The LIVE Recording of this podcast will begin today, Monday at 12:45pm November 11, 2024 (NZST) which is Sunday evening, 7:45pm (USEST). Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn will discuss:

• Why Democrats Lost: Incumbency, Elitism, Class & Alienation, Identity Politics…
• Why Trump Won: Anti-Establishment, Populism, Avatar for the Alienated…
• What to Expect Next: Trump Appointments, Isolationism, Geopolitical Impact & Response…

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, so feel free to lodge comments and questions, but remember if you do so your interaction may be used in this programme. We recommend that you subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell.

Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Background image: courtesy of and Copyright Nick Minto 2024. Image taken November 6 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Building upon recent episodes of A View from Afar, Political Scientist Paul G Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss The Politics of Desperation. This episode flows on from our discussions about long transitions and the moment of friction.

As the old status quo begins to crumble (under the weight of fraction), political leaders and elites invested in it get increasingly desperate, leading to more dangerous decisions, more acute moments, and, increased chances of mistake, miscalculation and unanticipated backlash.

The Politics of Desperation accentuates an ongoing downward spiral. And, the Politics of Desperation takes form in differing degrees. For some, the risk of losing is merely a dent in the leader’s ego, reputation, and an awakening that voters have moved on from their style of politics.

But for others, a loss will prove to be devastating, for example; should Donald Trump lose his bid to regain the United States presidency, he will face sentencing as a felon and perhaps even face jail time. For Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, a future loss or a collapse of his right-wing coalition would likely see him facing domestic charges and possibly charges laid by the International Criminal Court for his role in the disproportionate use of military might in Israel’s war on Gaza.

So, Paul and Selwyn discuss the examples of the Politics of Desperation from around the world and assess the risks as the world rests on the cusp of an unknown future.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the seventh episode of A View from Afar podcast for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will examine the strengths and weaknesses of democracy around the world.

In particular Paul and Selwyn will consider how and why democracy in many countries around the world is on the slide.

They will examine the causes of democratic backsliding and also test why the erosion of high democratic ideas have, in many cases, popular support.

First, Paul will give us a context, and will define democratic backsliding. He will identify the countries that are decisively eroding their own democracies of principles that were once embraced by both power elites and citizenry.

The Questions:

• Why are we seeing more democratic backsliding in recent times?
• Is it just a political phenomenon or does it extend beyond the political sphere?
• Where has democratic backsliding been most evident?
• What do Chile, Guatemala, Israel and Thailand have in common when it comes to backsliding?
• What is occurring in the United States?
• If a democracy “backslides,” what does it slide into?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A thorn in the side of National, former MP Chester Borrows punctured his party’s “law and order week” before it even started, by framing its new crime and punishment stances as ignorant and dangerous. Appearing in the media early in the week, he painted National’s discussion document as populist, opportunist, and a knee-jerk response where a more sophisticated one is desperately needed.

On Monday Borrows published a must-read opinion piece, lamenting that “Kiwis are addicted to punishment” and suggesting politicians keep feeding this by trying to outbid each other on nonsensical crackdowns on crime – see: ‘Tough on crime’ rhetoric is cheap, easy and terrifyingly effective.

Borrows, who is a former Minister of Corrections, is advocating that political parties take an evidence-based approach to law and order solutions. Of course, he’s the head of the Government’s Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group. He says his invitation to the launch of National’s new discussion document must have been lost in the post: “Funnily enough, even though I am a card-carrying member of that organisation, and my subscription has been banked, I have not received my flyer or invitation for this event.”

He suggests National’s stances on law and order issues, such as opposing the Government giving some prisoners the right to vote, are based on an electoral strategy of sinking NZ First: “National Party leader Simon Bridges has vowed to reverse the law. Not based on evidence, of course, other than the evidence that these policies buy votes and probably votes National already holds. But they will also buy votes from New Zealand First and those votes are gold.”

