Jacinda Ardern’s diplomatic trip to New York has been a success. She participated in at least 32 notable events, including a large number of bilateral meetings, and gave nine speeches. And she showed once again what an asset she is for New Zealand on the world stage.

Her final appearance, this afternoon, was on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – see Derek Cheng’s Jacinda Ardern to make cameo appearance on Colbert show.

New Zealand journalists were taken along for the recording of the show this morning, and Cheng reports on the light-hearted chat between the host and the prime minister, in which she joked about her time “trying to save the world” at the UN this week. The article also reports on the praise she received backstage from Hollywood actor Renee Zellweger over her handling of the Christchurch terrorist attacks.

Cheng outlines the rest of Ardern’s busy three days in New York: “She has rubbed shoulders with the world’s most powerful leaders, including US President Donald Trump, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, as well as tech executives including Facebook’s chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, Microsoft president Brad Smith and Twitter boss Jack Dorsey.”

There have been some important announcements by Ardern. The most substantial was the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) at the United Nations today – see Derek Cheng’s Jacinda Ardern in New York: Only five countries sign up for NZ’s trade agreement to tackle climate change. This relates to removing trade tariffs on environmental goods such as wind turbine parts and solar panels, while also trying to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Reactions haven’t been all that positive, so far – especially with so few countries signing up. Long-time climate change blogger, No Right Turn has suggested the size and scope of the measure isn’t that impressive – see: Climate Change: Meh.

Here’s his main point: “if this is as ambitious as the leaders of the five supposedly most ambitious countries can get, it’s really not very ambitious at all – just a restatement of former principles. If these five ‘high ambition’ countries wanted to actually lead, they’d be drafting a fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty instead. instead, they’ve chosen to take the easy bits of that regime, without the actual meaningful commitment.”

Overall, however, Ardern’s speeches on climate change have been well received. You can read her first two speeches to the United Nations Climate Change Summit here: ‘No one has the luxury of copping out’: Jacinda Ardern speaks to the UN about climate change.

Some, however, have questioned whether all these fine words in New York actually match the reality of what Ardern’s government are achieving back home. Today former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne says: “It is one thing to parade virtue on the international stage, but something else to have to match it to domestic reality. How much longer the government can get away with this game of two stories remains to be seen. In the absence of effective and decisive action, and any evidence of progress, it is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain the pretence” – see: Ardern’s rhetoric on climate change not matched by domestic reality.

There are some signs that Ardern’s promise of bringing agriculture into the ETS might not happen – see Thomas Coughlan and Luke Malpass’ Jacinda Ardern feted abroad, but Emissions Trading Scheme extension in trouble at home. According to this, previous “plans had stalled after ministers within the patchwork government were unable to agree on the details.”

Explaining the situation today, Richard Harman writes on the Politik website that “a group of agriculture organisations have made significant progress in getting the three parties that make up the Government to accept their proposal for a self-regulatory approach to farm emissions rather than the ETS over the next five years” – see: Ardern hints at climate change compromise.

Trump and Trade

For many, Ardern’s greatest New York triumph was her meeting with US President Donald Trump. Not a lot came out of the highly anticipated event. Derek Cheng reported that “Ardern emerged from the meeting – for which media were banned – at the InterContinental Hotel with warm smiles and high praise for Trump” – see: Jacinda Ardern in New York: What she discussed with Donald Trump.

Trump himself retweeted the above article, adding “True. A wonderful meeting!” Clearly the President appreciated the meeting and was able to use it show his ability to get on with another ally.

Given that Ardern wasn’t able to substantively bring up issues of climate change or indeed any of the other problems she might have with Trump’s actions, it raises the question of whether Ardern should have put herself in the position of meeting Trump in the first place. Elsewhere, political leaders are refusing to meet with him. For example, Ardern’s Labour Party counterpart in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, spoke out this week against Trump, especially regarding his orientation to climate change and proclaimed: “Let’s have no more if this hand-holding of Donald Trump.”

Earlier in the year Corbyn refused the invitation to go to a state banquet for Trump at Buckingham Palace, saying “Theresa May should not be rolling out the red carpet for a state visit to honour a president who rips up vital international treaties, backs climate change denial and uses racist and misogynist rhetoric”. And he wasn’t the only one to refuse to go – both the House of Commons speaker John Bercow and the Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable also rejected offers to meet with Trump.

