Philip Jacobson, an award-winning editor for the non-profit environmental science news outlet Mongabay, has been arrested for an alleged visa violation in Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, after being put under city arrest for a month.

Jacobson, 30, was first detained on 17 December 2019 after attending a hearing between the Central Kalimantan parliament and the local chapter of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Indonesia’s largest indigenous rights advocacy group.

He had travelled to the city shortly after entering Indonesia on a business visa for a series of meetings.

READ MORE: Mongabay environmental headlines

The day he was due to leave, immigration authorities seized his passport, interrogated him for four hours and ordered him to remain in the city pending their investigation.

On January 21, more than a month later, Jacobson was formally arrested and taken into custody. He was informed that he faces charges of violating the 2011 immigration law and a prison sentence of up to five years.

He is now being held at a prison in Palangkaraya.

“We are supporting Philip in this on-going case and making every effort to comply with Indonesia’s immigration authorities,” said Mongabay founder and CEO Rhett A. Butler.

‘Punitive action’
“I am surprised that immigration officials have taken such punitive action against Philip for what is an administrative matter.”

Jacobson’s arrest comes shortly after Human Rights Watch issued a report documenting rising violence against activists and environmentalists in Indonesia, and amid a growing sense that critical voices are being suppressed.

“Journalists and people employed by journalism organisations should be free to work in Indonesia without fear of arbitrary detention,” said Andreas Harsono of Human Rights Watch, who knows Jacobson and understands his case.

“Philip Jacobson’s treatment is a worrying sign that the government is cracking down on the kind of work that is essential to the health of Indonesian democracy.”

Last month, the Indonesian Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) issued a report documenting 53 incidents of abuse against journalists – including five criminal cases – in 2019.

• Police ‘enemy of free press’ in Indonesia
• Aliansi Jurnalis independen

Two journalists from Timor-Leste will benefit from the Balibo Five-Roger East Fellowship in 2018, an initiative of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA.

They were chosen from four outstanding applications assessed by a selection panel in Australia, the MEAA says in a statement.

The next recipients of funding from the fellowship, which aims to nurture the development of journalism in East Timor are:

• Maria Pricilia Fonseca Xavier, a journalist and news broadcaster in Tétum and Portuguese at Timor-Leste Television (TVTL).

• Augusto Sarmento Dos Reis, senior sports journalist and online co-ordinator at the Timor Post daily newspaper and diariutimorpost.tl website.

The Balibo Five-Roger East Fellowship has been established to honour the memory of the six Australian journalists murdered in East Timor in 1975, and to improve the quality and skill of journalism in East Timor.

The applications were assessed by a panel of MEAA communications director Mark Phillips; Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA organiser trade union development and education for Timor-Leste and Indonesia, Samantha Bond; senior lecturer in journalism at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Jock Cheetham; and former television journalist and newsreader Mal Walden, who was a colleague of three of the Balibo Five.

Funding for projects
The successful applicants will be provided with funding to assist them with specific journalism projects in Timor. It is anticipated that each will also be offered the opportunity to travel to Australia in 2018 to spend some time observing and working in an Australian newsroom.

MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy said all the applications were again of a high quality and representative of the diversity of journalism in East Timor.

“We are well aware that is not easy to work as a journalist in Timor-Leste, and journalists face many hurdles, including a lack of resources and training, and attacks from the government on press freedom,” he said.

“But we are delighted that the successful applicants represent both print/online and broadcast media, and there is a balance between genders.

“Both Pricilia and Augusto are young journalists with impressive track records and a thirst to succeed in their chosen profession.”

Kate Lee, executive director of Union Aid Abroad-Apheda, said: “We are delighted to again be able to partner with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance to support the development of independent journalism in Timor Leste through the Balibo Five-Roger East Fellowship and look forward to seeing some great investigative work from Pricilia and Augusto in 2018”

Funding for the Balibo Five-Roger East Fellowship has come from MEAA, the Fairfax Media More Than Words workplace giving programme, and private donations.

40th anniversary
The fellowship was established on the 40th anniversary of the murders of the Balibo Five in 1975.

Last year, four journalists successfully applied for funding from the fellowship, while separately the fellowship assisted Timorese journalist Raimundos Oki to spend a week with Fairfax Media in Sydney in September.

The fellowship carries the names of six journalists who were murdered by Indonesian forces in East Timor in 1975.

Five young journalists working for Australia’s Seven and Nine networks – reporter Greg Shackleton, camera operator Gary Cunningham, sound recordist Tony Stewart (all from Seven), reporter Malcolm Rennie and camera operator Brian Peters (both from Nine) – were killed in the village of Balibo after witnessing an incursion by Indonesian soldiers on October 16, 1975. Their killers have never been brought to justice.

Freelance reporter Roger East, a stringer for the ABC and AAP who provided the first confirmed accounts of the killing of the Balibo Five, was executed by Indonesian troops on Dili Wharf on December 8. His body fell into the sea and was never recovered.

A media release from MEAA and APHEDA.

With global warming on the increase and species and their habitats on the decrease, chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing.

But what did COP21 actually achieve? Given that climate change may be one of the greatest threats facing the planet and where the impact will be particularly strong in the Asia-Pacific region, especially the microstates of the Pacific, what is the role of the media and media education in the region?

Are Asia-Pacific journalism schools giving enough emphasis to this issue? How should things be done differently? How are media programmes keeping up with science? Is enough attention being paid to the human rights issues involved and the status of “climate change refugees” has not yet been resolved?

What are the key challenges for journalism education and the best strategies in dealing with this issue?

These issues will be discussed today by a panel at the World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC) at Auckland University of Technology. This event has been supported by the Asia New Zealand Foundation bringing two of the panellists to New Zealand, leading communication specialist Professor Crispin Maslog of Manila, Philippines, and Dr Hermin Indah Wahyuni of the Centre for South-East Asian Studies in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Chair:  Professor David Robie, Pacific Media Centre, AUT (New Zealand)

Panelists:
Professor Crispin C. Maslog: chairman, Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (Philippines)

Professor Hermin Indah Wahyuni: Center for South-East Asian Social Studies (CESASS) Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta (Indonesia)

Dr Jose Maria Carlos: broadcaster and media consultant and a former secretary-general of AMIC  (Philippines)

Misa Vicky Lepou: head of journalism at the National University of Samoa, President-elect of Media educators Pacific

Responder: Dr Shailendra Singh, head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific

WJEC conference website

But this more ambitious target will be beyond our reach within a decade or two at current rates of fossil fuel use around the world.

Beyond how achievable the goals are, and at what cost they can be achieved, they are aggressive and consistent with minimising the dangerous interference of human activities on the climate system.

The Paris agreement also recognises the significant gap between the actions needed to stabilise global temperatures and the current national mitigation pledges through 2030. As written now, those pledges won’t keep average temperatures below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. That’s why the document encourages nations to strengthen their targets in the near future.

The agreement focuses not just on mitigation activities, but on adaptation, too. Adaptation includes the many activities that reduce the costs and consequences of climate change that will occur even after mitigation.

The Paris agreement calls for substantial efforts to develop new capabilities for adaptation and the funding needed to support them. Even climate stabilisation below 2°C will, and has already begun to, bring climate impacts, particularly to the most vulnerable nations and communities.

And, as always, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the document acknowledges the dangers of looking at the world through the single lens of climate change. We need to safeguard other critical services such as food production, water resources, and biodiversity.

Some shortfalls
The agreement missed the opportunity to establish some mid-term goals, sharpening the milestones required after 2030. We know that the current mitigation pledges to 2030 are not enough to keep global temperatures below 2°C. The hard work of mid-term goals lies ahead of us.

A specific emissions mitigation target for 2050, for instance, would have benchmarked where emissions need to be to keep temperatures below 2°C by end of this century. Intermediate goals are critical for keeping us on track with compatible pathways.

Instead, the agreement settled on the goal of achieving a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases during the second half of this century. This goal is based on the results of the last assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The “balance” acknowledges that we could still have some greenhouse gas emissions in the future but these emissions would need to be offset by the removal of an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We interpret this language as being the same as the better known requirement of “zero net emissions”.

An important shortcoming of calling for achieving a greenhouse gas balance “in the second half of the century” is that it leaves open the possibility that the balance might not be achieved until 2100. This more lenient approach would almost certainly fail to keep global temperatures under 2°C.

An additional shortcoming concerns the contentious issue of financial payments and incentives. The agreement recognises the fact that nations, mostly developing, representing almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions don’t yet have a plan to peak (initially) and then reduce their emissions unless climate financing is available. The text of the agreement is vague and does not clarify how such funds will be obtained, distributed, and monitored.

Let’s get to work
To enter into force, the Agreement will need to be ratified by at least 55 nations under the UN climate convention. These parties must also be responsible for at least 55 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

It took years for the Kyoto Protocol to be ratified, so it is important this agreement be ratified quickly. The longer this is delayed, the faster countries will have to reduce emissions.

The “55 percent of emissions” number is an interesting one. Two countries, China and the United States, are responsible for 44.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. It is technically possible therefore for the agreement to enter into force if all countries except the US and China ratify the deal, but that outcome seems unlikely.

Ratification in China will hinge on its perceived effects on economic development.

Approval in the US will largely depend on a legal determination of whether the agreement must be ratified by the Senate. This was a major reason the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Even if 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions ratify the agreement, it will do little to achieve the goal of limiting warming to 2°C. Unless countries covering more than 90 percent of global emissions ratify the agreement, there is little chance of success in reaching the ambitious climate goals.

The need for immediate action includes raising at least US$100 billion per year by 2020. This challenge is enormous, but necessary, if developing countries are to forego the fossil-fuel-intensive development that characterised wealthier nations in the past.

And finally, we need to build new capacity for climate adaption, particularly in poorer, more vulnerable nations. Climate change is already here, and its fingerprint in many recent climate extremes is clear. All countries and communities need new capacity and knowledge to strengthen their resilience and sustainable development pathways.

Pep Canadell is a CSIRO scientist, and executive director of Global Carbon Project, CSIRO; Rob Jackson is professor of earth system science, Stanford University. Republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives licence.

Source: Pacific Media Watch 9521

Read David Robie’s Cafe Pacific

Item: 9509

Communications Minister Jimmy Miringtoro has announced plans to set up a Media Appeals Tribunal in the New Year targeting abuse of social media and other related mediums.

The tribunal is expected to deal with abusive matters including defamation of character, deliberate misinformation, spreading of “falsities” and malice on the social media including Facebook and through the mass media.

Although no details have yet been released, the concept is aimed at instilling effective instruments or legislation to control what is currently seen as a totally uncontrollable and uncensored social media sector.

It is also aimed at protecting the characters of those abused and seeks avenues for redress for the many helpless victims that are targeted with unfounded and falsified accusations. He said plans for the concept were now being prepared for final approval which he will spearhead as the minister responsible.

The reason for the appeals tribunal is being driven by the gross abuse of the social media where users “get away with” outright defamation and misinformation.

Miringtoro said that preparations were afoot for this basic premise, given the idea that freedom of the press was not an absolute right, but must be balanced against individuals’ rights to privacy and human dignity.

In an interview this week, he said there was overuse of social media in PNG right now, and also in the media industry where there had been a lot of misinformation and false reports plus issues taken out of context on a daily basis.

Tribunal remedy
He said the establishment of a media appeals tribunal accountable to Parliament was thought to be a remedy to this situation. Further, if this is successfully established it will be headed and run by very neutral and professional people who would deal with complaints.

“You see the government was initially thinking about stopping social media because of so much wrong information and defamation of character that has been going on.

“But we said to look at options and the Media (Appeals) Tribunal was one for us to look into.

“There are a lot of issues that will involve this.

“We have to prepare many things on this so that we are not accused of trying to control the media in PNG,” he said.

Miringtoro said that at the first mention of this, many people would have had negative thoughts about it – even “bashing” the government – and especially him as the head of the communications portfolio.

He said the concept might be taken out of context as many would see it as a “political interference” which is not the case.

But he said that if they finalised a complete and proper [legal] instrument this would actually help PNG and the media control information.

Miringtoro said there were also a lot of issues to take into account in the planning process so once all was put in place an announcement would be made.

Source: Pacific Media Watch 9509

Labour abuse, terrible bullying, slavery and human trafficking are exposing serious problems in global fisheries. Similar stories — too many to ignore — are starting to emerge from the tuna fleet, writes Kumi Naidoo.

COMMENT: Out in the Pacific Ocean thousands of fishing vessels are working around the clock to pull tuna out of the sea as fast as they can.

It’s a global business, and it’s big business, turning over billions of dollars a year, with millions of people employed in catching the tuna that millions of others rely on for sustenance and survival.

Unfortunately, the way these businesses operate is putting the whole system at risk. They are out of control. Pillaging the Pacific Ocean, they are taking too many fish, breaking laws and international agreements, and raiding the waters of small coastal nations.

Recent stories of labor abuse, terrible bullying, slavery and human trafficking are exposing serious problems in global fisheries. Similar stories — too many to ignore — are starting to emerge from the tuna fleet.

Longliners catching albacore for the canned tuna markets of the West can be like floating sweatshops, taking young men desperate for work away from their families, locking them into contracts that can last for years, and saddling them with debt if they try to break those contracts early.

Out on the high seas, with no means of escape, it must seem to some of these young fishermen as if they are serving a prison sentence.

And with less than 1 percent percent of fishing activity by longline fleets witnessed by on board independent observers in the Western Central Pacific, there is no one to turn to and nowhere to go. It is the perfect environment for exploitation — a captive workforce.

Last week, Greenpeace released a series of videos linking bullying and labour abuse to Pacific tuna boats. The stories of violence and exploitation we have heard from tuna fishermen are heartbreaking.

Bleak picture
Adding to this bleak picture, many longliners transship their catches while still at sea to refrigerated cargo ships, which means the fishing boats can stay at sea for years.

High-seas transshipping is an enabler of both human rights and environmental abuses. It’s the fisheries equivalent of money laundering, where illegal or “dirty” fish can enter the supply chain and become impossible to differentiate from the “clean”.

It also means that Pacific nations miss out on the revenue and jobs that would come with processing and packing those fish ashore. Pacific purse seine fleets are banned from transshipping catches at sea. The practice should now be made illegal for tuna longlining ships as well.

While the costs of human rights abuse and environmental crime cannot be compared, they are both driven by the greed of an industry that is out of control. If we fix one, we fix the other.

Like too many other industries, tuna is dominated by big business working in the interests of the few, using cheap or free labor, and catching fish in the high seas commons that should belong to all of us. If we fail to act now, fishermen will continue to be exploited by an industry that is degrading tuna stocks and harming our oceans.

For tuna, at least, there is an easy remedy. While stocks of bluefin and bigeye tuna are in serious trouble, albacore and skipjack are at the point where, if changes are made to fishing practices today, we can ensure there are enough fish for tomorrow. Fished sustainably, tuna can continue to feed and employ people across the globe, and protect the coastal communities who rely on them for survival.

It’s not an impossible vision. The last thing tuna-eaters want is the bitter taste of worker abuse or environmental devastation in their tuna salads or sashimi. We know that because Greenpeace’s tuna guides are among our most popular information resources. People often find it shocking when they learn of the ocean and human destruction that goes into a can of tuna.

Overcoming resistance
As consumers, we can give the big corporations a push in the right direction and overcome their resistance to change. By choosing to buy sustainable tuna we can tell the industry that we are not prepared to support the destruction of our oceans or the exploitation of workers.

As a form of protest it’s as easy as it gets. Every time a shopper reaches for a can of sustainably sourced tuna on a supermarket shelf it sends a message to the fishing industry that it’s time to change.

Tuna fisheries are global fisheries. If we can get them right we can create a model for the oceans; to feed and employ people and protect the health of our planet.

Right now the Rainbow Warrior is sailing the Pacific Ocean and its crew is focused on putting the tuna industry in the spotlight. But back on land we can all play an important role in helping to create change at sea.

Next time you visit a supermarket or a sushi bar, consider using the power of your wallet to tell the tuna industry that there is no place for ocean devastation and human rights abuse on our plates or in our lunchboxes.

Kumi Naidoo is the executive director of Greenpeace International.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

—