Bridges has responded to the former Minister of Corrections, saying “We’re not as far away from your prescription as you might think” – see: A response to my old mate, Chester Borrows, on crime and justice.

Here’s Bridges key point: “I hope Chester takes the opportunity to read the law and order policy document I released today because he might just be pleasantly surprised. Chester listed nine things he wanted to see. We have five of them in our document. Five more than Labour has plausibly come up with, despite being in government.”

Borrows also went on TV1 Breakfast to talk about the issues on the morning before the release of National’s discussion document, arguing that instead of getting “tougher on crime”, “we should get smarter on crime” – see: National’s former courts minister defies party’s tough-on-crime rhetoric – ‘It hasn’t worked’.

Borrows said: “We need to take a sensible approach to this. The tough on crime stuff hasn’t worked… We need to ask ourselves the question whether we want to have policy that’s evidence-based or policy that just tickles the ears of those who might vote for us.”

When asked if National was dog-whistling on these problems, Borrows said: “it’s sad to see the go back to the rhetoric because I think in Government there was a bit more understanding about that… We have to be less reactive and far more innovative and concentrate on what we know works instead of being so afraid of our own shadow that we’re going to stop ourselves from doing anything that looks like innovative or looks like it could be successful.”

The National Party document contained 43 proposals the party is considering adopting as policy for the next election – you can read these here: National is the Party of law and order. This explains the various policies including banning gang patches in public, making prison work compulsory, refusing parole for murderers who don’t give the location of a body and, most controversially, creating an elite police unit to crack down hard on gangs.

Reactions from commentators have been quite scathing. Richard Harman claimed the party was making a major shift to the right: “National Leader Simon Bridges yesterday broke with years of liberal traditions in his Party and swung it sharply to the right with a new hardline law and order policy. This follows on an increasing shift to the right under Bridges with policies like his promise to pull New Zealand out of the UN Compact on Migration” see: Simon: That’s not what English, Joyce and even Collins said.

He pointed out that previous senior National figures had been noticeably less gung-ho about policies that would lead to higher incarceration rates, citing examples such as Bill English’s statement that prisons were “a moral and fiscal failure”. And he pointed out that “National has not provided an estimate of how much their crackdown would increase the prison population by, nor the cost of building new facilities.”

Barry Soper also sees the new proposals as fairly cynical, saying “We’ve heard it all before – smash the gangs, dismantle their fortresses, ban the patches – and we’ll no doubt hear it all again in three years’ time as we enter another election year” – see: Simon Bridges takes ‘tough on crime’ to a new level.

He points to some of the potential civil liberties issues with the suggested clampdown on gangs: “This country has a Bill of Rights – and that means no matter how unpopular the organisation you belong to might be, or even if you have broken the law, everyone is entitled to be treated the same under the law. You are innocent until you are proven guilty.”

Soper suggests a different target: “Consider this: more than half a billion dollars a year is generated by organised crime in this country – and many of those who generate it prefer a Pierre Cardin suit to a patch. It might not be as electorally popular, but perhaps it’s time to cast the law-and-order net wider.”

Similarly, Heather du Plessis-Allan argues a more sophisticated approach is necessary to combat the real reasons people are joining gangs: “The only way you stop kids from wanting to join up is if you give them an alternative. A chance to be good at sport, a job to earn cash, anything other than this nonsense” – see: National’s gang plan is welcome, but will it work?

Nonetheless, in lieu of such progressive policies, she considers National’s proposals “a welcome idea”. Also, “it’ll play well with voters”.

The idea of creating an elite anti-gang policing unit modelled on an Australia version has received the most criticism. For the most comprehensive critique, see Laura Walters’ Strike Force Raptor unit won’t stop organised crime. According to this, “an Australian gang expert says a lot of resources go into the unit’s work, with little reward”.

An even harsher evaluation came from an Australia academic who previously worked as an undercover detective dealing with the gangs. Mike Kennedy calls the Australian experience a “disaster” and says Bridges “needs to pull his head out of whatever it’s stuck in because … [gangs] exist. They’re always going to exist. They just go underground” – see Craig McCulloch’s Australian ex-cop blasts National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ plan.

Perhaps the most even-handed evaluation came from the Herald’s Derek Cheng who points to the mix of liberal and conservative policy in the document, but concludes: “the overwhelming impression is one of an election-year document that seems to make no apology for populism” – see: Populism alive and well in National’s law and order proposals (paywalled).

Cheng points to some of the more liberal or evidence-based policies in the new document: “These include having mental health nurses at police watch houses and attending incidents alongside police and paramedics. Social Investment attempts to use data to find those most at risk from an early age and intervene accordingly. More and earlier treatment for remand prisoners and more education, training and work to help keep prisoners from re-offending seems to be one area where National and Labour can agree. Such proposals show National’s document attempting to appeal to the evidence as well as the voter.”

Similarly, John Weekes also points to the criticisms and limitations of National’s proposals but says overall its not as reactionary as it’s being painted – see: National’s crime gurus must heed lessons from abroad to break cycle of repeat offending.

Here’s his key point: “The discussion document, running across thousands of words and dozens of pages, is not as repulsive as some commentators describe. Despite pandering to ‘tough on crime’ platitudes, references to law and order being in ‘National’s DNA’, and occasional unself-conscious bluster, the party has published some nuanced proposals. These include concessions a ‘social investment’ approach is needed to save at-risk youth and help first-time offenders. The ‘no body no parole’ idea will thankfully not affect many people, but is hard to oppose.”

But there certainly are some strong negative reactions. Collette Devlin pointed to some of these in her article, Experts: National’s law and order proposals sound good but have no substance.

The most notable of these was from University of Auckland Criminologist Ron Kramer, who labelled them “transparently pathetic” and “overblown propaganda”. On the Strike Force Raptor proposal, he said: “It’s just rhetoric. It’s completely empty… it’s a completely erroneous way of thinking about the problem… In fact, it’s probably going to make life more miserable for a lot of people. This kind of criminalisation just stigmatises and creates a permanently excluded group of individuals from society.”

On the gang patch ban, Kramer stated: “It’s not evidence based. It’s not about what actually works. It’s just pure political rhetoric and the public should demand better… I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I think all this law and order discourse is just all about political posturing to win votes… It’s all just stupid policies to appease popular anger and resentment… I’m surprised people aren’t so sick and tired of this political bulls…”.

Simon Bridges responded to the article on Twitter, saying “So who are the ‘experts’ plural who know so much about criminology in this piece? Some sweary bear Ron Kramer, gang apologist Denis O’Rielly, Chester Borrows & Mob Pres Sonny Fatupaito. Really?”

Kramer’s university hit back on Twitter: “for the record, the ‘Sweary Bear’ you refer to is Dr Ronald Kramer, a senior lecturer in criminology at the university. Dr Kramer has a PhD in sociology from Yale, has been published in the British Journal of Criminology and elsewhere and is a respected commentator. #expertbear” – see 1News’ Auckland University retaliates after Simon Bridges calls academic ‘sweary bear’.

Bridges also hit out at a tweet from Newsroom editor Tim Murphy, who wrote: “Is there anything more unimaginative in opposition policy-making than ‘work for the dole’ ‘get the gangs’ or ‘hard labour for prisoners’?” Bridges’ response was: “Is there anything more unimaginative than a middle-class journalist sneering predictably about a centre-right political party arguing for policies in line with its long-held principles?”

Finally, the one part of the document that has caused the biggest stir is the name of Australia’s elite anti-gang squad, with plenty of parody about this online – see Zane Small’s National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ idea sparks Twitter meme extravaganza.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Is Simon Bridges really trying to channel Donald Trump? Or is he taking his cue from Scott Morrison? Or is he looking to emulate Boris Johnson? Whatever the inspiration, there’s been a clear change in the National Party leaders’ political positioning and tactics in recent months that suggests he’s decided to go down a more rightwing-populist path in the search for power. 

This week’s debate over the Government’s proposed Parliamentary Budget Office gave yet another indication of this more Trump-like orientation. Covered in yesterday’s column, Playing politics with proposals for an election policy watchdog, it is clear that National is not just pushing back particularly aggressively on the Government’s proposal, but asserting a new populist line about the untrustworthiness of state institutions.

Bridges spoke out against the idea, saying “They want to illegitimately, undemocratically screw the scrum on the opposition”, and he “said he would block it every step of the way, because he did not trust the government” – see Jo Moir’s Policy costings plan: Opposition’s response ‘absolutely ridiculous’ – Robertson.

This led to Government ministers implying Bridges was adopting cynically motivated populist stances. Finance Minister Grant Robertson said: “This feels to me like political gameplaying, potentially electioneering. I think it’s the introduction of a style of politics into New Zealand that New Zealanders don’t want… We don’t want to be taking the very worst of American politics or the very worst of the Crosby Textor playbook again. That’s what this feels like from Simon Bridges”.

Greens co-leader James Shaw had some equally strong allegations to make: “It’s really consistent with everything Simon Bridges has been doing recently which is to try and undermine public confidence in public institutions, especially independent objective institutions that are designed with upholding the quality of our democracy. So he’s had a real go at those sorts of institutions recently and this language is consistent with that”.

Others in the media have shared some similar concerns this week. Veteran political journalist Richard Harman said “The comments raise questions as to whether he is embarking on a Trump-like populist trajectory” – see: Bridges withdraws support because of staffing dispute.

And Harman asked Bridges whether National was therefore now attempting to challenge the Government’s integrity and trust, to which Bridges replied: “No, I wouldn’t go that far… I think it’s more about competence and the Government’s ability to get it together a bit over halfway through their term”. Harman reports that Bridges “says that though that raises questions of trust, it’s not a core component of National’s pitch to the electorate.”

The Press newspaper highlighted Bridges’ strong opposition to the Parliamentary Budget Office idea in an editorial: “It is a colourful phrase, and one can almost admire Bridges for finding a feisty tone that he has mostly been lacking, while also having serious concerns about what he is actually implying. It appears to be part of a wider strategy to encourage ever deeper distrust with the operations of the Government that goes far beyond ideological disagreements” – see: Voters would be well served by a referee in the fiscal fight.

The newspaper complained that National’s blocking of the new idea was regrettable as “it is clear that the rights of voters to be fully informed will have been sacrificed for short-term political gain.” They also warn against National going down the path of stirring up populist distrust: “Bridges is essentially asking the public to see the Government as unethical. This is a risky game to play, and it signals that we may be in for an ugly and contentious election.”

Newsroom political journalist Sam Sachdeva was even more disparaging, saying the episode was an indication of “Bridges’ creeping paranoia over independent government institutions”, writing a column arguing “to suggest that a statutorily independent entity would somehow conspire with the Government to embarrass National is nonsensical to say the least” – see: Bridges digs himself deeper over policy costing plans.

Sachdeva criticises Bridges for sowing distrust in general, but particularly about the idea of the Parliamentary Budget Office: “Just because something may win you votes does not mean you should do it, however. In a world where shrieks of ‘fake news’ are thrown around too liberally and the public trust in politicians is steadily eroding, flippantly sowing distrust without good cause is dangerous.”

Raising questions about election legitimacy

Bridges’ position on the Parliamentary Budget Office is not a one-off, but comes after a number of other statements and attacks that have raised questions about him deliberately adopting a Trumpian or populist approach to holding the Government to account. Part of this was covered last week in my column Toxic clash over census stats. In this, I asked whether it is “Trumpian” to dispute the veracity of the botched census statistics.

Bridges’ dispute over Statistics NZ’s handling of the Census related more broadly to the role of questionable data being used to redraw electorate boundaries for next year’s general election. Henry Cooke explains National’s ongoing political orientation to this exercise: “National’s argument has strong emotional resonance: They screwed up the census, so should we really allow them to screw up the election too? Instead of just attacking the Government, you attack the entire system” – see: Election 2020 is going to be a huge mess.

Cooke elaborates: “It remains to be seen how far National will take this matter. It is easy to loudly register your discontent, but going to court or seriously torpedoing the commission is a whole other matter.” But it could indeed get serious, he says: “National has the potential to seriously destabilise the election with this attack, and it’s got the Government worried. Even though electorates are extremely unlikely to decide who gets to form governments under MMP, attacking the legitimacy of an election is a potent tool rarely used in New Zealand politics.”

The questioning of the legitimacy of elections is an well-used populist technique, and one that Donald Trump has been associated with. And that’s why it’s notable that Bridges has also been calling into question the legitimacy of the last election outcome, saying on the AM Show last week: “I reckon that there is a very strong majority of New Zealanders right now who say ‘you know what, actually National at the last election got 44 percent, the system was in a sense gamed, there was one old rooster who held the country to ransom’ and so I think people are open to National making sure it does have options and the ability to be in Government in 2020” – see Jamie Ensor’s Simon Bridges says most Kiwis believe system ‘gamed’ at last election

Attacking Ardern as “a part-time PM”

Generally, Simon Bridges and National haven’t been focusing their firepower on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. But that seems to have changed recently, especially with criticisms of the PM going to Tokelau earlier this month, and Bridges using this to attack her for being a “part-time prime minister”.

This marked a shift, according to Henry Cooke, who says the criticism was “a much more personal attack on the Prime Minister than what Bridges had previously tried” – see: Simon Bridges seems to be finally settling into his own skin, but the road ahead is bumpy.

Cooke says the broadside seemed quite a deliberate low blow: “while it made no logical sense, it made for a strong emotional argument. There is a sense among a subset of people that the Prime Minister cares more for her international image for her domestic matters, that she would rather be chatting wellbeing with people thousands of miles away than actually embedding her government’s work at home”.

For Claire Trevett, the attack was clearly made to take advantage of Ardern’s apparent slipping popularity: “Bridges will not have missed that Ardern’s ratings as preferred PM had slipped from 51 per cent in April – soon after the mosque attacks – to 45 per cent in June, to 41 per cent in July. He clearly deduced the stardust was reaping diminishing returns, and tried to hasten the process” – see: Simon Bridges’ ‘part-time PM’ jibe about Jacinda Ardern a lesson all round (paywalled).

Trevett also suggests that there’s a general desire amongst National’s base pushing Bridges to take a more aggressive stance towards the PM: “For good measure, Bridges coupled it with a couched dig at Ardern for again appearing in international media, saying he would never get on the cover of Vogue – ‘but I am going to release good policies’. It was the most direct attack Bridges has mounted so far, and was more for the benefit of core National Party voters than anything – those supporters who want to see the leader take Ardern on”.

A number of commentators were scathing about Bridges’ attack. John Armstrong spelt out the inconsistencies and fallacies in the criticisms of Ardern, and deemed those statements “unacceptable” – see: Simon Bridges’ ‘part-time’ dig is a garbage ploy someone like Donald Trump would use.

Here’s Armstrong’s main point: “It is not only garbage. It is garbage tainted with a nastiness that is not that far removed from the kind of sick politics in which Donald Trump loves nothing better than to wallow. Bridges’ none-too-subtle recourse to dog-whistle politics to pander to the prejudices of those who cannot cope with the roles of Prime Minister and new mother being carried out by one and the same person has National’s leader veering into unacceptable territory.”

Similarly, Oscar Kightley wrote: “As political sledges go, it’s hard to recall one more disrespectful. National leader Simon Bridges this week calling Jacinda Ardern a ‘part-time prime minister’ seemed to represent a new weirdly nasty tone entering New Zealand politics” – see: Was nasty ‘part-time PM’ slur a hint Bridges is adopting Aussie smear tactics?

Kightley suggests there is more to come: “these tricks have been pretty effective overseas (eg Brexit and Trumpism) so why wouldn’t those seeking power, try it here. It will be a very interesting next 12 months and when it comes to our political discourse, we haven’t seen the end of this nasty tone.”

At the same time, Bridges has also criticised the Prime Minister for not taking a stronger stance against Ihumātao protesters, suggested they should be told “to go home”. This has led to comparisons with Trump’s widely-condemned instruction to elected US congresswomen to go back where they came from.

All of this is nicely parodied in a fake interview with Bridges by Andrew Gunn – see: ‘That line went down a treat in the focus groups’.

National’s other attack lines

The National Party leader recently made a rather Trumpian-style statement that “One person’s misinformation is another person’s fact.” This was in reaction to National MP Chris Penk’s claims about late-stage abortions being allowed under the proposed new abortion law reform.

This has alarmed former government minister Peter Dunne, who says that Bridges is Crossing the bridge to a post-truth world. In this, Dunne criticises the National leader for suggesting that “facts and misinformation are interchangeable”.

National has also been embarking on a much more negative advertising strategy against Labour and the Greens. This is examined in Thomas Coughlan’s article about the various “car tax” ads on Facebook and other such advertising strategies – see: Next election will be Simon Bridges v Julie Anne Genter v Jacinda Ardern.

Coughlan says to expect more of this from National: “National thinks it’s got a winning formula. Sources within the party say Bridges’ meeting in Sydney in July with Australian PM Scott Morrison changed the party’s political messaging to be closer to that which brought Morrison victory in May. They think Morrison’s formula of near constant mini video ads, created by Kiwi team Topham-Guerin, helped secure the embattled Liberals an unlikely return to power.”

However, National might be sailing too close to the wind with these advertisements – see Coughlan’s National’s ‘desperate’ attack ads to be investigated by Advertising Standards Authority.

So, if National is going down the populist path under Bridges’ leadership, where is he likely to go next? Martin van Beynen wrote about this last month, suggesting targets might include: “the state’s renewed focus on redress for Māori”; “political correctness”; “the sneering and out-of-touch political class”; “the new gun legislation as an infringement of the rights of people who have done nothing wrong”; free speech; “foreign ownership of New Zealand assets”; and immigration – see: What a populist National Party would look like.

Finally, Chris Trotter asks: where will it all end? He suggests that if Bridges takes National “into the dark territory of whatever it takes” to win, the end result might not be very rewarding for the National leader: “By the time Bridges gets to switch on the lights on the Beehive’s ninth floor, ‘whatever it takes’ will have wrought its inevitable changes. The face that stares at him from the mirror of the prime-ministerial bathroom will be as unfamiliar as it is frightening” – see: Simon Bridges leads National down into the dark.

Political uncertainty hangs over large swathes of the world’s tropical forests this year, raising the risk of more destruction and carbon emissions.

Recent leadership changes in Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and presidential elections in Indonesia in April, are fuelling concerns that politics could side with industries such as palm oil, timber, mining and agriculture in the world’s three biggest rainforest countries.

Brazil’s new right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro campaigned on promises to open the Amazon up to development. In his first foray on the international stage last week, he called on international businesses to invest in the country’s natural resources.

READ MORE: France aims to ban deforestation imports by 2030

The DRC’s peaceful presidential election of Felix Tshisekedi last month was the first democratic transfer of power since independence in 1960 – although the African Union and European Union questioned the results and The Financial Times reported “massive electoral fraud”.

It now remains to be seen whether Tshisekedi’s government curbs forest clearing and cracks down on the corruption that undermines conservation efforts. He gave little indication during the campaign.

Meanwhile in Indonesia, the two presidential candidates – incumbent Joko “Jokowi” Widodo  and ex-army officer Prabowo Subianto – have given vague promises of environmental protection but few details. That said, Jokowi, who won as an outsider populist in 2014, has done more than some expected to tackle deforestation.

As of 2015, Brazil was home to 12 percent of total forest global cover, the DRC nearly 4 percent and Indonesia 2 percent, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation. But tree cover in all three nations continues to shrink.

Worst effects
The actions of the new governments could determine the world’s ability to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change.

“Forests could provide about a third of the solution to climate change, but at the moment they’re more part of the problem because of deforestation,” said Tim Christophersen, head of UN Environment’s freshwater, land and climate branch in Kenya.

“If that was stopped and we could restore forests at a large scale, we could probably close about a third of the current emissions gap.”

For now, efforts to stem deforestation have mostly failed to make a dent. The tropics lost an area the size of Vietnam over 2016 and 2017, when tree cover shrunk by record levels, according to the data and monitoring website Global Forest Watch.

Brazil’s deforestation in 2017 was equivalent to 365 million tonnes of CO2 and jumped by almost 50 percent over the three months of campaigning before Bolsonaro was elected last year. The DRC’s tree cover loss was equivalent to 158Mt last year and Indonesia’s to 125Mt.

Environmentalists are particularly concerned about Brazil. In his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Bolsonaro stressed Brazil’s history of environmental protection while touting its economic opportunities.

But the “wave of forest destruction and violence” started when Bolsonaro immediately removed environmental and human rights safeguards, said Christian Poirier, programme director at the NGO Amazon Watch.

Reckless moves
“These reckless moves, tailored to serve Brazil’s agribusiness and extractive industries, undermine fundamental constitutional protections that preserve forests and assure the safety of the indigenous and traditional communities who call them home,” he said.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, deforestation remains relatively high and driven by clearing for agriculture, the use of wood for energy, timber and mining, said Christophersen.

The UN’s REDD+ programme, which pays developing countries to reduce their deforestation, is starting to work in some places. But it was forced to freeze payments to the government last year amid concerns over the awarding of new logging concessions to Chinese companies. Peatlands across the Congo Basin could release huge stocks of carbon if developed for mining and fossil fuels, Christophersen added.

There is more optimism around Indonesia, although environmentalists are still wary.

Jokowi initially raised concerns that he would not follow through on his predecessor’s commitments on forestry, but then made progressive moves such as creating a new peatland restoration agency and extending a 2011 moratorium on licenses in forest and peatland, said Frances Seymour, distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.

Still, it will be up to the next president to cement that ban and push Indonesia’s large palm oil industry to become more sustainable, said Panut Hadisiswoyo, founding director of the Orangutan Information Centre in Indonesia. The country has around 69 percent of its natural forest intact, he said.

“I worry that with the current visions of the presidential candidates, they have no specific calls for the protection of this remaining forest,” Hadisiswoyo said. “This natural forest is the last limit for sustaining our biodiversity. I worry that this forest will have no guarantee to strive, to be kept as forest.”

Good signs
There are some good signs. Costa Rica’s tree cover grew from 20 perecent to around 50 percent over 30 years, Christophersen noted. And Indonesia’s loss dropped by 60 percent year-on-year in 2017, which Global Forest Watch attributed in part to a 2016 moratorium on peat drainage, educational campaigns and stronger enforcement.

“Without political leadership, we would not see with those kinds of successes,” Christophersen said.

However the potential for more damage remains strong – especially at a time of more nationalistic populist leaders such as Bolsonaro.

“A cross-cutting issue is how this global wave of populism plays out in the climate change debate, and in these countries how it plays out with respect to land use in particular,” said Seymour.

• France intends to stop importing soy, palm oil, beef, wood and other products linked to deforestation and unsustainable agriculture by 2030, shooting ahead of the rest of the European Union, reports Climate Change News.

The new national strategy to combat imported deforestation, released by the environment ministry late last year, will use trade to help decouple economic development from tree-cutting and unsustainable agriculture in poorer countries.

Sara Stefanini is a senior journalist with Climate Change News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz