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

The signing of the memorandum of understanding between the University of the South Pacific’s vice-chancellor and president, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, and the Indian government’s National Centre for Coastal Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, in March for the setting up of a Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI) has raised serious questions about leadership at USP.

Critics have been asking how this project poses significant risk to the credibility of the institution as well as the security of ocean resources and knowledge sovereignty of the region.

The partnership was formally launched last week by India’s High Commissioner to Fiji, Palaniswamy Subramanyan Karthigeyan, but the questions remain.

Regional resource security threat
Article 8 of the MOU regarding the issue of intellectual property and commercialisation
states:

“In case research is carried out solely and separately by the Party or the research results are obtained through sole and separate efforts of either Party,  The Party concerned alone will apply for grant of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and once granted, the IPR will be solely owned by the concerned Party.”

This is a red flag provision which gives the Indian government unlimited access to scientific data, coastal indigenous knowledge and other forms of marine biodiversity within the 200 exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial waters of sovereign countries in the Pacific.

More than that, through the granting of IPR, it will claim ownership of all the data and indigenous knowledge generated. This has potential for biopiracy, especially the theft of
local knowledge for commercial purposes by a foreign power.

No doubt this will be a serious breach of the sovereignty of Pacific Island States whose
ocean resources have been subjected to predatory practices by external powers over the
years.

The coastal indigenous knowledge of Pacific communities have been passed down
over generations and the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organisations (WIPO) has developed protocols to protect indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability and survival
of vulnerable groups.

The MOU not only undermines the spirit of WIPO, it also threatens the knowledge sovereignty of Pacific people and this directly contravenes the UN Convention of Biodiversity which attempts to protect the knowledge of biodiversity of indigenous
communities.

In this regard, it also goes against the protective intent of the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which protects resources of marginalised groups.

This threat is heightened by the fact that the Access Benefit and Sharing protocol under the Nagoya Convention has not been developed in most of the Pacific Island Countries. Fiji has developed a draft but it still needs to be refined and finalised and key government departments are made aware of it.

Traditional knowledge of coastal eco-systems of Pacific people are critical in mitigation and adaptation to the increasing threat of climate change as well as a means of collective survival.

For Indian government scientists (who will run the institute), masquerading as USP
academics, claiming ownership of data generated from these knowledge systems will pose
serious issues of being unethical, culturally insensitive, predatory and outright illegal in
relation to the laws of the sovereign states of the Pacific as well as in terms of international
conventions noted above.

Furthermore, India, which is a growing economic power, would be interested in Pacific
Ocean resources such as seabed mining of rare metals for its electrification projects as well
as reef marine life for medicinal or cosmetic use and deep sea fishing.

The setting up of SCORI will enable the Indian government to facilitate these interests using USP’s regional status as a Trojan horse to carry out its agenda in accessing our sea resources across the vast Pacific Ocean.

India is also part of the QUAD Indo-Pacific strategic alliance which also includes the US, Australia and Japan.

There is a danger that SCORI will, in implicit ways, act as India’s strategic maritime connection in the Pacific thus contributing to the already escalating regional geo-political contestation between China and the “Western” powers.

This is an affront to the Pacific people who have been crying out for a peaceful and harmonious region.

The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, signed by the leaders of the Pacific, tries to guard against all these. Just a few months after the strategy was signed, USP, a regional
institution, has allowed a foreign power to access the resources of the Blue Pacific Continent without the consent and even knowledge of the Pacific people.

So in short, USP’s VCP, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, has endorsed the potential capture of the sovereign ownership of our oceanic heritage and opening the window for unrestricted exploitation of oceanic data and coastal indigenous knowledge of the Pacific.

This latest saga puts Professor Ahluwalia squarely in the category of security risk to the region and regional governments should quickly do something about it before it is too late, especially when the MOU had already been signed and the plan is now a reality.

Together with Professor Sushil Kumar (Director of Research) and Professor Surendra Prasad (Head of the School of Agriculture, Geography, Ocean and Natural Sciences), both of whom are Indian nationals, he has to be answerable to the leaders and people of the region.

Usurpation of state protocol
The second major issue relates to why the Fiji government was not part of the agreement,
especially because a foreign government is setting up an institute on Fiji’s territory.

This is different from the regular aid from Australia, New Zealand and even China where state donors maintain a “hands-off” approach out of respect for the sovereignty of Fiji as well as the independence of USP as a regional institution.