So, was Ardern’s meeting with Trump a mistake? Probably not for more conservative voters, who would see this as successful diplomacy. Ardern simply did what is traditionally expected of prime ministers, and appeasement of powerful leaders is part of that game. However, some on the left might feel let down by this approach, as I wrote about for the Guardian – see: Ardern was supposed to be the anti-Trump, but she failed to speak truth to power.

Here’s the main point: “Ardern’s meeting ticked the usual objectives for a New Zealand prime minister meeting the US president. Business as usual has been achieved. Therein lies the problem for Ardern. Ardern isn’t supposed to be a traditional PM. She came to power riding a wave of enthusiasm for being different. Jacindamania was based on the expectation that she would do politics differently and would reject business as usual.”

Of course, it could be argued that it would have been futile or undiplomatic for Ardern to take any other approach than to appease Trump. But it’s worth looking at to what commentators and politicians said back when Bill English was prime minister and had to navigate issues with Trump – see my political roundup from that time: Bill English loses the Trump immigration debate. At the time, English was rightly skewered for his approach for trying to keep onside with the Americans by playing nice.

Prior to Ardern’s meeting this week, former Cabinet Minister Laila Harré spoke on TVNZ’s Q+A programme, saying “Ardern has an obligation, not just as New Zealand prime minister but as an important leader in the Pacific to raise the US’s withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement, in her meeting with Mr Trump” – see: ‘Disingenuous’ for Ardern to raise free trade deal with Trump says former MP, unionist Laila Harré.

Harré feared that instead of using the meeting to discuss climate change, the PM would instead concentrate on furthering New Zealand’s trade interests, saying if that happened then she’d be “disappointed by that”. Furthermore, “It’s either disingenuous of her to put a free trade agreement on the agenda with this president, or it’s worse”.

Of course, although there was plenty of admiration from the likes of Business New Zealand for Ardern having furthered New Zealand’s trade interests, others have voiced concern about whether such a deal would be good for New Zealand. For example, the NBR’s Brent Edwards argued that such a deal was extremely unlikely, given Trump’s highly protectionist stance – see: Cost of US free-trade deal might be too high (paywalled).

Brent Edwards says that even if a deal was on offer, it would be likely to be a bad one for this country: “And if Trump is keen on free trade talks, would New Zealand be stupid enough to engage? Trump makes a point of looking at trade flows. Countries that export more to the US than they import are not at the top of his list. As he imposes more restrictions on trade, he is hardly looking for deals that would make it easier for countries to export to the US. Trump’s America First policy means there is little in it for the other partner in the negotiation, particularly one as small as New Zealand compared with the economic powerhouse that is the US.”

Similarly, see an earlier column from Hamish Rutherford: Why seeking a free trade deal with Donald Trump’s US is a waste of time.

Finally, the media were barred from the Ardern-Trump meeting, but that didn’t stop two satirists imagining what was said – see The Civilian’s Trump repeatedly asked Ardern if New Zealand gives asylum very often, and James Elliott’s Jacinda and Donald – a transcript.

By Nanette Woonton at Te Papa

The stark realities of climate change were laid bare at the opening of the Pacific Ocean, Pacific Climate Conference in Wellington last week.

Calls from the Prime Minister of Samoa for urgent action were made as climate change is put under the microscope during the conference.

Coordinated by the Victoria University of Wellington in partnership with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) the three-day conference brought together different voices spanning a range of sectors for a diverse discussion on climate change and an exchange of ideas on how to address this issue together.

The conference scene was set with Samoan Prime Minister Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi presenting the opening keynote address on Wednesday, highlighting the challenges of climate change across Samoa and the Pacific, and showcasing the action undertaken to address these.

“We all have a role to play in seeking the greatest level of ambition from all parties to the Paris Agreement. We understand that there are challenges for all countries but through cooperation, understanding and good faith, we can overcome these,” said Prime Minister Tuila’epa.

“Promises are not enough, now is the time for action and we must all act now.”

The actions of Samoa both in climate change adaptation and mitigation were highlighted, helping to empower discussions over the days ahead.

100% renewable energy
Samoa has a target of generating 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, taking into account the anticipated increase in electricity demand.

In its commitment to climate action, Samoa is also preserving its biodiversity, ensuring mangroves as crucial marine ecosystems are conserved and protected, in turn helping to strengthen resilience against the impacts of climate change.

Samoa is also working to keep its waters clean and healthy from land-based pollution with legislation and regulations. Around 80 percent of marine debris is from land-based sources, all of which present a threat to Samoa’s marine wildlife.

“Pacific Island countries face numerous challenges with sustainable development. We are small in size and population. We have small markets and limited trade. We are remote and our resource bases are limited,” said Prime Minister Tuila’epa.

“Yet we have so much to be proud of. Pacific Island countries have made significant steps forward, and despite our challenges, our economies are growing. We are implementing innovative adaptation measures against climate change impacts.

“We made considerable progress in moving our economies towards renewable energy, despite being responsible for a very, very, very tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.”

For the next three days there was much discussion and exchange of ideas as the momentum gained to tackle climate change together as members of a Pacific and global community were propelled forward by words of empowerment from the Prime Minister of Samoa.

Global outlook needed
“The recognition of our earth without borders resonates with the need for a global outlook, international cooperation and a shared strategy to address the challenges we face, after all as the Prime Minister of Tuvalu always ardently advocates – Save Tuvalu and you will save the world.”

The Pacific Ocean, Pacific Conference is the second Pacific Climate Change Conference held at Te Papa Museum from February 21-23.

The parallel sessions consisted of a range of presentations held under different themes from different speakers. Each day started with two keynote addresses as well as another two keynote addresses after lunch.

Nanette Woonton is communications officer of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Philip Cass of Kaniva News

Tonga’s churches are failing to provide leadership over climate change and it is up to young people to join with church goers to take action, according to research by an Anglican priest.

Speaking at last week’s Pacific Ocean Climate Change conference in Wellington, Fr Laiseni Fanon Charisma Liava‘a said that while the Tongan government was desperately lobbying developed countries about Tonga being on the frontline of climate change, the issue was not a priority for the kingdom’s churches.

The former Tongan Navy officer said his research, conducted in Tonga in June last year, showed that climate change was still a relatively new issue at the local church level.

It was still much managed and communicated as an elite level issue while the majority of the people at the community and grassroots level were left uninformed.

He said the churches displayed a lack of care and collective responsibility about the seriousness of the issue and its threat to people’s lives.

The churches failed to understand the significance of climate change and did not communicate its importance, especially to young people.

“The majority of church leaders still do not fully believe climate change is a serious issue and that it is not the responsibility of the church to combat its impact,” Fr Liava’a said.

Perpetuated behaviour
Churches continued to perpetuate behaviour and practices that did not help mitigate its effects.

He said because some church leaders were employed in public and private sector boards or foreign funded projects on climate change, people thought they only pushed a climate change agenda because they were paid to do so.

Fr Liava’a worked for the Pacific Community-Focused Disaster Risk Reduction Tonga Project in 2009 and as the National Climate Change Coordinator of Tonga’s Third National Communication Project from 2013 to 2014.

He said the main factors holding the churches back were lack of informed understanding, lack of moral leadership and deficiencies in Biblical and theological comprehension of climate change issues.

Fr Liava’a said people he spoke with said the churches were selective when it comes political and public issues.

“The urgency of the need for response and combat climate change demands young people and churchgoers to take action, together,” Fr Liava’a said.

“It has to start with education.”

Strong leadership needed
He said Tonga needed strong leaders to take action on climate change.

“Leaders need to step up and set examples. People can follow.”

The exclusion of spiritual/Christian principles and values from the climate change message was also a problem.

“The people in Tonga cannot be separated from God because that is what they believe,” he said.

“My research findings showed that one of the reasons why churches do not always support the government is because the government does not build on Christian principles to the climate change work.”

Rev’d Liava’a said that when serving as an officer in the Tongan Navy from 1999-2002 he had seen a number of areas where people had now retreated from the sea because of climate change.

These included Makaunga to Navutoka on the eastern side, Kanokupolu and south of Ha’atafu on the western side of Tongatapu and Lifuka in the Ha’apai group.

Dr Philip Cass is a media academic and an adviser to Kaniva News. He is also a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre.

• More Pacific Ocean Climate Change conference articles

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Trailer for the controversial climate change documentary Anote’s Ark – former Kiribati President Anote Tong opened the first Pacific Climate Change Conference in Wellington in 2016.

By David Robie at Te Papa

A recent Andy Marlette cartoon published by the Statesman Journal in Salem, Oregon, depicted a bathtub-looking Noah’s Ark with a couple of stony-faced elephants on board with a sodden sign declaring “Climate change is a hoax”.

The other animals on board floating to safety were muttering among themselves: “The elephants won’t admit that these 100-year events are happening once a month …”

At the other end of the globe in Wellington this week for the second Pacific Ocean Climate Conference at Te Papa Museum, I encountered a fatalistic message from a Tongan taxi driver counting down the hours before the tail-end of Tropical Cyclone Gita struck the New Zealand capital after wreaking a trail of devastation in Samoa, Tonga and Fiji.

He had it all worked out: “We don’t need climate conferences,” he said. “Just trust in God and we’ll survive.”

However, a key takeaway message from the three-day conference was just how urgent action is needed by global policymakers, especially for the frontline states in the Pacific – Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, where none of the sprawling atolls that make up those countries are higher than 2m above sea level.

Many of the predictions in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are being revised as being too cautious or are already exceeded.

The hosting Victoria University of Wellington’s Antarctic Research Centre director Professor Tim Naish, for example, says the sea level rise from the ice sheet from the frozen continent may be double the earlier estimates and could by rise by 2m by 2100.

Bleak news for the Pacific at least. Glaciologist Dr Naish is working on a project to improve estimates of sea level rise in New Zealand and the Pacific.

More Pacific research needed
Another critical takeaway message was the vital need for “more Pacific research, by the Pacific and for the Pacific”, as expressed by 2007 Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient Professor Elizabeth Holland, director of the University of the South Pacific’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD).

Many of the global models drawn from average statistics are not too helpful for the specifics in the Pacific where climate change is already a daily reality.

Dr Holland was a keynote speaker on the final day. Describing herself as a “climate accountant” making sense of the critical numbers and statistics, she said it was vital that indigenous Pacific knowledge was being partnered with the scientists to develop strategies especially tailored for the “frontline region”.

“Local research in the region is of utmost importance, leading to informed development choices and is the best way forward as it creates a direct connection between the research and the communities once it is implemented” she says.

“Our Big Ocean States are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and remote research does not suffice, calling for the creation of leaders and experts locally through joint Pacific-led research.”

Scientists, researchers and postgraduate students were at Te Papa in force among the 240 delegates or so at the conference.

Deputy director Dr Morgan Wairiu was among them, speaking on “Engaging Pacific Islands on SRM Geoengineering Research”.

USP is one of only two regional universities in the world – the other is in the Caribbean. Its PaCE-SD is a centre for excellence in environmental education and engagement, and a global climate change research leader, especially with its focus on the Pacific region and island countries.

The university has 12 member countries with campuses or centres in each.

Local researchers are highly motivated and passionate about studies dealing with the effects of the changes occurring in their environment first hand.

The conference speakers included some the leading and innovative global climate science thinkers and advocates, such as Dr Michael E. Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University.

He is the author of several revealing books on the subject, including The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying our Politics, and Driving us Crazy, and The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars, who spoke about “Dire predictions” in a keynote.

“There are droughts, wildfires and floods that are occurring now that are without any precedent in the historical record and where we can now use modelling simulations, climate models,” he says.

“You can run two parallel simulations. You can run a simulation where the carbon dioxide levels are left at pre-industrial levels, and a parallel simulation where you increase those levels in response to the burning of fossil fuels. And you can look at how often a particular event happened.”

Perhaps the most innovative ideas speaker over the three days was Dr Daniel Nocera, the Patterson Rockwood professor of energy at Harvard University, with his groundbreaking research on renewable energy, especially the solar fuels process of photosynthesis – a process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight.

He developed the artificial leaf from this theory, a project named by Time magazine as Innovation of the Year for 2011. Since then he has elaborated this invention with a partner in India to develop a production pilot deploying a complete artificial photosynthetic cycle.

He argues that it is developing countries that may play a more crucial role in harnessing renewable energy discoveries because the massive vested interest infrastuctures built around fossil fuels in Western countries hamper rapid progress.

Many speakers gave an indigenous perspective on climate change, arguing that a holistic approach was needed, not just focusing on the science and political solutions.

Independent researcher Aroha Te Pareake Mead gave an inspiring message about “Indigenous peoples and our knowledge – we’re a total package” and the Mataatua Declaration on the Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1993 and what has been achieved since.

The Mana Wahine panel – Associate professor Leonie Pihama, Dr Naomi Simmonds and Assistant Professor Huhana Smith – gave an inspirational sharing on “transforming lives through research”.

Law graduate Sarah Thompson spoke about her legal challenge last year to the previous National-led New Zealand government over the emissions target, and although she eventually lost the High Court case for a judicial review, she opened the door to future climate change lawsuits that may prove more successful.

However, former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Victoria University’s Law Faculty distinguished fellow, was far more cautious, saying that there was better chance of persuading politicians and trying to develop climate change policy through the courts.

He also warned that countries, New Zealand included, would be ignoring an impeding climate change governance upheaval “at their peril”.

Dr D. Kapua Sproat, acting director of Ka Huli Ao Centre for Excellence in Native Hawai’ian Law and director of the Environmental Law clinic at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, said Native Hawai’ians could invoke indigenous rights to environmental self-determination.

Julian Aguon of Guam, founder of boutique Blue Ocean Law, said it was a challenge to confront deep-sea mining negotiators and corporate lawyers in “wild west” style cases in the Pacific.

Papua New Guinea’s Northern Governor and tribal chief Gary Juffa gave three compelling talks – none of them originally in the programme – on corruption and the barriers it poses for climate action and protecting his country’s forests.

But he also pointed out that more media, climate change frontline activists such as the Climate Warriors, and West Papuan advocates – “where horrendous climate and cultural abuses are happening” – needed to be included in such a conference.

In the concluding panel, the joint Victoria University and SPREP organisers, led by Professor James Renwick and “spiritual leader” Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Pacific) Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, pulled together these core themes for going forward for the next conference in two years “somewhere in the Pacific”:

• Urgency of action
• Pacific on the frontline of climate change
• Multiple voices, and legitimacy of Pacific voices
• New, more and better capacity-building in the Pacific
• Action on all fronts – top down and bottom up
• Need more effective laws
• Transformative change is needed

• Paradise lost – ‘Anote’s Ark’ shows Kiribati on the brink
• Juffa blasts PNG resources ‘sell out’ but tells of Managalas hope
• Underestimate climate change political upheaval ‘at peril’, warns former PM

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By David Robie at Te Papa

A former New Zealand prime minister has warned that climate change has the potential to force a legal and political upheaval that the world would underestimate “at its peril”.

Speaking at the Pacific Ocean Climate Conference at Te Papa Museum in Wellington yesterday, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said a largely unexplored aspect of climate change lay in the “potential to force the revision of many fundamental and long accepted methods of doing government and organising its institutions”.

New Zealand would not be able to solve this problem alone and it would need levels of international cooperation “not yet achieved”.

“The four horsemen of the Apocalypse in the [biblical] book of Revelation were pestilence, war, famine and death. Climate change has the capacity to produce those conditions to a worrying extent in the future,” said Sir Geoffrey, now distinguished fellow in Victoria University’s Faculty of Law.

“We underestimate at our peril the challenges that it will bring and that it has brought already.”

He cited riots and massive refugee flows as some early examples.

Sir Geoffrey said New Zealand would need to ensure that the instruments of government – both domestically and internationally – were adjusted to meet the challenges and this “poses a formidable set of issues”.

Climate change lawsuit
Sir Geoffrey made the comments in an analysis of a recent landmark, but unsuccessful, legal challenge to the New Zealand government over climate policy made by a 26-year-old law student, Sarah Thompson.

He also gave an in-depth overview of the state of environmental law in the country.

Commentators at the Te Papa conference, including Sir Geoffrey, hailed Thompson for bringing the test case, which sought a court ruling over the National-led government’s two key climate goals and argued these no longer met New Zealand’s obligations under the COP21 Paris targets.

Media publicity about Justice Jillian Mallon’s 25-page judgement delivered on November 2 was relatively muted, however, given that New Zealand’s climate policies changed with a Labour-New Zealand First-Green government taking office.

Sir Geoffrey said Sarah Thompson’s name would always be remembered in relation to climate change lawsuits.

“Endless further iterations of the Paris agreement will be necessary before substantial progress is made [over climate change jurisprudence],” Sir Geoffrey said.

He added that as he had written in other legal papers, he was “not sanguine that the mechanisms for making international law and enforcing it effectively are adequate to allow us to be confident that climate change can be properly addressed”.

In Paris in June 2017, the Global Pact for the Environment had been unveiled and it was a “powerful document that would remedy many difficulties with the international law for the environment were it binding”.

Not binding
The problem was that it was not binding and there did not seem “an immediate possibility” that it would become binding.

