The vibrant city of Hong Kong, once regarded as a haven for free speech, is experiencing a steady erosion of press freedom.

The former British colony was promised a high degree of economic and social autonomy upon its handover to China in 1997 — including freedom of the press — with the Hong Kong special administrative region operating under a “one country, two systems” principle. However, despite initially enjoying one of the most free media climates in the region, the situation appears to have deteriorated in recent years.

In the annual world press freedom index compiled by the Paris-based NGO Reporters Without Borders — or Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) — Hong Kong has slumped in the rankings from 18th in 2002 to 69th in 2016 (China sits at number 176 of 180 countries).

Further cause for concern can be found in the latest survey by the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), which reports that both journalists and the general public believe that press freedom in Hong Kong has worsened for second year in a row.

Self-censorship has been stressed as one of the major issues facing the media; when the HKJA asked journalists to evaluate the level of self-censorship on a scale of 1 to 10, their average rating was 7.

Benjamin Ismaïl, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk, found Hong Kong’s media freedom situation troubling enough to warrant an in-depth report. Aiming to draw attention to self-censorship and editorial interference issues, the report calls on the special administrative region’s authorities to “reverse their insidious policies towards the media as a matter of urgency”.

Despite noting that there is no incontrovertible evidence of Beijing’s hand in undermining Hong Kong’s press freedom, the report raises questions about several distressing developments.

Triad-style attack
Chief among these is a growing number of physical attacks on journalists, the most shocking of which occurred in February 2014 when Kevin Lau was brutally stabbed in a triad-style attack. During his two-year stint as editor-in-chief of Ming Pao, a muckraking Chinese-language daily, the newspaper contributed investigative work to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ (ICIJ) expose on the offshore holdings of China’s elites, which was widely speculated on to be the motivation behind the attack.

“The unfortunate truth is that for many physical attacks and other ‘legal’ violations of press freedom, it has been impossible to prove the intention of the perpetrators, and in the case of this attack, to identify the individuals who gave the order,” says Ismaïl.

Lau’s two assailants were jailed for 19 years in August 2015, confessing that they had been offered HK$100,000 each to “teach Lau a lesson”, but refusing to reveal who hired them. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club quoted Lau as saying that only when the perpetrator behind his attack is found “will the shadow cast on journalists by this violent attack be lifted.”

“We’ve seen ways that people can be pressured,” says veteran journalist Francis Moriarty.

“Kevin Lau is an example: pushed out of his job and physically attacked in the streets to within an inch of his life. His successor was marched out of the office at midnight and told don’t come back … You can see the results, even if you can’t always see the hand at work.”

Ming Pao has come to the fore of Hong Kong’s press freedom debate once again as their latest editor-in-chief, Keung Kwok-yuen, was suddenly fired last month after running a front-page story on local politicians and businessmen named in the Panama Papers. Following Keung’s dismissal, Ming Pao columnists submitted blank columns in protest, but to no avail.

Another disconcerting example of Beijing’s invisible hand at work, according to the RSF report, is the acquisition of the South China Morning Post (SCMP) — Hong Kong’s leading English-language newspaper — by billionaire Jack Ma, founder and chairman of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba. Company executives have said that they aim to counter the “negative” perception of China in the Western media. This move raised such fears of mainland interference that Ma felt it necessary to defend the decision in a recent SCMP interview.

‘Legal’ violations
As well as physical attacks and editorial interference, the RSF report details “legal” press freedom violations, such as the withdrawal of advertising to asphyxiate a publication and the demoting of critical journalists, as major causes behind growing self-censorship. Ismaïl says that for some journalists, “making no compromise will mean losing their job”.

Hong Kong journalist and press freedom advocate Mak Yin-ting fears that self-censorship may become “endemic” in Hong Kong, irreparably weakening the watchdog role of the Fourth Estate. “According to the [HKJA] surveys, the most self-censored issues are those sensitive to the central government in Beijing,” says Mak, who served as the HKJA chairperson for several years.

Stories regarding the independence of Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjian are considered to be the most sensitive to Beijing, and therefore most likely to go unpublished. Mak also points to human rights suppressions in China and Hong Kong’s vocal localist movement as further examples of issues less covered by Hong Kong media.

“This makes it impossible to play its watchdog role, it’s as simple as that,” says Ismaïl. “This happens the moment a journalist starts to balance the interest of the public with the interest of the state.” He contends that the “poor” local coverage of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s secret A$7 million payout is one such example.

The HKJA’s current chairperson, Sham Yee-lan, is renewing calls for the government to introduce a Freedom to Information Act, which Mak says is something journalists have been demanding for decades. Hong Kong’s existing information laws are “insufficient” for journalists to report effectively, according to the HKJA.

Mak “condemns” Leung for failing to keep his promise on this legislation once he became Chief Executive, as he signed a freedom of press charter in 2012 stating his commitment to implementing the act.

Leung made overtures towards defending press freedom at the annual Hong Kong News Awards last month, saying, “the SAR government will continue to maintain freedom of speech in Hong Kong … because it is a necessary condition for Hong Kong as an international city. Freedom of the press is essential to maintain Hong Kong’s competitiveness and free society. In other words, protecting freedom of the press means protecting Hong Kong’s way of life.”

Harshly criticised
This speech was harshly criticised by the Hong Kong Free Press. “Nowhere in his administration do we see these inspirational words put into action. In fact, Leung has presided over a troubling erosion of the very core value to which he was so keen to give lip service,” wrote Kent Ewing.

“One of the things for which many people in Hong Kong fault CY Leung is that he takes the mainland’s side in issues,” says Moriarty. “He couldn’t even bring himself to root for the Hong Kong soccer team when it played against China.” Leung’s growing unpopularity is on display on his Facebook page, where the public have taken to express their anger.

Polarising public dissatisfaction and accusations of Leung’s mainland-bias have been renewed over his administration’s inactive response to the missing booksellers, one of the most sensational freedom of speech cases in recent years. Five men with links to a Hong Kong bookstore — Causeway Bay Books, known for publishing scandalous material critical of China’s senior party officials — disappeared without trace over the course of several months late last year, only to resurface sporadically on Chinese state television giving what appear to be forced confessions.

The ongoing saga has dominated Hong Kong media for months and is threatening to become an international incident now that Angela Gui, daughter of one of the missing men, has gone public with an appeal for help in the United States. She has accused China of carrying out “illegal operations” beyond its borders, and urged the international community to respond.

“Almost nothing ever gets solved in China quietly,” says Moriarty. “Every case I’ve ever seen when something was resolved and somebody ultimately was freed was because there was a campaign, there were people in the family that wouldn’t give up, the public got behind them and wouldn’t give up — keeping quiet doesn’t help people.”

Timothy Hamlett is another veteran Hong Kong journalist critical of Leung’s pro-Beijing administration. “Hong Kong does not have a state of democracy,” he says. “Leung’s predecessors were quite successful in obscuring this fact by an ostentatious display of concern for public opinion. Leung doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him and makes this obvious. He is regarded as a shameless puppet.”

Hamlett says that the silence of Leung’s administration on the disappeared booksellers — one of whom, Lee Bo, is believed to have been illegally abducted from Hong Kong — is viewed as complicitous by many. “It is clear that the Chinese government is trying by a variety of ways to muzzle the Hong Kong media, and to a considerable extent it has succeeded,” he says.

Worrisome figures
Considering the worrisome figures presented by the HKJA and RSF, Hamlett says they do not present an accurate reflection of the media landscape, as “the reality is worse… Journalists and editors try to hide in areas like business where accuracy is still valued and ‘sensitive’ topics do not come up, or they consider alternative careers.”

While Hamlett bemoans the decline of Hong Kong’s traditional media, he says several new media outlets are picking up the watchdog baton, such as the newly-established Hong Kong Free Press, for which he is a contributor, and the pro-democracy Next Media websites — whose outspoken founder, Jimmy Lai, has often found himself a target.

Tim Summers, an adjunct assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, offers a “slightly counter-consensus view” on the issue, arguing that it is more complicated than “a critical one-dimensional decline in media freedom.”

“One of the things mixed into this debate is the changing nature of the media here,” he says, “and I think that makes it difficult to evaluate.” According to Summers, most people in Hong Kong now get their news and information from a wider range of sources, including social media and online chat groups, where “freedom of expression and information transfer are healthy.”

Summers suggests the extensive local coverage of the 2014 Umbrella movement as a positive example, during which all media outlets were live streaming the protests as they unfolded without restrictions, including the oft-criticised SCMP. “I’m not saying there are no issues around … there is perhaps less variety and diversity of outspoken views across the traditional media in Hong Kong, but I would argue that that is more than compensated by the emergence of new media.”

This more measured take on the state of Hong Kong’s press freedom is echoed by Dr Judith Clarke, a seasoned professor at the Hong Kong Baptist University’s journalism department. “There is certainly a lot of pressure to conform, but there are plenty of independent media getting the news out and leading the way on stories — scrutinising every move of the government, so that even pro-government media have to follow.”

She concedes, however, that the introduction of a Freedom to Information Act is unlikely under the current administration. “There are already some procedures in place, such as the Code on Access to Information, various complaints mechanisms and the Ombudsman’s office. These are not really adequate, but they do provide some level of access.”

Open access
Moriarty says that even these procedures are under threat, as the administration is attempting to make access more difficult for journalists. “Without open access to business records you wouldn’t have seen the same stories about the rich family members of the Chinese leaders — the Hong Kong records were extremely important in being able to confirm who was who and where the money was going.”

Ismaïl emphasises that regardless of whether the act happens or not, it should not be viewed as a solution to the threats that the Hong Kong media are facing. “Even with the Freedom to Information Act, which will [reduce] discrimination against independent online media like the Hong Kong Free Press, the media will continue to be pressured and encouraged to self-censor.” The Hong Kong government — perhaps sensing that new media could become the Fourth Estate’s new watchdog — does not allow online media access to press conferences and press releases.

In spite of his many concerns, Ismaïl is not yet ready to call the “one country, two systems” experiment a failure — at least as it relates to press freedom guarantees — and he promises RSF will continue to monitor the situation closely. “The Hong Kong media, both local and foreign, enjoy all sorts of freedoms that are refused to journalists operating in mainland China. And international press freedom organisations like ours can still go there and speak freely … But the moment RSF members are denied access to Hong Kong, we’ll be extremely worried.”

Dominic Pink compiled this report as part of the Pacific Media Centre’s Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course.

• Hong Kong bookseller: Chinese TV confession was ‘forced’

As global response to an online petition continues to grow, can the death of one elephant change attitudes on Southeast Asia’s animal tourism industry? Dominic Pink investigates for Asia Pacific Report.

More than 150,000 people have signed a petition to end elephant riding at Angkor in Cambodia, a UNESCO World Heritage site where tourists converge to marvel at the immense Khmer Empire ruins.

“There is no such thing as cruelty-free elephant rides,” says the Change.org petition, which asks that APSARA (Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap) ban elephant riding at the archaeological park.

The catalyst was the death last month of Sambo, a female elephant aged between 40 and 45, who collapsed and died of a presumed heart attack after carrying tourists between temples in oppressively hot temperatures — nearby Siem Reap recorded a high of 40 degrees C on April 22.

Cambodia has just 70 captive and 500 wild elephants remaining, according to Jack Highwood, founder of the Mondulkiri-based NGO Elephant Valley Project, “so to lose another is a sad loss for Cambodia’s increasingly rare elephant population.”

The World Wildlife Fund lists Asian elephants as an endangered species, with the total population estimated somewhere between 30,000 to 50,000 and on the decline.

“Cambodia owes much of its rich history to the strength of the elephant,” says Highwood.

“Now that Cambodia is prospering, it should take advantage of its new-found wealth to protect this important species.”

International support
International animal welfare organisations such as the Elephant Asia Rescue and Survival Foundation (EARS) and World Animal Protection (WAP) have voiced their support for the petition, and are challenging travel companies to get on board.

“It has been really heartwarming to see the global response to Sambo’s death,” says Carmel de Bedin, EARS Asia’s Hong Kong director.

“There has been incredible support for the petition, both locally and internationally, and we feel that this is really indicative of the changing attitudes around the world to elephant tourism.”

Nicola Beynon, head of campaigns for WAP Australia and New Zealand, says their research has found that when people are made aware of the cruelty involved in wildlife attractions such as elephant rides, “they consider it unacceptable.”

“The problem is that a lot of the cruelty is hidden and goes on behind the scenes,” she says.

“For instance, most people wouldn’t know that elephants go through a process called ‘the crush’ … When they are young, they get taken from their mothers, kept in isolation, chained up, deprived of food, and beaten.

“It’s a horrific process, designed to break the elephant’s spirit so that it submits to human will and is safe to interact with tourists. And that’s just the start of their life in captivity.”

Decreasing demand
WAP are focussed on decreasing tourist demand for exploitative wildlife attractions, and more than 100 travel companies have committed to their pledge to no longer sell elephant rides in packages, including Contiki, Intrepid Travel and World Expedition.

The organisation is now taking aim at TripAdvisor with a petition that accuses the popular online travel company of profiting from animal cruelty, and demands that they stop promoting and selling tickets — through their subsidiary Viator — to “cruel wildlife tourist attractions”.

This strategy proved successful earlier this year when travel company Thomas Cook removed sales of elephant rides and shows following a WAP petition signed by almost 175,000 people.

According to the WAP petition, the University of Oxford reviewed 188 wildlife venues featured on TripAdvisor last year and found that 75 percent of the attractions involved wildlife cruelty.

“We’re targeting TripAdvisor because they are the biggest online travel company and they are hugely influential in terms of how tourists spend their dollars,” says Beynon.

“If TripAdvisor came on board with this campaign they could be a tremendous force for good.”

WAP is asking TripAdvisor to put in place a “positive programme” called “Wildlife Leaders”, inspired by their existing eco-friendly programme “Green Leaders”, where venues that treat animals responsibly would be rewarded.

TripAdvisor Inc. representatives declined to be interviewed for this article, responding to Asia Pacific Report’s request with a statement saying:

“We believe these petitions are well-intentioned and we appreciate their ability to shine a bright light on animal cruelty.

“We believe, however, that these efforts would be better served directed at national governments and local regulatory bodies to ensure that businesses are operating within the legal requirements of that country or region, or better yet, to improve local standards and regulation regarding animal welfare.”

The statement also highlighed that establishments listed on TripAdvisor did not represent their endorsement, and all tickets sold through Viator were subject to a Code of Conduct ensuring that no animal-related experiences that were known to be prohibited by respective governments were offered.

But Beynon believes that this response is “passing the buck”.

“Just because it’s legal, that doesn’t mean it’s not cruel, and big global companies have a responsibility to set their own standards and their own ethics about what they consider acceptable.”

De Bedin concurs, saying TripAdvisor has a “moral duty” when it comes to the sites they choose to promote.

“Suggesting that organisations work directly with the governments is side-stepping the issue and is derogatory to the work of organisations such as EARS Asia, who already do challenge the bodies ‘in charge’ as it were.”

When it comes to advice for prospective Southeast Asia tourists, de Bedin says: “Don’t leave your morals at home.”

Suffering cruelty
“Our rule of thumb,” says Beynon, “If you can hug it, if you can ride it, if you can take a selfie with it, or if it’s performing for you, then there is a very good chance that that animal has suffered cruelty and you should avoid it.”

De Bedin points out that while elephant riding is a growing industry in Southeast Asia, so is ethical elephant tourism.

Last week saw the announcement of a new Elephant Nature Park in Phuket, the second elephant rescue and rehabilitation centre under this banner — considered to be one of the most reputable sanctuaries in Thailand — and the first in collaboration with EARS Asia.

Asia Pacific Report asked the APSARA Authority, the Cambodian Ministry of Tourism, and the Royal Embassy of Cambodia in Canberra for comment, all of whom were unresponsive.

All these more ethical developments have come too late for Angkor’s Samba.

Dominic Pink is an Auckland-based student journalist reporting on AUT’s Asia-Pacific Journalism course.

An “alarming” new study by Professor James Hansen predicts rapid sea level rise and more intense superstorms. What could this mean for Pacific nations? Dominic Pink reports for Asia Pacific Report.

Last month was the hottest March on record, according to satellite data. This follows the hottest February on record, and a December-February warm streak which set a record for the highest departure from average global temperature for any three-month period.

March also saw the publication of a “bombshell” new climate change study by Professor James Hansen and 18 co-authors, which has been making waves in the media and inspiring much debate among climate scientists.

Dr Hansen, considered “the father of climate change awareness”, outlines a scenario where a growing ice melt could cause 2 to 5 metres of sea level rise by the end of the century if global warming stays at 2° C – significantly faster than the less-than-1 metre projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“A more immediate threat is the likelihood of shutting down the oceans’ overturning circulations in the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean,” Dr Hansen says in his accompanying video address, detailing a previously uncovered feedback link between the oceans and giant ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.

“These feedbacks raise questions about how soon we will pass points of no return in which we will lock-in consequences that cannot be reversed on any time scale that people care about.”

Dr Hansen describes a future with “superstorms stronger than any in modern times” and the potential “loss of all coastal cities, most of the world’s largest cities and all of their history”.

Plausible and ‘alarming’
Commenting on Hansen’s study, Professor James Renwick of Victoria University found the research to be plausible and “alarming”, although he thinks the time scale of change will be slower than Dr Hansen suggests.

“Having said that, there is an important message here. Even if it takes 200 years rather than 50 years, we may well already be locked-in to very large changes in sea level and climate.”

Jason Garman of Oxfam NZ considers the study to be “another in a long line of serious warnings from the best climate scientists in the world that we’re not taking action fast enough”.

“If we’re going to have several metres of sea level rise within 50 years, 150 years or 250 years, we’re still talking about ultimately the same thing, which is … the potential end of cultures here in the Pacific that have been around for tens of thousands of years. This is a tremendous injustice and it should be a wake-up call.”

A recent study by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) found that nearly everyone surveyed on the low-lying Pacific Island nations of Kiribati, Tuvalu and Nauru had been affected by climate change.

Sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, droughts and floods have resulted in forced migration, with 23 percent of migrants in Kiribati naming climate change as a reason to relocate, and 70 percent of households seeing migration as a likely response if conditions worsened.

In May 2014, Kiribati’s government purchased 2430ha of land in Fiji, where its 110,000 population would potentially relocate to avoid a humanitarian crisis should sea levels continue to rise.

Fact-finding mission
Labour Party’s Pacific Climate Change spokesperson Su’a William Sio has just returned from a fact-finding mission to Kiribati and Tuvalu.

“For the rest of the world climate change might be an emerging issue, but for these Pacific Islands it is a present issue, they’re having to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.”

Sio encountered many young i-Kiribati voicing disappointment over what they see as New Zealand and Australia “dragging their feet” over addressing climate change.

“On a number of levels we’ve got this connection with the Pacific, and we do have a responsibility to step up and stand in solidarity with them,” Su’a says.

“There’s a real need for us to have a long-term migration with dignity plan in place … What I saw was some of the outer islands of both Tuvalu and Kiribati are no longer inhabitable because of constant flooding with their rising tides. So we’ve got to help these islands plan for migration.”

In the wake of the “historic” Paris climate agreement, Su’a shared i-Kiribati concerns, saying “the international community patted itself on the back last year… but so far there is no action that is going to reduce global warming right now… at the moment the Pacific are fighting for their lives.”

Paula Bennett, the National government’s Minister for Climate Change, responded by highlighting that next week New Zealand will sign the Paris climate agreement, which “will serve as the foundation of the action the world takes to transition to a low carbon economy.”

Ratification next
“Our next steps are to work on the operational details of the agreement that will enable us to move towards domestic ratification.”

Bennett also said New Zealand had committed to spending $200 million to “support our Pacific friends and neighbours adapt to the effects of climate change”.

While acknowledging that Paris “was a great diplomatic achievement”, Renwick worries that it may “lull us into a false sense of security”, and he remains critical of National’s climate change policy.

“The government’s plan to meet targets involves buying emissions credits from overseas — riding on the efforts of others — and by use of the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme), which is completely ineffective”.

Bennett explained that the global market for emissions credits is “a key way to help us meet our targets while we work on a long-term plan to make genuine changes to our economy.”

“This is especially true for sectors that cannot quickly or affordably lower their emissions without gutting businesses and potentially impacting on New Zealanders’ jobs. We need fewer emissions going into the atmosphere, and it doesn’t practically matter where these reductions come from.

“Buying emissions from others like developing nations is also an important way of supporting those countries attempting to grow in a sustainable way.”

Renwick, however, urges more action, pointing to the Green Party’s 2015 plan for reducing emissions as an ideal for New Zealand.

“We need proper carbon pricing, a move away from dairying, electrification of the car fleet, and investment on public transport.”

Dominic Pink is an Auckland-based student journalist reporting on AUT’s Asia-Pacific Journalism course.

• Full transcript of Professor Hansen’s video
• Waatea Fifth Estate and Pacific climate change video

Advocacy groups are criticising what they see as the harmful impact the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement could have on the environment.

Several critics have also highlighted fears for Pacific Island nations on the climate change frontline and a lack of environmental coverage from mainstream media.

A recent paper by Simon Terry, executive director of the Sustainability Council of New Zealand, found that “the environment is a significant casualty under the TPPA”.

Governments can be sued by corporations — under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions — over environmental regulations such as changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and restrictions on the mining of fossil fuels.

The words “climate change” were removed from the final TPPA text, as was any reference to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

One of the deal’s strongest critics is Barry Coates, spokesperson for the It’s Our Future campaign. He outlines two ways the TPPA would negatively impact on the environment if it comes into force.

“One is that action on climate change would be undermined by the ISDS mechanism in particular – if we look at cases that have been taken under ISDS around the world … calculations by Public Citizen show that around 85 percent of those are related to environmental regulation of some sort,” he says.

‘Chilling effect’
The other is a “chilling effect” that the threat of lawsuits would have on a government’s willingness to enact environmental reform.

Laura O’Connell-Rapira, campaigns director for ActionStation, points to recent ISDS examples in North America as evidence of the difficulties that governments are already facing when addressing climate change, such as a US$15 billion lawsuit filed by TransCanada against the Obama administration for rejecting their proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

She is “deeply concerned” about the environmental ramifications.

“In the 21st century, should we be allowing arguably antiquated trade rules to trump climate agreement?” she asks.

Environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have pointed out that threats to endangered species would increase under the TPPA, as the unrestricted reduction of tariffs and taxes on imports would include trade in shark fins, palm oil and ivory.

The controversial free trade deal was signed in Auckland last month amid peaceful demonstrations by a crowd of more than 20,000 people, say some reports.

The march was organised by It’s Our Future in collaboration with ActionStation and Real Choice. Several groups of protesters managed to gridlock the city by blocking major arterial routes.

Coates acknowledges that the TPPA is a “complex” issue to grasp, but he believes that the public “understand the big principles behind it … I think there are a lot of people worried that big businesses have too much power”.

Concerns such as secrecy surrounding negotiations, insufficient public discourse, and the perceived threat to New Zealand’s sovereignty as well as Māori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi have been major points of contention among critics since details of the TPPA were first released in November.

‘Liberalising’ trade aims
The TPPA aims to liberalise trade and investment between the 12 member nations — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,  United States and Vietnam — which represent approximately 36 percent of the world’s GDP (or about US$28 trillion).

In an official statement, Trade Minister Tim Groser described the TPPA as “a very positive agreement for New Zealand,” breaking new ground as the country’s first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States, the world’s largest consumer market.

Climate change is increasingly becoming an existential threat to Pacific Island nations, with small states such as Kiribati and Tuvalu facing a bleak future if rising sea levels persist.

Dr Pala Molisa addressed the urgency at the Pacific Climate Change Conference at Victoria University last month, saying, “we’re going to lose islands – we’re going to lose whole countries – because of rising sea levels …

“The Pacific is one of the most vulnerable areas to these super storms and extreme weather events.”

On TPPA, Dr Molisa said it “undermines our ability to respond effectively to these climate crises”.

Biggest issue for Pacific
Economist Dr Biman Prasad, leader of Fiji’s opposition National Federation Party, says “the whole issue for Pacific Island countries right now is climate change adaptation and mitigation”.

He says the touted benefits of a free trade agreement like the TPPA are not key concerns for many Pacific Islands nations, which are “talking about non-tariff barriers, non-trade issues,” including labour mobility and quarantine issues.

Prasad also worries that Pacific nations may find “to their dismay” that the deal impacts on their ability to access funding for climate change adaptation.

350 Aotearoa national director Niamh O’Flynn also expressed concern for Pacific Island nations on the climate change frontline, calling attention to New Zealand and Australia’s “duty of care” to their smaller neighbours.

“If we are unable to carry out that duty it’s a big problem for the Pacific”.

New Minister for Climate Change Paula Bennett has said she wants New Zealand to be a global leader in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. However, she remarked at the Pacific climate conference that “support for climate action has to support sustainable economic development”.

O’Flynn suggests that “actions speak louder than words” and the government has “certainly not shown any action” on Bennett’s recent climate change rhetoric.

“Coming back from Paris [2015 Climate Conference] and instantly opening up more parts of New Zealand’s coastline to be bid for oil shows that the National government is seriously uncommitted to taking any kind of action on climate change”.

‘Lazy’ media coverage
Coates has been “pretty disappointed” by much of the TPPA coverage in New Zealand, claiming “a lot of the media have been lazy and unquestioning of the government’s spin”.

O’Connell-Rapira and O’Flynn echoed these thoughts, criticising a lack of serious reportage on climate change, “the most important issue of our time”.

Coates emphasised that “New Zealanders care deeply about their environment, they care about climate change” and would like to see the media focusing on some of the threats to the environment and climate change.

When asked whether we can expect future anti-TPPA actions, Coates promised “lots”.

“In the meantime [Prime Minister] John Key tends to get confronted in every place that he goes … and I think the government’s very much on the back foot around the TPPA”.

Shortly before going to press, Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett responded to questions for this article, rejecting claims about the environment chapter of the TPPA draft as “simply not true”.

“The environment chapter is the most comprehensive and ambitious outcome that New Zealand has achieved in any free trade agreement and includes a specific article on the transition to a low emissions economy,” she said in a statement to Asia Pacific Report.

Dominic Pink is an Auckland-based student journalist reporting on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course.

• It’s Our Future