In this case a foreign power is actually setting up an entity in Fiji’s national realm in a regional institution.

As a matter of protocol, was the Fiji government aware of the MOU? Why was there no
relevant provision relating to the participation of the Fiji government in the process?

This is a serious breach of political protocol which Professor Ahluwalia has to be accountable for.

Transparency and consultation
For such a major undertaking which deals with Pacific Ocean resources, coastal people’s
livelihood and coastal environment and their potential exploitation, there should have been
a more transparent, honest and extensive consultation involving governments, regional
organisations, civil society and communities who are going to be directly affected.

This was never done and as a result the project lacks credibility and legitimacy. The MOU itself provided nothing on participation of and benefits to the regional governments, regional organisations and communities.

In addition, the MOU was signed on the basis of a concept note rather than a detailed plan
of SCORI. At that point no one really knew what the detailed aims, rationale, structure,
functions, outputs and operational details of the institute was going to be.

There is a lot of secrecy and manoeuvrings by Professor Ahluwalia and academics from mainland India who are part of a patronage system which excludes regional Pacific and Indo-Fijian scholars.

Undermining of regional expertise
Regional experts on ocean, sustainability and climate at USP were never consulted, although some may have heard of rumours swirling around the coconut wireless. Worse still, USP’s leading ocean expert, an award-winning regional scholar of note, was sidelined and had to resign from USP out of frustration.

The MOU is very clear about SCORI being run by “experts” from India, which sounds more like a takeover of an important regional area of research by foreign researchers.

These India-based researchers have no understanding of the Pacific islands, cultures, maritime and coastal environment and work being done in the area of marine studies in the Pacific. The sidelining of regional staff has worsened under the current VCP’s term.

Another critical question is why the Indian government did not provide funding for the
existing Institute of Marine Resources (IMR) which has been serving the region well for
many years. Not only will SCORI duplicate the work of IMR, it will also overshadow its operation and undermine regional expertise and the interests of regional countries.

Wake up to resources capture
The people of the Pacific must wake up to this attempt at resources capture by a big foreign power under the guise of academic research.

Our ocean and intellectual resources have been unscrupulously extracted, exploited and stolen by corporations and big powers in the past. SCORI is just another attempt to continue this predatory and neo-colonial practice.

The lack of consultation and near secrecy in which this was carried out speaks volume about a conspiratorial intent which is being cunningly concealed from us.

SCORI poses a serious threat to our resource sovereignty, undermines Fiji’s political protocol, lacks transparency and good governance and undermines regional expertise. This
is a very serious abuse of power with unimaginable consequences to USP and indeed the
resources, people and governments of our beloved Pacific region.

This has never been done by a USP VC and has never been done in the history of the Pacific.

The lack of consultation in this case is reflective of a much deeper problem. It also manifests ethical corruption in the form of lack of transparency, denial of support for regional staff, egoistic paranoia and authoritarian management as USP staff will testify.

This has led to unprecedented toxicity in the work environment, irretrievable breakdown of basic university services and record low morale of staff. All these have rendered the university dysfunctional while progressively imploding at the core.

If we are not careful, our guardianship of “Our Sea of Islands,” a term coined by the
intellectually immortal Professor Epeli Hau’ofa, will continue to be threatened. No doubt Professor Hau’ofa will be wriggling around restlessly in his Wainadoi grave if he hears about this latest saga.

This article has been contributed to Asia Pacific Report by researchers seeking to widen debate about the issues at stake with the new SCORI initiative.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As the Second Global Ocean Conference opens today in Lisbon, governments in Asia and the Pacific must seize the opportunity to enhance cooperation and solidarity to address a host of challenges that endanger what is a lifeline for millions of people in the region.

If done right ocean action will also be climate action but this will require working in concert on a few fronts.

First, we must invest in and support science and technology to produce key solutions. Strengthening science-policy interfaces to bridge practitioners and policymakers contributes to a sound understanding of ocean-climate synergies, thereby enabling better policy design, an important priority of the Indonesian Presidency of the G20 process. Additionally policy support tools can assist governments in identifying and prioritizing actions through policy and SDG tracking and scenarios development.

We must also make the invisible visible through ocean data: just three of ten targets for the goal on life below water are measurable in Asia and the Pacific. Better data is the foundation of better policies and collective action. The Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP) is an innovative multi-stakeholder collective established to enable countries and other stakeholders to go beyond GDP and to measure and manage progress towards ocean sustainable development.

Solutions for low-carbon maritime transport are also a key part of the transition to decarbonization by the middle of the century. Countries in Asia and the Pacific recognized this when adopting a new Regional Action Programme last December, putting more emphasis on such concrete steps as innovative shipping technologies, cooperation on green shipping corridors and more efficient use of existing port infrastructure and facilities to make this ambition a reality.

Finally, aligning finance with our ocean, climate and broader SDG aspirations provides a crucial foundation for all of our action. Blue bonds are an attractive instrument both for governments interested in raising funds for ocean conservation and for investors interested in contributing to sustainable development in addition to obtaining a return for their investment.

These actions and others are steps towards ensuring the viability of several of the region’s key ocean-based economic sectors, such as seaborne trade, tourism and fisheries. An estimated 50 to 80 per cent of all life on Earth is found under the ocean surface. Seven of every 10 fish caught around the globe comes from Pacific waters. And we know that the oceans and coasts are also vital allies in the fight against climate change, with coastal systems such as mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows at the frontline of climate change, absorbing carbon at rates of up to 50 times those of the same area of tropical forest.

But the health of the oceans in Asia and the Pacific is in serious decline: rampant pollution, destructive and illegal fishing practices, inadequate marine governance and continued urbanization along coastlines have destroyed 40 per cent of the coral reefs and approximately 60 per cent of the coastal mangroves, while fish stocks continue to decline and consumption patterns remain unsustainable.

These and other pressures exacerbate climate-induced ocean acidification and warming and weaken the capacity of oceans to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Global climate change is also contributing to sea-level rise, which affects coastal and island communities severely, resulting in greater disaster risk , internal displacement and international migration.

To promote concerted action, ESCAP, in collaboration with partner UN agencies, provides a regional platform in support of SDG14, aligned within the framework of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). Through four editions so far of the Asia-Pacific Day for the Ocean, we also support countries in identifying and putting in place solutions and accelerated actions through regional dialogue and cooperation.

It is abundantly clear there can be no healthy planet without a healthy ocean. Our leaders meeting in Lisbon must step up efforts to protect the ocean and its precious resources and to build sustainable blue economies.

*******

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

What do you do when the other small island nations don’t recognise your brilliance and won’t go along with your suggestions?

Well, when you are Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, you call up your brother, Riyaz’s, broadcasting network (their FBC, not yours), and instruct it to express your displeasure.

FBC News reports that the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, Antigua and Barbuda, rejected a proposal on oceans put forward by Fiji at COP26 and “this has not gone down well with Fiji, which says it does not believe this position is in the long-standing collaborative interest of AOSIS”.

Which actually means the big slap in the face has not gone down well with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, an oceans champion at COP.

The FBC News story doesn’t carry the name of the author of the story, which is a requirement for every story under the AG’s media laws. But those rules don’t apply either when the AG orders a version of a story to go to air to try to counter a humiliating setback.

Grubsheet Feejee understands that with the Chair of AOSIS “shunning Fiji’s presentation” – which is how even FBC News put it – other island nations have taken Antigua and Barbuda’s lead.

Indeed, there are reports that not a single other AOSIS member has sided with the AG, which just compounds his humiliation.

It wasn’t meant to be this way. COP26 was meant to showcase Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s brilliant negotiating skills by putting oceans at the centre of the climate agenda.

But Glasgow is not Suva. And the AG is finding out the hard way that just because he wants something doesn’t mean that he will get it.

Maybe he can use his celebrated skills of persuasion to turns things around before it all ends in failure.

But let’s hope Captain Mendacious has learned a valuable lesson in one of his first forays onto the global stage. That the leaders of other nations don’t necessarily share his high opinion of himself.

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. He was a member of the Fiji government’s climate delegation at COP23.

AOSIS Chair shuns Fiji’s presentation

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Memories of idyllic beaches and sonorous waves may seem far away while we remain at home. Yet, we need not look far to appreciate the enduring history of the ocean in Asia and the Pacific. For generations, the region has thrived on our seas. Our namesake bears a nod to the Pacific Ocean, a body of water tethered to the well-being of billions in our region. The seas provide food, livelihoods and a sense of identity, especially for coastal communities in the Pacific island States.

Sadly, escalating strains on the marine environment are threatening to drown progress and our way of life. In less than a century, climate change and unsustainable resource management have degraded ecosystems and diminished biodiversity. Levels of overfishing have exponentially increased, leaving fish stocks and food systems vulnerable. Marine plastic pollution coursing through the region’s rivers have contributed to most of the debris flooding the ocean. While the COVID-19 pandemic has temporarily reduced emissions and pollution on the ocean, this should not be moment of reprieve. Rather, recovery efforts have the potential to rebuild a new reality, embedded in sustainability and resilience. It is time to take transformative action for the ocean, together.

Despite a seascape celebrated in our collective imaginations, research shows that our picture of the ocean is remarkably shallow. Insights from Changing Sails: Accelerating Regional Actions for Sustainable Oceans in Asia and the Pacific, the theme study of this year’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, reveal that without data, we are swimming in the dark. Data are available for only two out of ten targets for Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14: Life Below Water. Due to limitations in methodology and national statistical systems, information gaps have persisted at uneven levels across countries. Defeating COVID-19 has been a numbers game and we need similar commitment to data for the state of our shores.

While there is much we cannot see, images of plastic pollution have become commonplace. Asia and the Pacific produces nearly half of global plastic by volume, of which it consumes 38 per cent. Plastics represent a double burden for the ocean: their production generates CO2 absorbed by the ocean, and as a final product enter the ocean as pollution. Beating this challenge will hinge upon effective national policies and re-thinking production cycles.

Environmental decline is also affecting dwindling fish stocks. Our region’s position as the world’s largest producer of fish has come at the cost of overexploitation. The percentage of stocks fished at unsustainable levels has increased threefold from 10 per cent 1974 to 33 per cent in 2015. Generating complete data on fish stocks, fighting illicit fishing activity and conserving marine areas must remain a priority.

Economic activity from shipping must also be sustainable. While the most connected shipping economies are in Asia, the small island developing States (SIDS) of the Pacific experience much lower levels of connectivity, leaving them relatively isolated from the global economy. Closing the maritime connectivity gap must be placed at the centre of regional transport cooperation efforts. We must also work with the shipping community to navigate toward green shipping. As an ocean-based industry, shipping directly affects the health of the marine ecosystem. Enforcing sustainable shipping policies is essential to mitigate maritime pollution.

The magnitude of our ocean and its challenges represent how extensive and collaborative our solutions must be. Transboundary ocean management and linking ocean data call for close cooperation among countries in the region. Harnessing ocean statistics through strong national statistical systems will serve as a compass guiding countries to monitor trends, devise timely responses and clear blind spots impeding action. Through the Ocean Accounts Partnership, ESCAP is working with countries to harmonize ocean data and provide a space for regular dialogue. Translating international agreements and standards into national action is also key. We must fully equip countries and all ocean custodians to localize global agreements into tangible results. ESCAP is working with member states to implement International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements on emissions reduction and environmental standards.

Keeping the ocean plastic-free will depend on policies that promote a circular economy approach. This strategy minimizes resource use and keeps them in use for as long as possible. This will require economic incentives and disincentives, coupled with fundamental lifestyle changes. Several countries in the region have introduced successful single use plastic bans. ESCAP’s Closing the Loop project is reducing the environmental impact of cities in ASEAN by addressing plastic waste pollution and leakages into the marine environment.

Our oceans keep our health, the economy and our lives above the waves. In the post-COVID-19 era, we must use the critical years ahead to steer our collective fleets toward sustainable oceans. With our shared resources and commitment, I am confident we can sail in the right direction.

——————–

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP

By Sylvia C. Frain in Auckland

Aotearoa/New Zealand’s status as a “wasteful country” is one of the targets of the PURE 2018 tour launched in Auckland earlier this month.

More than 12 million metric tons of plastics enter oceans and waterways globally each year, directly impacting on New Zealand’s coastal communities, food sources, and sea birds.

New Zealand was recently ranked the world’s 10th most wasteful country, producing 3.68 kilos of waste per capita a day.

The launch began with a hui highlighting the current toxic impacts of plastic pollution on public health, food systems, and the oceanic environment.

The hui objectives:

• Exploring plastic pollution on our shores
• Hearing from all stakeholders in a search for solutions
• Discussing potential national strategies for immediate action on long term solutions.

The trans-Oceanic collaboration, between Para Kore promoting the zero waste, Tina Ngata of the Non-Plastic Māori blog, the founders of the United States-based 5 Gyres Institute, and the Algalita Marine Research and Education organisation, receives support from Massey University and Okeanos, Foundation for the Sea.

The tour is creating strategies of for accountable management and plastic prevention. The discussion included understanding the “green washing” of recycling and how to envision a future of stopping all plastics at the source.

Tying plastic pollution into issues of social justice, decolonisation, and food security, presenter Dr Steph B. Borrelle said: “If we are serious about addressing plastic pollution as a global crisis, then we cannot ignore the issue of waste colonialism.

“Countries of privilege burden others with their consumerism then turn their backs on the consequences.”

The PURE tour around the country will continue to facilitate discussions and workshops and showcase the severity of plastic pollution.

The organisers are encouraging involvement from the community, iwi, youth, and educators and will conduct scientific sampling across Aotearoa.

• More information and the event schedule
• Sustainable Coastlines Flagship Hub in Auckland City

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The narrative
It is noteworthy that there was no communications or consultations nationally, regionally or internationally as Fiji lobbied to get the presidency for COP23 in Marrakech. Even our fellow members of the Pacific and SIDS (Small Islands Developing States) were caught unaware.

A robust consultation nationally would have helped government appreciate the gravity of the task which Fiji as a nation was committing to, both in terms of the costs of undertaking this and our capacity to do so.

Coming straight after Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston, as many of our citizens are still struggling to get their lives together, a legitimate question is whether this should be really our priority. This has been further exacerbated by the recent revelation of over F$11 million costs because of the recent floods.

Does the government have the resources for accepting such an extravagant international agenda, when nationally it is in dire need of resources to assist with the recent disasters?

The government should be open and reveal details such as the expected costs and arrangements of hosting both the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) COP23 and the Oceans Conference and the cost of consultants if any. Aren’t these fundamental values; openness, transparency, inclusiveness in the UN ways of doing things?

It is extraordinary that Fiji has opted to take the leadership on two of the most important issues on the international agenda for 2017. The taxpayers of this country have a right to know how much of their money is being spent on these commitments, especially when the wealthier members of the Asia-Pacific group opted not to take on this responsibility.

The PM talked effusively about his “need” to travel the world and host pre-COP meetings. This comes at a significant cost to the nation when the leader of our executive branch takes (not seeks) approval by way of a New Year’s message, to traipse all over the world.

Fundamentally, citizens and taxpayers of this country, must to be consulted extensively on what positions we are taking on many of the vexed issues within the climate change and oceans agenda with a clear view in mind of the benefits to us or in economic terms, the return on investment. After all it is still unclear what tangible benefits we derived from the chairmanship of the G77 and recently the SBI within the UNFCCC.

Now that Fiji has cajoled the UN membership into taking on this huge privilege and responsibility for the COP23 presidency, the National Federation Party will advocate that this critical issue of climate change and environmental leadership is only possible through genuine and meaningful partnership, backed by a strong track record at the national level.

As members of the Opposition, we will strongly advocate for transparency in multilateral environmental negotiations that should, in the first instance, be taken to the people’s house for robust debate and scrutiny

We offer the following observations.

COPs: Unravelling

The ‘technicalese’
It is widely recognised that COP23 will be a “technical” COP where work on the “rule book” for implementing the Paris Agreement will continue. We also know that the technical capacity within government is extremely limited.

Does the Climate Change Unit, now situated in Ministry of Economy have the required expertise to deal with this issue? Perhaps the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Economy should consider where the Climate Change Unit should be based, given the COP23 will be handled by the PM’s office.

It becomes manifestly evident that the move of climate change to the Ministry of Economy is with one objective in mind — to access global climate change funds. If this is the mind-set which is the driver of our engagement at these negotiations, it is a zero sum game.

The much lauded Green Growth framework that was echoed at the PIDF (Pacific Islands Development Forum) and again in the 2016/2017 Budget supplement remains glaringly non-existent at the implementation level. High-level narratives can no longer cut it.

The strength of our participation in our negotiating bloc AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States), which corralled the world into the acceptance of the 1.5 degree benchmark has been because of the strength and exceptionalism of our technical arguments, driven by our environment ministries and their performance on our reporting obligations.

All of which were based on science and research. It isn’t the cutting edge science alone that won these debates, but rather the ingenuity of our technical specialists in putting forward suggestions that AOSIS members had to work with, based on our limitations.

Over the years, Fiji’s contributions in the negotiations has been almost non-visible as is evident from the lack of communications to UNFCCC Secretariat on matters seeking parties’ views, the dearth of Fiji participants taking the lead on any of the technical issues on behalf of AOSIS (in spite of a delegation size of over 40 — one of the highest from any developing country!) and our abysmal record in terms of fulfilling our reporting obligations under the UNFCCC. The fact that Fiji’s INDC report, supported by off-shore technical assistance reached the UNFCCC late, is telling.

Fiji cannot claim to be impoverished by a lack of intellect on climate change. There are many individuals, civil societies and institutions who are experts on climate change and multilateral environmental fora and who would only be willing to provide assistance, if they are politely requested to.

Indeed, if the mantra of this government on trade is to “Buy Fiijan Made”, this should surely also extend to our local knowledge and expertise that we should be aggressively promoting if we are sincere about COP23 being Fijian made.

That being said, being completely inclusive does not ensure sincerity.

The genesis of the PIDF, another publicly assisted body that is yet to show any tangible benefit at the ground level, was advocated for by certain IGOs. It remains to be seen how taxpayers paying about $100,000 for parking for the PIDF complex a few years ago, has added any real value to our people.

If citizens and taxpayers are subjected to a COP23 presidency that is held up by publicly funded offshore contractors with no obligation or commitment to Fiji, and whose ultimate interests and agendas leave us wide open and vulnerable as a COP president, the zero sum game then becomes riddled with added vulnerabilities that our people then become liable for.

A genuine SIDS presidency by Fiji is possible but it can only be meaningful if we reach out to involve our AOSIS family. It would be important to define the key issues that our COP23 presidency will promote.

This is a great opportunity to bring to the top of the climate agenda the specific issues of small island states. Clearly the identification of these issues should be done through inclusive consultations nationally, sub-regionally, regionally as well as with our fellow members of the AOSIS.

Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement recognises the participation of the civil society and the private sector as vital to the goal of implementing the Paris agenda. The government needs to reach out to the civil society groups and the business sector in an open, transparent process where these can contribute meaningfully to the process.

Fiji should begin by signing the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol and lobby to have this ratified so tangible actions are taken by countries for the next three to four years before the Paris Agreement comes into effect.

Given the PM’s stated goal to get the industrialised nations to reduce the emissions, and the concerns that the current commitments would lead to nearly 30C temperature rise, actions taken before 2020 will be vital in our attempts to reduce global emissions. The Doha amendment will require these countries to take pre-2020 actions according to the Kyoto Protocol commitments.

These are not new ideas, the whole world is aware of the changes that need to take place, and industrialised nations continue to lag behind.

What will make Fiji’s COP 23 presidency different where decades of international pressure has failed to curb the world’s worrying 3-degree trajectory? These are valid strategic and tactical negotiation aspects that only a sincere and meaningful “Fijian Made” COP23 presidency can unleash.

From the ground up
The greatest strength to any negotiation tactic is to “show not tell”. Around the world, technological innovations are happening at breakneck speed. What seemed impossible, is now possible and many of these great ideas are coming from places least expected.

Inquisitive young minds are encouraged to break the mould and venture into start-ups. All this is possible if policies and incentives are in place to encourage radical innovation.

Imposing reduced tariff’s for electric cars as a policy by the Ministry of Economy is old-school thinking.

Our record on renewables and energy efficiency can be enhanced greatly through use of solar, wind and ocean power, through the use of efficient energy appliances, and proper policies and plans at sectoral levels that should all converge nationally.

However, Fiji’s NDC lacks depth and scope, as it merely talks about the electricity sector (where we are fortunate to have a significant contribution from hydro but contributions of other renewables is less than 1 percent) but fails to consider opportunities in transport (the largest growing sector for emissions), agriculture, forestry, tourism etc. Cabinet has yet to adopt the draft Energy Policy that was developed over two years ago.

Loss and damage, a key negotiation push is being timidly approached nationally.

Conversations with the insurance industry are necessary but there is much in the national policy space that can also be explored so that there is parity in the burden.

Chance for new narrative
Citizens should all actively look forward to detailed announcements on the preparations for the COP23. Questions like which particular ministries or arms of government will be directly involved; who will be the key experts advising Government; meaningful strategies for the participation of NGOs and the private sector; anticipated costs and how Government should raise revenue, should be answered both in public spaces and in the august house.

As always, the NFP stands ready to assist but the record of FijiFirst government on bipartisanship in matters of national importance will prove us right again.

While time ticks on, Mother Nature the final arbiter, is under no obligation to the Qorvis narrative.

Professor Biman Prasad is the leader of the opposition National Federation Party (NFP). This article has been republished from The Fiji Times with the permission of the author.

Fiji to chair next COP23 climate summit

President Bainimarama’s 2017 New Year message – video