New Zealand’s domestic legal situation now needed to be designed with a durable framework that could endure over time and would not be the subject of “sudden policy lurches” due to changes of government.

Sir Geoffrey said the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Waitangi Tribunal had the potential to provide alternatives to the official narrative and “these could both be helpful in stimulating public opinion to demand more from elected representatives”.

Also, New Zealand was one of only three countries in the world without a written constitution and provision of an environmental right in such a written, codified constitution would offer the courts “more capacity than they have now” to rule on climate change issues.

However, it was unrealistic to expect the courts to become major players in climate change policy.

“You would be better off talking to politicians,” he added.

Two activist lawyers from the North Pacific disagreed with Sir Geoffrey’s pessimistic view in the same Te Papa conference session, although they were dealing mostly with American-based legal jurisdictions.

Invoking indigenous rights
Dr D. Kapua Sproat, acting ditector of Ka Huli Ao Centre for Excellence in Native Hawai’ian Law and director of the Environmental Law clinic at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, said Native Hawai’ians could invoke indigenous rights to environmental self-determination.

She said human rights and constitutional restorative justice legal principles could and were being used to challenge the dominant culture.

Julian Aguon of Guam, founder of boutique Blue Ocean Law, said it was a challenge to confront deep-sea mining negotiators and corporate lawyers in “wild west” style cases in the Pacific.

He said he had been working on the issue in several countries and was concerned that 27 deep sea exploration contracts had been awarded in a field of law where there was no or little oversight or regulation.

Aguon said an unsavoury “cast of characters” had embarked on a new “minerals gold rush” in the Pacific’s so-called “rim of fire” region since 2012.

He was dedicated to protecting indigenous customary and traditional rights, which were already being negatively impacted on by the deep-sea exploration disturbances.

• NZ’s first climate change lawsuit rejected by High Court
• Global Pact for the Environment

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Trailer for the controversial climate change documentary Anote’s Ark – former Kiribati President Anote Tong opened the previous Pacific Climate Change Conference in Wellington in 2016.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Samoan Prime Minister and climate change action advocate Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi is among the high-profile experts presenting at the Pacific Climate Change Conference this week at Te Papa National Museum.

Tuila’epa will give the opening keynote address at the conference on Wednesday morning.

The three-day event, February 21-23, co-hosted by Victoria University of Wellington and Apia-based Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), has more than 160 invited speakers from backgrounds including science, government, business, indigenous rights, law, activism, media and the arts.

Among the line-up of speakers are renewable energy expert Professor Daniel Nocera from Harvard University, Professor D. Kapua’ala Sproat from the Native Hawai’ian Law Center, environmental scientist Dr Patila Malua-Amosa from the National University of Samoa, climate scientist Professor Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University, indigenous bio-cultural heritage expert Aroha Mead and graduate lawyer Sarah Thomson, who filed a legal case against the New Zealand government over its emission targets.

It is the second time Victoria University has hosted the Pacific Climate Change Conference.

Climate change scientist and conference co-organiser Professor James Renwick says Victoria’s inaugural conference in 2016 highlighted the deep and long-lasting effects climate change was having on Pacific communities.

“In 2016, we heard from people whose daily lives are impacted by climate change-whether it’s more frequent extreme storms demolishing sea walls and destroying food crops, or warmer seas affecting fisheries and damaging corals,” he said.

“We heard then President Anote Tong of Kiribati express very real concerns that his people may no longer have land to stand on if sea levels continue to rise.

‘Better understanding’
“But we also heard from people who are dedicating their work to better understanding the science, legal, political, economic and human aspects.

“This second conference is a chance to get the very latest information, exchange knowledge and ideas, and reignite connections that can bring positive change.”

Victoria’s Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Pasifika) Luamanuvao Winnie Laban says the conference is a vital chance for the voices of the Pacific to be heard.

“We have representatives from at least 11 Pacific island nations attending this conference so it’s an invaluable opportunity to share expertise and experience, and come together to find solutions.

“At the last conference, we asked representatives from Pacific nations, including New Zealand, to find out how their governments are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and report back. We look forward to hearing their progress.”

The Pacific Media Centre’s director Professor David Robie and postdoctoral researcher Dr Sylvia Frain are presenting papers at the conference.

• Full conference programme
• Pacific Climate Change Conference website
• Asia Pacific Report/Scoop stories on the last climate conference
• Asia Pacific Report coverage of COP23

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz