban on raising the Morning Star flag in Honiara, reportedly under pressure from Indonesia, has highlighted this hypocrisy.

The flag symbolises the right of West Papuans to exist as a nation. Prohibiting it at a meeting celebrating regional solidarity revealed the extent of external influence in Pacific decision-making.

This selective solidarity comes at a high cost. It undermines the Pacific’s credibility as a global conscience on climate change and decolonisation.

It leaves Papuans trapped in what they describe as a “slow-motion genocide”. Between 2018 and 2022, an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 people were displaced by Indonesian military operations.

In 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that violence had reached levels unseen in decades.

Breaking the pattern
The Forum could end this cycle by taking practical steps. For example, it could set a deadline of 12 months for an Indonesia-UN agreement on unrestricted access to West Papua.

If no agreement is reached, the Forum could conduct its own investigation with the Melanesian Spearhead Group. It could also make regional programmes contingent on human rights benchmarks, including ensuring humanitarian access and ending internet shutdowns.

Such measures would not breach the Forum’s charter. They would align Pacific diplomacy with the proclaimed values of dignity and solidarity. They would demonstrate that regional unity extends beyond mere rhetoric.

The test of history
The people of West Papua were among the first in Oceania to resist colonial expansion and to form a modern government. They were also the first to experience the reversal of recognised sovereignty.

Until Pacific leaders find the courage to confront Indonesian obstruction and insist on genuine West Papuan self-determination, “Iumi Tugeda” will remain a beautiful slogan shadowed by betrayal.

The region’s moral authority does not depend on eloquence regarding the climate fund, but on whether it confronts its deepest wound.

Any claim to a unified Blue Pacific identity will remain incomplete until the issue of West Papua’s denied independence is finally addressed.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He holds a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University – Australia.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia is accused of using “diplomatic strong-arm tactics” to water down outcomes in Pacific climate negotiations and “buy silence” on climate change, a new report has revealed.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s report, Australia: Pacific Bully and International Outcast, reveals that the Australian government uses “bullying tactics” in regional negotiations on climate change, according to former Pacific Island leaders interviewed as part of the study.

The leaders include former Kiribati President Anote Tong and former Prime Minister of Tuvalu Bikenibeu Paeniu.

Australia’s aid to the Pacific has been “greenwashed”, with some of the largest and most expensive “climate adaptation” projects having no link to climate change or contributing to increase the climate resilience of Pacific peoples.

The Australian government’s climate position harms its international relations and economy with Australia’s export markets for coal and gas shrinking as major trading partners such as Japan and South Korea commit to net-zero emissions, says the report, published coinciding with the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

The report draws on dozens of interviews with present and former Pacific leaders, Australian diplomats and academics to expose the hardline tactics used by Australia to thwart stronger regional action on climate change and to shift focus away from Australia’s responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The report also uncovers the greenwashing of Australian aid in the Pacific, finding that millions of aid dollars have been given to “climate adaptation” projects that do not have any link to climate change.

Australian standing damaged
Greenpeace Australia Pacific researcher and international relations expert Dr Alex Edney-Browne said the investigation showed Australia’s international standing had been damaged by its climate obstruction.

“Australia has lost its once-respected position in the Pacific and now has a reputation for bullying and strong-arm diplomatic tactics to thwart regional climate action,” she said.

“Pacific Island leaders are some of the world’s strongest climate advocates, but Australia has brazenly tried to buy their silence through aid with strings attached.

“Morrison’s last-minute commitment at COP26 this week to increase regional climate finance by $500 milion, via bilateral agreements, simply won’t cut it. Given the level of greenwashing going on in Australia’s foreign aid to the Pacific as revealed in this report, there is also no guarantee that this money will go where it’s needed to increase the climate resiliency of Pacific peoples,” she said.

“Australia has a history of using bilateral aid as a way of gaining leverage over Pacific island countries. It would be nice to see Australia being a good international citizen and showing support for multilateral climate finance such as the UN’s Green Climate Fund. It refuses to do so.

“Australia must make a serious effort on climate change, which is threatening the very survival of Pacific nations. That means ruling out any new coal or gas projects, ending the billions in subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry and committing to a science-based target to cut emissions by 75 percent this decade to bring it up to speed with our regional neighbours and trading partners.”

Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, said Australia’s climate policy was already hurting the country’s diplomatic standing.

‘Reputation for decency’
“A country’s reputation for decency in these matters does really, really matter… Australia’s credibility in all sorts of ways depends on our being seen to be responsible, good international citizens and Australia is putting that reputation very much at risk on the climate front,” he said.

Anote Tong, former President of Kiribati, said Australia had not acted in the spirit of mutual respect in its dealings with the Pacific on climate change.

“I cannot read into the minds of Australian leaders but it’s always been my hope that we would treat each other with mutual respect, but I’m not sure this has always been the case,” he said.

“But we should be partners in every respect and not when it is convenient to one party but not the other, for example on climate change. We expect Australia to be stepping forward because climate change is very important for us and we’re meant to be part of this family. It had always been my expectation, my hope, that Australia would provide the leadership we desperately need on climate change.”

Dr Matt McDonald, associate professor of International Relations at University of Queensland, refers to Australia’s climate policies as a “perfect storm”, with serious repercussions for the country’s regional and international relations if these policies remain weak by comparison with similar developed countries.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The solution has been relatively well-received, because it has an elegance in its “cost-neutral” approach of putting a penalty tax of up to $3000 on the purchase of new higher-emitting vehicles, and using the proceeds of that revenue to offer up to $8000 in subsidies for those buying new energy-efficient cars such as electric vehicles (EVs).

But is it enough? Does it really match the scale of the problem? And what negative consequences will it have for those who can’t afford, or aren’t able to use, electric and low-emissions cars?

A well-received policy

Newspaper editorials have been especially positive towards the Government initiative. Yesterday, the New Zealand Herald argued that the policy is a “clever” way to encourage greener car purchases, and that the public is likely to be highly supportive in the same way that the plastic-bag ban has been accepted – see: Clean cars the right road forward.

Similarly, the Otago Daily Times labelled it a “smart policy” because of its “moderate” and light-handed approach to changing consumer behaviour. The newspaper editorial emphasised that this meant the policy was likely to be enduring: “It is also sufficiently restrained to likely survive any change in government” – see: Nudging car fleet changes.

The paper praised the “nudge” component of the approach: “It is a variation of the ‘nudge’ theory, recognised in marketing circles and human psychology. Rather than use education, enforcement and over-the-top rules, it adjusts the costs of new and imported used vehicles. While how much impact that will have can only be estimated, the plan would lower one of the high hurdles to electric and hybrid ownership, the relatively steep purchase price.”

The Dominion Post has also praised the policy as “practical, maybe even elegant”, and has defended the scheme from critics who “lamented the Government’s lack of boldness” – see: Better late than never for a plan to lower vehicle emissions.

A number of other voices have been very positive about the proposal, including the motor industry. And even National is generally supportive of the subsidies for greener cars.

But attention has also been focused on those sectors of society that might be negatively affected by the cost of many cars going up – especially the poor, but also farmers and tradespeople – see Jason Walls’ National says the Government’s plan to get greener cars on the road could hurt NZ’s poorest.

National’s Brett Hudson says: “There is a risk that a feebate system could turn out to be regressive in its nature; that lower-income workers and working families might see themselves worse off compared to some people on better incomes”.

Similarly, the Taxpayers’ Union says “this is a tax on Otara vehicles to subsidies Teslas in Remuera” – see Rebecca Moore’s Government’s proposed vehicle tax taking from the poor to benefit the rich, Taxpayers’ Union says. Executive Director of the lobby group, Jordan Williams, says “Just because something is shrouded in environmental branding doesn’t make it any less nasty to the poor”.

Lacking boldness and ambition?

Is the new policy ambitious enough? After all, given the climate change emergency we face, is this policy sufficiently bold and radical to meet the challenge?

So far, environmentalists have been less than impressed. Greenpeace energy campaigner Amanda Larsson has welcomed the policy in general but questioned the penalties being imposed on the less-efficient petrol and diesel vehicles, saying that the upper level fee of $3000 is disappointing. She points out that the French equivalent is about $10,000 – see Jason Walls’ Greenpeace wants the fee charged on higher emitting vehicles to be a lot higher than $3000. Greenpeace is also calling “on the Government to set a timeline for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles.”

This is a point also made by blogger No Right Turn: “As the Cabinet paper points out, a dirty car imported today stays on our roads for 19 years on average. So the quicker we turn off that tap, the better. But more importantly, we need to turn it off permanently. Other countries have announced phase-out dates for fossil-fuel vehicles, typically aiming to ban new sales in 2030 (and non-museum-piece registrations 5-10 years after). Such a date sets market expectations and helps drive the push for people to make their next car electric. But there’s no mention of one at all in the Cabinet paper – the necessary action seems like too much for the government to take” – see: Climate Change: Timid and unambitious.

The blogger also takes issue with the timeframe of the Government’s initiative, saying “the government needs to do more than this, and it needs to do it faster. They should be pushing this through the legislative process as quickly as possible, and implementing it immediately, rather than with a 5-year phase-in.” He points out that “the government is planning to apply a vehicle fuel efficiency standard Japan and Europe had five years ago in 2025”.

Drawing attention to Jacinda Ardern’s promise of a “nuclear-free moment” in combating climate change, No Right Turn says “contrary to the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, we’re not seeking to lead on climate change, we’re not even being a ‘fast follower’. Instead, our government is dragging its feet, just like its always done.”

On this issue of whether the Government is intervening enough, business journalist Liam Dann discusses why strong intervention is required: “Left to market forces alone, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles looks a long way off – too late for the world based on current predictions of a climate crisis. So if New Zealanders collectively want to hit current climate targets and reduce fuel emissions – it seems we need further government intervention. And that means big calls about the politics of who pays” – see: Kiwis are still too addicted to petrol, Govt had to act (paywalled).

In the end, the Government’s proposed scheme isn’t likely to make a huge difference in the take-up rates of EVs. David Linklater makes the case that current EVs simply aren’t yet very economical, even once discounted. For his “reality check” on the costs of buying an EV, and the costs of running them, see: Let’s not be fundamentalist about feebates and EV ownership.

He argues that to have a truly beneficial impact on the environment, car buyers need to be buying new EVs rather than second-hand ones, but at a cost of about $60,000 it’s hard to make the case that they are more cost-efficient over the long-term than the equivalent petrol-fuelled versions. For example, he argues that “it will take you 150,000km to recover the extra cost of a Leaf over a top-line Corolla”. Nonetheless, he says the new feebate policy isn’t designed to get everyone into an EV immediately, but just to nudge everyone into more efficient cars generally.

What is missing from the Government’s green vehicle policy?

The Dominion Post editorial, cited above, makes a recommendation for improving the Government’s green vehicle policy, suggesting that a serious investment in the infrastructure of public charging stations is required: “Charging stations remain an urban novelty, and are even rarer between some of the country’s cities and towns. That is an important next step, especially if the Government hopes to have its feebate running by 2021. We can’t afford another long wait for progress.”

Similarly, the Herald says: “There is also the issue of whether there will be an adequate network of charging stations to serve an increase in electric vehicles.

The Government also considered and rejected an array of other policies before announcing the latest green vehicle initiative. For example, a more generous subsidy for EVs could have been on offer, with the consideration of an extra $2000 being possible to reduce the costs – see Jason Walls’ article, Cabinet paper reveals the Government scrapped plans for a direct $2000 subsidy for EV buyers. The Government also decided against taking GST off electric vehicles.

Reporting on a Cabinet paper on the issues, Walls says the Government “is also exploring the possibility of a second-hand EV leasing scheme aimed at reducing transport costs for low-income households and supporting EV uptake”.

But why didn’t the Government decide to put some of their own money into subsidising EVs? In another article by Henry Cooke, the Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter explains: “We just decided it wasn’t tenable to take away $100m from schools or hospitals or hip operations to subsidise new cars that wouldn’t work for a large amount of New Zealanders” – see: Government considered $2000 subsidy and age limit on imported vehicles instead of feebate.

According to this article, the Government also rejected a “variable annual licensing fee”, which would make registration more expensive for high-emissions cars.

Will New Zealanders really care about this EV subsidy? Talkback host Ryan Bridge suggests otherwise, arguing that “Kiwis don’t care about climate change. They say they do, but then they go buy a new SUV and have another child. They have choices already and they’ve voted big, loud, and gassy” – see: Climate change tax proposed for driving utes, SUVs.

He’s rather cynical about the policy, saying “Farmer Bob from central Otago with his Ford Ranger will be hit with a $3000 tax, while latte-sipping, lentil-eating Fabio from Ponsonby with his VW Golf Electric will get an $8000 discount.” And today’s Listener editorial on the topic adds to this, saying “there is in this policy a whiff of pandering to urban liberals at the expense of workers in the provinces.”

Finally, Judith Collins took to Twitter this week to ask: “Given that EV cars have a wee electric motor, why do the manufacturers charge so much for them?” And to explain that, see David Linklater’s article, Silly car question #53: if EVs have ‘wee’ electric motors, why are they so expensive?

This week New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern concluded her first bilateral with China’s two top leaders President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang and ended with clear signals the two countries are poised to build on the $30billion two-way trade relationship.

But there was more to this bilateral meeting than simply New Zealand – a comparatively small South Pacific economy – solidifying a progressive trade relationship with a global economic superpower. There were significant signals given by both state leaders involving multilateralism and a vision for a non-fossil-fuel future.

For more on this, listen to Radio New Zealand’s The Panel where Selwyn Manning joined Verity Johnson and Wallace Chapman to discuss the NZ-PRC bilateral (On fossil fuels + NZ-PRC’s Relationship )

***

As Ardern said: “We also discussed our shared interest in strengthening the international rules-based order and on climate change, as an issue of global importance.” As such, both New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China indicated significant stances in foreign policy terms.

Firstly, the reference to “international rules-based order” appears a signal that New Zealand Government would support China in principle should it seek recourse through World Trade Organisation rules when countering any escalation of the United States/China trade war. The WTO, and other multilateral bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, are central to New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. There’s consistency here. New Zealand simply cannot support the alternative, unilateralism, even when disestablishment threats against multilateral bodies are being pitched by New Zealand’s most significant security partner, the United States.

This is a diplomatic delicacy, a courageous statement, that Ardern was willing to deliver.

On numerous occasions this year United States’ President Donald Trump warned that his administration would abandon the WTO should it not reform and emerge with a trade-rules framework that embraces US trade interests. Trump’s threats also signalled how his Administration would track further toward isolationist-unilateralism should China object to any abuses to WTO rules and international trade law.

You can expect that the US Embassy was busy overnight filing its briefing to Washington DC.

Secondly, China included a gutsy clause in the NZ-China Joint Climate Change Statement that was issued by both Premier Li and Prime Minister Ardern after their meeting.

The PRC and NZ stated: “Both sides recognise the importance of the reform of fossil fuel subsidies, which will bring both economic and environmental benefits, thereby supporting their shared global commitment to sustainable development.”

The idea of abandoning fossil fuel subsidies was first advanced by Jacinda Ardern at her first APEC leaders’ summit shortly after becoming prime minister. There, at APEC, she argued on a panel consisting of herself and the vice chair of Exxon Mobil that fossil fuel subsidies ought to be abandoned – that governments should cease subsidising fossil fuel industries and channel their economies toward developing a future free of fossil fuel carbon emissions.

Clearly, the PRC heard her message and was ready to signal support for it as an ideal. This is a win for Ardern. It is also a respectful acknowledgement that the Asia Pacific’s economic superpower rates her as a significant leader on the global stage.

Additionally, the clause also indicates China – in a week where reliable PMI figures showed it in a very favourable space – that it is confident that its future lies less with the old technologies that assisted the development of today’s western economies and more with the new-tech solutions to global economic development.

The USA will be aware that this move signals that China sees itself as more advanced in the area of AI, machine learning, alternative energy transportation and development than its European and United States counterparts.

Ardern has demonstrated how important it is to meet with significant powers face to face. At such bilaterals, she can offer respect and determination while her counterparts observe her honest, trustworthy, progressive no-nonsense leadership in action.

New Zealand will be the beneficiary of this approach: Ardern said: “I also raised with President Xi the importance New Zealand places on upgrading and modernising our Free Trade Agreement with China – an ambition that he shared.”

Both states have agreed to progress our trade relationship well beyond the current record levels of two-way trade (currently at $30b per annum).

With Premier Li, Ardern said: “We discussed the FTA upgrade, and agreed to hold the next round of negotiations soon and to make joint efforts towards reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

“We also discussed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, noting that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, David Parker, would lead a business delegation to the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April. This will help identify opportunities for mutually beneficial and transparent cooperation so we can complete a work plan as soon as possible.

“I reiterated to Premier Li that New Zealand welcomes all high quality foreign investment that will bring productive economic growth to our country.”

This latter point deserves some caution. China has expressed interest in furthering infrastructure investment within New Zealand – including investments that could be argued are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests, into the dairy and primary diversification sectors. While any New Zealand Government ought to proceed with caution here, if our diplomatic trade-negotiation team is buoyed by the country’s new leadership style, then perhaps mutual beneficial ventures can advance beyond a Joint Climate Change Statement.

PS: While in Beijing, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also invited President Xi for a State visit to New Zealand as part of New Zealand’s hosting of APEC in 2021.

During a recent trip to Port Vila, Tess Newton Cain caught up with Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and External Trade in the Vanuatu government.

Regenvanu describes himself as a Port Vila citizen. He has lived for most of his life in the capital of Vanuatu, other than for a period of time when he was studying in Australia (he holds an honours degree in anthropology and development studies from the Australian National University (ANU).

He spent more than a decade as director of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre, prior to a return to university in 2007, this time to study law at the University of the South Pacific. Then his political career took off:

Halfway through my degree, I stood for election, and I got in at the end of 2008 as an independent candidate. And myself and the others who were with me in the political journey set up the Graon mo Jastis Pati in 2010.

This is Minister Regenvanu’s third term in Parliament and he has held a number of portfolios since 2008. He took over as Minister for Foreign Affairs in December 2017.

So, what are Vanuatu’s foreign policy priorities and what would he like to see his ministry achieve during his tenure as its leader? Significantly, the minister points to internal matters as being more significant than external issues:

The biggest issues of this ministry are not so much external issues. The biggest issues of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are the internal coordination of the government so that we can strategically approach our international relations and diplomacy. So, at the moment, it is quite difficult to effectively strategise about how Vanuatu places itself in the world, especially the most important thing for us on the horizon is the LDC graduation in 2020.

More opportunities
The minister explained that he thinks there are more opportunities for Vanuatu to work strategically bilaterally, regionally and globally. This is what will be required as the impacts of Least Developed Country (LDC) graduation take effect after 2020.

Therefore, he is focused on getting the internal infrastructure right between his ministry, the Prime Minister’s Office (which is responsible for aid coordination), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity (which has carriage of the EDF11 program).

Politics in Vanuatu and voter behaviour tends to focus on the hyper-local issues so how can the work of the Foreign Minister and his Ministry be translated into messages that resonate with the urban voters of Port Vila, which is where Minister Regenvanu’s constituency sits?

…the best way to really make people appreciate our foreign relations is, of course, all the aid projects, right? And being able to show that they are well chosen, have high impact on the lives of people, that they’re conducted in a manner which is transparent, and they’re done efficiently. And that brings me back to what I originally said about being very strategic in how we organise ourselves internally to get projects, attract the right kind of projects and the right kind of conditions that we want.

The second aspect of foreign affairs that the minister believes resonates with voters is one that is essentially part of the DNA of Vanuatu:

There is, of course, the very popular issue in Vanuatu of West Papua, and that’s also something which governments need to take heed of, in terms of the very, very popular support for the independence of West Papua in Vanuatu, which is translated into one of our foreign affairs objectives.

A third, emerging, narrative is around the growing awareness of the impacts of climate change in Vanuatu. On that note, we discussed recent statements the minister had made regarding climate finance and, in particular, the issue of compensation for loss and damage.

Frustration over key issues
He expressed a certain amount of frustration with the actions (or lack thereof) of developed countries in relation to some key issues:

You’ve got to play the game that you yourself agreed to. So, when it comes to the Green Climate Fund, for example,… it’s a very poor effort by the developed countries who’ve said that they would contribute. Let alone, talking about loss and damage, which has absolutely no contributions, even though that was also an agreement made by all the countries…

I reminded the minister he had previously expressed to me a degree of scepticism about the value of regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum and the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF). What are his current views on this?

I think the Pacific Islands Forum is definitely useful, especially in terms of articulating common positions and being a conduit for development finance, accessing larger facilities and so on… I can’t say the same about the MSG [Melanesian Spearhead Group]. I think the MSG is… it’s disappointing, to say the least and there’s a question of its relevance.

The minister accepts that Vanuatu has a particular interest in the MSG, but says that ongoing support depends on management decisions made in the next little while. While the decision on the membership application of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) is top of that list, there are other concerns around management of the organisation as well. As for the PIDF?

We’re currently not a member. And we’re just — I suppose we’re just watching it to see — we’re really more invested in the Forum at this stage.

Last, but not least, we turned to the issue of increased participation of women in political decision-making. This is an issue on which Minister Regenvanu has long been very vocal. Further to his contribution to getting temporary special measures included in municipal elections in Port Vila and Luganville, what is next in this space?

Gender political space
…the next step is going for political party legislation, which is what we’re working on now, to get a new bill through Parliament, which provides for the regulation of political parties. At the moment, we have nothing like that in Vanuatu. So, just a very simple law that says you have to register a political party according to certain criteria… And then in that legislation, I think, is room to create measures… by which women can get more representation.

Minister Regenvanu continues to be a prominent and influential member of the Vanuatu Parliament and government. We will be watching his political progress with interest.

Dr Tess Newton Cain is the principal of TNC Pacific Consulting and is a visiting fellow at the Development Policy Centre in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. She is a citizen of Vanuatu where she lived for almost 20 years and is now based in Brisbane.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Oxfam New Zealand says the Government’s finance towards Pacific climate change is business focused and does not benefit families in need.

Rachael Le Mesurier, Oxfam New Zealand’s executive director, said because of this the Government needs to change its funding focus within Pacific climate finance.

“While New Zealand’s role in helping Pacific communities to access clean, efficient energy is helpful…the Government’s climate finance model is designed to be business focused, and not to benefit families living on the frontline of climate change.”

“These families need resources to adapt to rising seas and turbo-charged cyclones. The New Zealand Government’s climate finance program isn’t helping them do that,” Le Mesurier said.

‘unmet commitments’

Her statement complied with Oxfam’s research report, released this week, which assesses the “unmet” commitments of the New Zealand and Australian governments towards Pacific climate funds.

After Paris: Climate Finance in the Pacific Islands reveals the proportion of New Zealand’s climate finance dedicated to adaptation has dropped by 20 percent since 2013. It instead urges investment in resilience building.

It also states that Australia has not increased its contribution for international climate finance since 2010.

“Australia has failed to increase its contribution to international climate finance in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement or in keeping with stronger commitments from other developed nations.”

• The report comes as the most senior politicians in the Pacific gather for the 47^th Pacific Islands Forum. The five-day event began today in Pohnpei, the capital of the Federated Sates of Micronesia, and will end on Sunday.