The United Nations’ highest court has found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions, in a ruling highly anticipated by Pacific countries long frustrated with the pace of global action to address climate change.

In a landmark opinion delivered yesterday in The Hague, the president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change was an “urgent and existential threat” that was “unequivocally” caused by human activity with consequences and effects that crossed borders.

The court’s opinion was the culmination of six years of advocacy and diplomatic manoeuvring which started with a group of Pacific university students in 2019.

• READ MORE: ICJ climate crisis ruling: Will world’s top court back Pacific-led call to hold governments accountable?
• Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question
• Other climate crisis reports

They were frustrated at what they saw was a lack of action to address the climate crisis, and saw current mechanisms to address it as woefully inadequate.

Their idea was backed by the government of Vanuatu, which convinced the UN General Assembly to seek the court’s advisory opinion on what countries’ obligations are under international law.

The court’s 15 judges were asked to provide an opinion on two questions: What are countries obliged to do under existing international law to protect the climate and environment, and, second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts — or lack of action — have significantly harmed the climate and environment?

Overnight, reading a summary that took nearly two hours to deliver, Iwasawa said states had clear obligations under international law, and that countries — and, by extension, individuals and companies within those countries — were required to curb emissions.

Iwasawa said the environment and human rights obligations set out in international law did indeed apply to climate change.

‘Precondition for human rights’
“The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights,” he said, adding that sea-level rise, desertification, drought and natural disasters “may significantly impair certain human rights, including the right to life”.

To reach its conclusion, judges waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments in what the court said was the ICJ’s largest-ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations providing testimony.

They also examined the entire corpus of international law — including human rights conventions, the law of the sea, the Paris climate agreement and many others — to determine whether countries have a human rights obligation to address climate change.

Major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, had argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, were sufficient to address climate change.

But the court found that states’ obligations extended beyond climate treaties, instead to many other areas of international law, such as human rights law, environmental law, and laws around restricting cross-border harm.

Significantly for many Pacific countries, the court also provided an opinion on what would happen if sea levels rose to such a level that some states were lost altogether.

“Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

READ HERE: The summary of the #ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. https://t.co/7TWc7ifwfX pic.twitter.com/vVxxwpZpbX

— CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) July 23, 2025

Significant legal weight
The ICJ’s opinion is legally non-binding. But even so, advocates say it carries significant legal and political weight that cannot be ignored, potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation and claims for compensation or reparations for climate-related loss and damage.

Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court’s opinion, and states could also return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account.

The opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries greater weight in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

Outside the court, several dozen climate activists, from both the Netherlands and abroad, had gathered on a square as cyclists and trams rumbled by on the summer afternoon. Among them was Siaosi Vaikune, a Tongan who was among those original students to hatch the idea for the challenge.

“Everyone has been waiting for this moment,” he said. “It’s been six years of campaigning.

“Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again,” Vaikune said. “And this is another step towards that justice.”

‘It gives hope’
Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the ruling was better than he expected and he was emotional about the result.

“The most pleasing aspect is [the ruling] was so strong in the current context where climate action and policy seems to be going backwards,” Regenvanu told RNZ Pacific.

“It gives such hope to the youth, because they were the ones who pushed this.

“I think it will regenerate an entire new generation of youth activists to push their governments for a better future for themselves.”

Regenvanu said the result showed the power of multilateralism.

“There was a point in time where everyone could compromise to agree to have this case heard here, and then here again, we see the court with the judges from all different countries of the world all unanimously agreeing on such a strong opinion, it gives you hope for multilateralism.”

He said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations.

“Communities on the ground, who are suffering from sea level rise, losing territory and so on, they know what they want, and we have to provide that,” Regenvanu said.

“Now we know that we can rely on international cooperation because of the obligations that have been declared here to assist them.”

The director of climate change at the Pacific Community (SPC), Coral Pasisi, also said the decision was a strong outcome for Pacific Island nations.

“The acknowledgement that the science is very clear, there is a direct clause between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and the harm that is causing, particularly the most vulnerable countries.”

She said the health of the environment is closely linked to the health of people, which was acknowledged by the court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

In 2019, a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world’s governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea — they would take the world’s governments to court.

They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries’ legal obligations under international law.

Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will today (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague.

• READ MORE: Other climate crisis reports

If successful — and those involved are quietly confident they will be — it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage.

Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed.

“Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment,” said Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed out of those original students.

“For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration,” he said.

“[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law.”

More than 100 countries — including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific — have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations.

And now today they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city to hear if the judges of the world’s top court agree.

What is the case?
The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues.

In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to request the judges to weigh what exactly international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions.

Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court’s history.

That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, which say they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating.

These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries’ actions.

“I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,” Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year.

“Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned.”

But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change.

“We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case).

“Among them: whether States’ climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States’ climate obligations.”

What could this mean?
Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over.

Still, the court’s opinion — if it falls in Vanuatu’s favour — could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings — both international and domestic — and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm.

An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

“This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial,” Prasad said.

In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have “legal obligations” to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring “legal consequences”.

At the Peace Palace today, they will find out from the court’s 15 judges.

“[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations,” said Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat in a statement ahead of the decision.

“I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu has reaffirmed its global leadership in climate action as the first country to launch a technical assistance programme under the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage.

This historical achievement has been announced by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS), according to a statement from the Department of Climate Change (DoCC) and the National Advisory Board (NAB) on Climate Change.

“Vanuatu will benefit from US$330,000 from the new Santiago Network to design a loss and damage country programme as a first step towards getting money directly into the hands of people who are suffering climate harm and communities taking action to address the unavoidable and irreversible impacts on agriculture, fisheries, biodiversity infrastructure, water supply, tourism, and other critical livelihood activities. With such a L&D programme,” the statement said.

• READ MORE: Other climate justice reports

“Vanuatu aims to be first in line to receive a large grant from the new UN Fund for responding to Loss and Damage holding US$700 million which has yet to be used.

“Loss and damage is a consequence of the worsening climate impacts being felt across Vanuatu’s islands, and driven by increases in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations which are caused primarily by fossil fuels and industry.

“Vanuatu is not responsible for climate change, and has contributed less than 0.0016 percent of global historical greenhouse gas emissions.

“Vanuatu’s climate vulnerability is one of the highest in the world.

“Despite best efforts by domestic communities, civil society, the private sector and government, Vanuatu’s climate vulnerability stems from insufficient global mitigation efforts, its direct exposure to a range of climate and non-climate risks, as well as inadequate levels of action and support for adaptation provided to Vanuatu as an unfulfilled obligation of rich developed countries under the UN Climate Treaty.”

The Santiago Network was recently set up under the Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage (WIM) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) to enable technical assistance to avert, minimise and address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change at the local, national and regional level.

The technical assistance is intended for developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

The statement said that because Vanuatu’s negotiators were instrumental in the establishment of the Santiago Network, the DoCC had worked quickly to ensure direct benefits begin to flow to communities who are suffering climate loss and damage now.

“Now that an official call for proposals to support Vanuatu has been published on the Santiago Network website www.santiago-network.org, there is an opportunity for Vanuatu’s local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), private sector, academic institutions, community associations, churches and even individuals to put in a bid to respond to the request,” the statement said.

“The only requirement for local entities to submit a bid is to become a member of the Santiago Network, with membership open to a huge range of Organisations, Bodies, Networks and Experts (OBNEs).

“Specifically defined, organisations are independent legal entities. Bodies are groups that are not necessarily independent legal entities. Networks ate interconnected groups of organisations or individuals that collaborate, share resources, or coordinate activities to achieve common goals.

“These networks can vary in structure, purpose, and scope but do not necessarily have legally established arrangements such as consortiums. Experts – individuals who are recognised specialists in a specific field.”

According to the statement, to become a member, a potential OBNE has to complete a simple form outlining their expertise, experience and commitment to the principles of the Santiago Network.

“The membership submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis, and once approved, OBNEs can make a formal bid to develop Vanuatu’s Loss and Damage programme for the UN Fund for responding to L&D,” the joint DoCC and NAB statement said.

“Vanuatu’s Ministry of Climate Change prefers that Pacific based OBNEs apply to provide this TA because they have deep cultural understanding and strong community ties, enabling them to design and implement context-specific, culturally appropriate solutions. Additionally, local and regional OBNEs have been shown to invest in strengthening national skills and knowledge, leaving behind lasting capacities that contribute to long-term resilience, and build strong local ownership and sustainability.”

The deadline for OBNEs to submit their bids is 5 January 2025.

There will be an open and transparent selection process taken by the UN to determine the best service provider to help Vanuatu and its people most effectively address growing climate losses and damages.

In addition to Vanuatu’s historic engagement with the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, Vanuatu will also hold a board seat on the new Fund for Responding to L&D, as well as leading climate loss and damage initiatives at the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, advocating for a new Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty, developing a national Loss and Damage Policy Framework, undertaking community-led Loss and Damage Policy Labs and establishing a national Climate Change Fund to provide loss and damage finance to vulnerable people across the country.

Republished from the Vanuatu Daily Post with permission.

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr is inviting US President-elect Donald Trump to “visit the Pacific” to see firsthand the impacts of the climate crisis.

Palau is set to host the largest annual Pacific leaders meeting in 2026, and the country’s leader Whipps told RNZ Pacific he would “love” Trump to be there.

He said he might even take the American leader, who is often criticised as a climate change denier, snorkelling in Palau’s pristine waters.

• READ MORE: 10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action
• Trump win, 1.5 C warming breach weigh on UN COP climate finance talks
• US elections: Climate finance negotiations could be harder after Trump’s victory
• Other Pacific climate crisis reports

Whipps said he had seen the damage to the marine ecosystem.

“I was out snorkelling on Sunday, and once again, it’s unfortunate, but we had another heat, very warm, warming of the oceans, so I saw a lot of bleached coral,” he said.

“It’s sad to see that it’s happening more frequently and these are just impacts of what is happening around the world because of our addiction to fossil fuel.”

“I would very much like to bring [Trump] to Palau if he can. That would be a fantastic opportunity to take him snorkelling and see the impacts. See the islands that are disappearing because of sea level rise, see the taro swamps that are being invaded.”

Americans experiencing the impacts
Whipps said Americans were experiencing the impacts in states such as Florida and North Carolina.

“I mean, that’s something that you need to experience. I mean, they’re experiencing [it] in Florida and North Carolina.

“They just had major disasters recently and I think that’s the rallying call that we all need to take responsibility.”

However, Trump is not necessarily known for his support of climate action. Instead, he has promised to “drill baby drill” to expand oil and gas production in the US.

Palau International Coral Reef Center researcher Christina Muller-Karanasos said surveying of corals in Palau was underway after multiple reports of bleaching.

She said the main cause of coral bleaching was climate change.

“It’s upsetting. There were areas where there were quite a lot of bleaching.

Most beautiful, pristine reef
“The most beautiful and pristine reef and amount of fish and species of fish that I’ve ever seen. It’s so important for the health of the reef. The healthy reef also supports healthy fish populations, and that’s really important for Palau.”

University of Hawai’i Manoa’s Dr Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka suspects Trump will focus on the Pacific, but for geopolitical gains.

“It will be about the militarisation of the climate change issue that you are using climate change to build relationships so that you can ensure you do the counter China issue as well.”

He believed Trump has made his position clear on the climate front.

“He said, and I quote, ‘that it is one of the great scams of all time’. And so he is a climate crisis denier.”

It is exactly the kind of comment President Whipps does not want to hear, especially from a leader of a country which Palau is close to — or from any nation.

“We need the United States, we need China, and we need India and Russia to be the leaders to make sure that we put things on track,” he said.

For the Pacific, the climate crisis is the biggest existential and security threat.

Leaders like Whipps are considering drastic measures, including the nuclear energy option.

“We’ve got to look at alternatives, and one of those is nuclear energy. It’s clean, it’s carbon free,” he told RNZ Pacific.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

As the curtain fell at the UN climate summit in Baku last Sunday, frustration and disappointment engulfed Pacific delegations after another meeting under-delivered.

Two weeks of intensive negotiations at COP29, hosted by Azerbaijan and attended by 55,000 delegates, resulted in a consensus decision among nearly 200 nations.

Climate finance was tripled to US $300 billion a year in grant and loan funding from developed nations, far short of the more than US $1 trillion sought by Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

• READ MORE: COP29: Pacific climate advocates decry outcome as ‘a catastrophic failure’
• Other COP29 climate crisis reports

“We travelled thousands of kilometres, it is a long way to travel back without good news,” Niue’s Minister of Natural Resources Mona Ainu’u told BenarNews.

Three-hundred Pacific delegates came to COP29 with the key demands to stay within the 1.5-degree C warming goal, make funds available and accessible for small island states, and cut ambiguous language from agreements.

Their aim was to make major emitters pay Pacific nations — who are facing the worst effects of climate change despite being the lowest contributors — to help with transition, adaptation and mitigation.

“If we lose out on the 1.5 degrees C, then it really means nothing for us being here, understanding the fact that we need money in order for us to respond to the climate crisis,” Tuvalu’s Minister for Climate Change Maina Talia told BenarNews at the start of talks.

PNG withdrew
Papua New Guinea withdrew from attending just days before COP29, with Prime Minister James Marape warning: “The pledges made by major polluters amount to nothing more than empty talk.”

Fiji’s lead negotiator Dr Sivendra Michael told BenarNews that climate finance cut across many of the committee negotiations running in parallel, with parties all trying to strategically position themselves.

“We had a really challenging time in the adaptation committee room, where groups of negotiators from the African region had done a complete block on any progress on (climate) tax,” said Dr Michael, adding the Fiji team was called to order on every intervention they made.

He said it’s the fourth consecutive year adaptation talks were left hanging, despite agreement among the majority of nations, because there was “no consensus among the like-minded developing countries, which includes China, as well as the African group.”

Pacific delegates told BenarNews at COP they battled misinformation, obstruction and subversion by developed and high-emitting nations, including again negotiating on commitments agreed at COP28 last year.

Pushback began early on with long sessions on the Global Stock Take, an assessment of what progress nations and stakeholders had made to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.

“If we cannot talk about 1.5, then we have a very weak language around mitigation,” Tuvalu’s Talia said. “Progress on finance was nothing more than ‘baby steps’.”

Pacific faced resistance
Pacific negotiators faced resistance to their call for U.S.$39 billion for Small Island Developing States and U.S.$220 billion for Least Developed Countries.

“We expected pushbacks, but the lack of ambition was deeply frustrating,” Talia said.

Greenpeace Pacific lead Shiva Gounden accused developed countries of deliberately stalling talks — of which Australia co-chaired the finance discussions — including by padding texts with unnecessary wording.

“Hours passed without any substance out of it, and then when they got into the substance of the text, there simply was not enough time,” he told BenarNews.

In the final week of COP29, the intense days negotiating continued late into the nights, sometimes ending the next morning.

“Nothing is moving as it should, and climate finance is a black hole,” Pacific Climate Action Network senior adviser Sindra Sharma told BenarNews during talks.

“There are lots of rumours and misinformation floating around, people saying that SIDS are dropping things — this is a complete lie.”

COP29 presidency influence
Sharma said the significant influence of the COP presidency — held by Azerbaijan — came to bear as talks on the final outcome dragged past the Friday night deadline.

The Azeri presidency faced criticism for not pushing strongly enough for incorporation of the “transition away from fossil fuels” — agreed to at COP28 — in draft texts.

“What we got in the end on Saturday was a text that didn’t have the priorities that smaller island states and least developed countries had reflected,” Sharma said.

COP29’s outcome was finally announced on Sunday at 5.30am.

“For me it was heartbreaking, how developed countries just blocked their way to fulfilling their responsibilities, their historical responsibilities, and pretty much offloaded that to developing countries,” Gounden from Greenpeace Pacific said.

Some retained faith
Amid the Pacific delegates’ disappointment, some retained their faith in the summits and look forward to COP30 in Brazil next year.

“We are tired, but we are here to hold the line on hope; we have no choice but to,” 350.org Pacific managing director Joseph Zane Sikulu told BenarNews.

“We can very easily spend time talking about who is missing, who is not here, and the impact that it will have on negotiation, or we can focus on the ones who came, who won’t give up,” he said at the end of summit.

Fiji’s lead negotiator Dr Michael said the outcome was “very disappointing” but not a total loss.

“COP is a very diplomatic process, so when people come to me and say that COP has failed, I am in complete disagreement, because no COP is a failure,” he told BenarNews at the end of talks.

“If we don’t agree this year, then it goes to next year; the important thing is to ensure that Pacific voices are present,” he said.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

The news media’s crucial role in climate change and environment journalism was the focus of The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme 2024 World Press Freedom Day celebrations.

The European Union Ambassador to the Pacific, Barbara Plinkert, and Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General Henry Puna were the chief guests at the event last week on May 3.

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Secretary Dr Sivendra Michael was the keynote speaker.

• READ MORE: Other World Press Freedom Day reports

Plinkert reemphasised journalists’ role in being public’s eyes and ears on the ground, verifying facts, scrutinising those in power and amplifying marginalised voices.

Puna’s message was targeted at Pacific leaders in terms of due recognition to the significant role of environmental journalism in sharing the priorities and realities of the resilient Pacific.

Dr Michael highlighted the need for governments and development partners to work with the local and regional media in mitigating environment and climate change challenges.

The event ended with a panel discussion on the theme for the 2024 World Press Freedom Day — A Press for the Planet: Journalism in the face of the environmental crisis: Fiji and the Pacific.

Media ‘poor cousins’
Associate Professor in Pacific Journalism Dr Shailendra Singh said that the WPFD theme was appropriate since environment and climate change news were relegated to “poor cousins” of politics, sports, business, and entertainment news.

He said it was to understand why this situation persisted and how to address it.

Others at the event included USP deputy vice-chancellor Professor Jito Vanualailai, deputy head of the School of Pacific Arts Dr Rosiana Lagi, and the Regional Representative for the Pacific, UN Human Rights Heike Alefsen.

The event was organised by The University of the South Pacific School of Journalism in partnership with the Delegation of the European Union to the Pacific.

Republished from Wansolwara News in collaboration.

From Whangārei in the north to Invercargill in the south, thousands took to the streets of Aotearoa New Zealand in today’s climate strike, RNZ News reports.

Hundreds marched on Parliament in Wellington.

But it was not just about the climate crisis — the day’s event was led by a coalition including Toitū Te Tiriti, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, and School Strike 4 Climate.

• WATCH: Video report of the march on 1News
• Other NZ climate crisis reports

They had six demands:

• Keep the ban on oil and gas exploration,
• End the Fast Track Approvals Bill,
• Toitū te Tiriti o Waitangi,
• Climate education for all,
• Lower the voting age to 16, and
• “Free Palestine”

Palestine solidarity protesters called on the New Zealand government to expel the Israeli ambassador in protest over Tel Aviv’s conduct of the devastating Gaza war.

The UN Human Rights Council today adopted a resolution calling for Israel to be held accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Gaza Strip.

It was a decisive vote with 28 in favour, 13 abstentions and six voting against, including Germany and the US.

An ACT New Zealand post on X stated that the School Strike 4 Climate was “encouraging kids across the country to wag school”.

‘Raise awareness’
School Strike 4 Climate organisers said their aim was to “raise awareness about the urgent need for climate action and to demand meaningful policy changes to combat the climate crisis”.

1News reports that one protester said she was attending today’s march in Auckland because she had a problem with the government’s approach to conservation.

“They’re dismantling previous rules that have been in place, they are picking up projects that have been previously turned down by the Environment Court . . .  and they’re doing it behind our back and the public has nothing to say, so they have become the predators,” she said.

Another protester said: “I’m terrified, because I know I’m going to die from climate change and the government is doing absolutely zero for it.”

This report is drawn from RNZ News reports and photographs under a community partnership and other sources.

A political commentator says Green Party co-leader James Shaw was a “friend of the Pacific”.

Shaw, who was previously New Zealand’s climate change minister for six years, announced this week he will be stepping aside as party co-leader in March.

Political commentator Thomas Wynne told RNZ Pacific that Shaw was unashamedly focused on climate change.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Shaw ‘really helped large ocean states have a voice’
• Chlöe Swarbrick makes Greens leadership announcement

“If one is realistic, one can do one job really, really well and Parliament can put you across a whole range of work and sometimes you don’t do at all well because your focus is somewhere else,” Wynne said.

“But James was really clear about what he wanted to do and what his focus was, I think his legacy around climate change will be long lasting.”

Wynne said Shaw supported Vanuatu seeking an advisory ruling from the International Court of Justice on climate change and human rights.

He said Shaw’s legacy around climate change would be long lasting in the Pacific.

“In the Pacific everything is around relationship and James had a good relationship with the nations in the Pacific.

“I think locally, our younger Pacific voter really leaned into the principles and values of the Green Party.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

In 2023, the world witnessed a sustained attack on the very foundations of the international legal order.

Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, continued its illegal invasion in Ukraine. Israel’s response to the deadly October attack by Hamas exceeded its legitimate right to self-defence. And Venezuela threatened force against Guyana over an oil-rich area of disputed territory.

But is it all bad news for the international legal order?

• READ MORE: South Africa has made its genocide case against Israel in court. Here’s what both sides said and what happens next
• Myanmar charged with genocide of Rohingya Muslims: 5 essential reads

There are six ongoing international court cases initiated by states or organisations seeking to clarify the law and hold other states to account on behalf of the international community.

These cases offer smaller countries, such as New Zealand, an opportunity to have a significant role in strengthening the international legal order and ensuring a pathway towards peace.

A departure from the legal norm?
Normally, cases are brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when a state’s direct interests are impacted by the actions of another state.

However, six recent court cases reflect a significant departure from this tradition and mark an important development for international justice.

These cases argue the international community has a collective interest in certain issues. The focus of the cases range from Israel’s actions in Gaza (brought by South Africa) through to the responsibility of states to ensure the protection of the climate system (brought by the United Nations General Assembly).

South Africa’s justice minister Ronald Lamola outlined the country’s genocide case against Israel, as a landmark hearing opened at the International Court of Justice pic.twitter.com/AvlM8BwhQI

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 11, 2024

Holding states accountable for genocide
Three of the six cases seek to hold states accountable for genocide using Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Put simply, Article IX says disputes between countries can be referred to the ICJ.

In late December, South Africa asked the court to introduce provisional measures — a form of international injunction — against Israel for genocidal acts in Gaza.

These proceedings build on the precedent set by a 2019 case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya people.

In 2022, the ICJ concluded it had jurisdiction to hear The Gambia’s case on the basis that all parties to the Genocide Convention have an interest in ensuring the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide.

According to the ICJ, The Gambia did not need to demonstrate any special interest or injury to bring the proceedings and, in effect, was entitled to hold Myanmar to account for its treatment of the Rohingya people on behalf of the international community as a whole.

South Africa has made the same argument against Israel.

In the third case, Ukraine was successful in obtaining provisional measures calling on Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine (a call which has been reiterated in several United Nations General Assembly resolutions).

While Ukraine is directly impacted by Russia’s actions, 32 states, including New Zealand, have also intervened. These countries have argued there is an international interest in the resolution of the conflict.

In November 2023, following the example of intervention in Ukraine v Russia, seven countries — Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (jointly) and the Maldives — filed declarations of intervention in The Gambia v Myanmar, in support of The Gambia and the international community.

States can apply for permission to intervene in proceedings where they have an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the decision in the case (in the case of the ICJ, under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute). That said, intervening in judicial proceedings in support of the legal order or international community more generally was relatively rare until 2023.

South Africa is taking Israel to the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s @nabilabana explains what’s behind the case pic.twitter.com/Hv9R4orEa8

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 11, 2024

Climate change obligations under international law
But it is not just acts of genocide that have attracted wider international legal involvement.

In 2023, three proceedings seeking advisory opinions on the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change under international law have been introduced before the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

These cases can be similarly characterised as having been brought on behalf of the international community for the international community. New Zealand has intervened in the Law of the Sea case.

Collectively, these six cases comprise actions taken on behalf of the international community with the overarching purpose of strengthening the international legal order.

They demonstrate faith in and support for that legal order in the face of internal and external challenges, and constitute an important counter-narrative to the prevailing view that the international legal order is no longer robust.

Instituting proceedings does not guarantee a positive outcome. But it is worth noting that less than three years after the ICJ issued an advisory opinion condemning the United Kingdom’s continued occupation of the Chagos Archipelago, the UK is quietly negotiating with Mauritius for the return of the islands.

New Zealand’s support for the global legal order in 2024
The international legal order underpins New Zealand’s security and prosperity. New Zealand has a strong and internationally recognised track record of positive intervention in judicial proceedings in support of that order.

In 2012 New Zealand intervened in the case brought by Australia against Japan for whaling in the Antarctic. Following our contributions to cases before the ICJ and ITLOS in 2023, we are well placed to continue that intervention in future judicial proceedings.

Calls have already been made for New Zealand to intervene in South Africa v Israel. Contributing to this case and to The Gambia v Myanmar proceeding provides an important opportunity for New Zealand to make a proactive and substantive contribution to strengthening the international legal order.

Dr Karen Scott is professor in Law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) says it is “deeply concerned” at reports that Western Australian police are demanding the ABC hand over footage about climate protesters filmed as part of a Four Corners investigation.

“As researchers and teachers of journalism, we uphold the ethical obligation of journalists to honour any assurances given to protect sources,” said JERAA president Associate Professor Alexandra Wake in a statement.

“This obligation is imperative in supporting the Western democratic tradition of journalism and to investigative journalism in particular.”

• READ MORE: Media union condemns WA police demand for footage
• Escalation: Climate, protest and the fight for the future

The ABC case relates to an investigation due to be broadcast on Four Corners tonight: “Escalation: Climate, protest and the fight for the future”.

“I’m going to remember this for the rest of my life.” Video: ABC Four Corners

WA police are reported to have demanded footage via “Order to Produce” provisions of the WA Criminal Investigations Act. The law compels organisations to comply.

One of JERAA’s core aims was to promote freedom of expression and communication, said the statement.

“The association is concerned that the WA police action represents a direct threat to media freedom and the practice of ethical investigative journalism,” Dr Wake said.

“We join the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) in urging the ABC to stand firm and not hand over footage which could potentially undermine assurances by the Four Corners team to their sources.”

The union for Australian journalists said it was alarmed at the reports that WA police were demanding the ABC hand over footage featuring climate activists filmed as part of the television investigation before it had even aired.

• MEAA support petition for the ABC
• “Escalation” reported by Hagar Cohen goes to air tonight, Monday, 9 October 2023, at 8.30pm AEST on ABC TV and ABC iview.

Scientists studying dramatic Antarctic sea ice loss have called for urgent reductions to greenhouse gases to keep the planet within liveable conditions.

Marine and ice specialists from top research outfits gathered at an emergency summit in Wellington today to discuss record low sea ice in Antarctica this year, which they described as “deeply alarming”.

“We are missing between seven and 10 New Zealands’ worth of sea ice”, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) marine physicist Dr Natalie Robinson said.

• READ MORE: Other climate crisis reports

Not only were both the winter and summer areas of sea ice smaller than scientists have seen in all 44 years of satellite records, the recent lows were so far outside the normal range that it was difficult to even describe them using the normal statistical methods, she said.

More than 40 researchers banded together to release a joint statement saying the unprecedented Antarctic sea ice low was driven by warming of the Southern Ocean and atmosphere, and calling for urgent cuts to climate pollution.

Speaking to media afterwards, they were not buying the argument that New Zealand was too small to make a difference to climate change, saying urgent emissions cuts on the scale needed called for global cooperation and that New Zealand could have an outsized impact on a per-capita basis.

Although the group agreed there was still much to learn about the processes driving Antarctic sea ice, Dr Robinson feared the record lows could flow into another devastating year in 2024.

Similar pattern
“Personally that would be my expectation, if we end the winter season and enter the summer season with less sea ice, I would expect to see a similar pattern emerge next year.”

The group stopped short of declaring the sea ice at a tipping point of “new normal” lows, as has been suggested by some Australian researchers.

But there was plenty of cause for alarm without needing to use those words, NIWA principal scientist in marine physics Dr Craig Stevens said.

The role of the heating planet in shrinking the ice was agreed, but Stevens said there was much debate about the nuance and detail of the complex processes driving the sea ice, with scientists wanting a longer record than 44 years to make stronger conclusions on some points. They were having to speed up their work, because of the rapidity of the changes.

“We don’t all agree on all the nuances and details around this because there is still a lot of work to be done,” he said.

Both NIWA marine physicists talked about the personal toll of watching the changes in their careers, with Dr Stevens saying it kept him awake at night and Dr Robinson saying, “it’s hard to look at the future my children are going to experience, with full knowledge of the insufficiency of the action we are taking.

“We know what the problem is and what the solutions are and as individuals and communities we are looking in a different direction”.

New Zealand one of the closest nations
The Southern Ocean around the Antarctic continent plays a major role in regulating the climate — and as one of the closest nations to Antarctica, New Zealand’s climate was particularly strongly influenced, the group said.

At its seasonal peak, the typical area of ice floating on the Southern Ocean is so vast it doubles the size of the Antarctic continent, adding around 50 New Zealand’s worth of area.

That was why it has such far-reaching effects on the planet’s climate.

Sea ice supplies a habitat for penguins and allows algae to grow underneath, feeding marine life below.

The process of ice formation also directly sends carbon dioxide from the air into the ocean depths, as salty water that is separated from the freshwater ice sinks to the bottom carrying its carbon. Ice is also reflective of the sun’s heat.

“Sea ice keeps global climate system running the way we like it – it pulls heat out of atmosphere and into the deep ocean when it is formed, and mirrors energy back out to space,” Dr Robinson said.

“When that sea is not there almost all that energy will get absorbed by the dark ocean, because it is dark” heating the climate up.”

Ice area peak in 2014
For many years Antarctic sea ice was growing, even as Arctic sea ice shrank, with the Southern Ocean ice area hitting a peak in 2014.

Dr Robinson said the mystery was not so much why the Antarctic sea ice was shrinking now, as why it was able to resist global heating so long, considering how much the oceans were warming.

“They are fundamentally different systems . . . the Arctic is a basin contained by land masses, whereas at the other end of the globe we have a continent surrounded by ocean — the ocean completely circulates around the continent and helps keep the continent cool.

“Oceans have taken up almost all the extra heat that has been put into our climate system by human activities — and of that about 2/3 was taken up by the Southern Ocean on its own. The Southern Ocean is punching well above its weight in keeping climate as we like it.

“That heat taken up by Southern Ocean is perhaps catching up with sea ice processes.”

In 2022, the ice was at record lows.

Dramatic reduction
“But then we’ve had an even more dramatic reduction in this current year,” she said.

“That’s what brought us together to have this summit.”

“You would expect in a warmer ocean and stormier environment that sea ice would reduce, as it did in the Arctic, so the fact it hasn’t until now is the more surprising thing, that’s the thing we would like to understand”, Dr Robinson said.

“This has been an alarming drop off the cliff.”

She said researchers would like to believe it was just variability, but that seemed unlikely.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa says the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is focused on how they will approach the next seven years to achieve the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Addressing the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development in New York on behalf of AOSIS, PM Fiame said world leaders needed to leave nationalism behind and urgently put action to the rhetoric they had been propagating for the past eight years.

“Climate change, the global financial crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions have taught us that we are even more closely connected than we wish to acknowledge, and that choices made on one end have far and wide reaching devastating impacts on those of us who are many, many miles away,” told the UN High Level Political Forum.

• READ MORE: Other UN SDG reports

“If we are going to uphold and deliver on our strong commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ and ‘reaching the furthest behind first’ we will have to leave nationalism behind and urgently put action to the rhetoric we have been propagating for the past eight years.”

PM Fiame said it was “time to stop kicking the can further down the road and doing bandage fixes”.

“We have to begin to earnestly address our global development issues, if we are going to begin speaking of a ‘summit of the future’ and ‘for future generations’.

“The sad reality is if we do not take care of today, for many of us, there will be no tomorrow or future.

‘We can do this together’
“We believe we can do this together, as the international community, if we return to the strong resolve, we had following the MDGs and knowing that if nothing drastic was done we would be worse off than we were as a global community in 1992 in Rio when we spoke of “the future we want,” Fiame said.

Faced with continuous and multiple crises, and without the ability to address these in any substantial and sustainable way, SIDS were on the “proverbial hamster wheel with no way out”, the Samoa Prime Minister said.

Therefore what was needed was to:

“Firstly, take urgent action on the climate change front — more climate financing; drastic cuts and reduction in greenhouse emissions, 1.5 is non-negotiable, everyone is feeling the mighty impacts of this, but not many of us have what it takes to rebounded from the devastation.

“This forthcoming COP28 needs to be a game changer, results must emanate from it — the Loss and Damage Fund needs to be fully operationalised and financed; we need progressive movement from the global stocktake; and states parties need to enhance NDCs.

“Secondly, urgent reform of the governance structure and overall working of the international financial architecture. It is time for it to be changed from its archaic approach to finance.

“We need a system that responds more appropriately to the varied dynamics countries face today; that goes beyond GDP; that takes into account various vulnerabilities and other aspects; that would look to utilise the Multi-Vulnerability Index, Bridgetown Initiative and all other measures that help to facilitate a more holistic and comprehensive insight into a country’s true circumstances.

‘More inclusive participation’
“This reform must also allow for a more inclusive and broader participation.

“Thirdly, urgently address high indebtedness in SIDS, this can no longer be ignored. There needs to be a concerted effort to address this.

“As we continually find ourselves in a revolving door between debt and reoccurring debt due to our continuous and constant response to economic, environmental and social shocks caused by external factors,” Prime Minister Fiame said.

“I appeal to you all to take a pause and join forces to make 2030 a year that we can all be proud of,” she said.

“In this vein, please be assured of AOSIS making our contribution no matter how minute it may be. We are fully committed. We invite you to review our interregional outcome document, the ‘Praia Declaration’ for a better understanding of our contribution.

“And we look forward to your constructive engagement as together we chart the 10-year Programme of Action for SIDS in 2024,” she said.

Fiame said the recently concluded Preparatory Meetings for the 4th International Conference on SIDS affirmed the unwavering commitment of SIDS to implement the 2030 Agenda as they charted a 10-year plan for a “resilient and prosperous future for our peoples”.

A ‘tough journey’
“We do recognise that the journey for us will be tough and daunting at times, but we are prepared and have a strong resolve to achieve this. However, we do also recognise and acknowledge that we cannot do this on our own.”

The summit marks the mid-point of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It will review the state of the SDGs implementation, provide policy guidance, mobilise action to accelerate implementation and consider new challenges since 2015.

The summit will address the impact of multiple and interlocking crises facing the world, including the deterioration of key social, economic and environmental indicators. It will focus first and foremost on people and ways to meet their basic needs through the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

This is the second SDG Summit, the first one was held in 2019.

Republished from Pacnews.

Melanesian prime ministers have have signed off two declarations addressing the pressing issues of climate crisis and national security.

The ceremonial signing took place at the Havannah Resort in North Efate yesterday, marking the culmination of the 22nd Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Leaders’ Summit Retreat.

The signatories included host Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau of Vanuatu, Manasseh Sogavare of Solomon Islands, James Marape of Papua New Guinea, Sitiveni Rabuka of Fiji and Victor Tutugoro, spokesperson of the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) of Kanaky New Caledonia.

• READ MORE: ‘The world is watching’ – it’s a test for Melanesian leaders over West Papua, says Wenda
• Other MSG reports

The history of these agreements commenced with the inaugural accord inked in Lakatoro, Malekula, in 1994.

Subsequent gatherings saw the signing of a second pact in Port Vila in 1998, followed by the third document signed during a Leaders’ Summit held in the Solomon Islands.

Prime Minister Kalsakau expressed satisfaction with the summit’s proceedings, highlighting the successful collaboration that yielded two comprehensive documents. He noted that these papers were both “content-rich and orderly” in outlining MSG’s strategic course on matters of importance to the region’s people.

Kalsakau acknowledged the impact of strong and visionary leadership, which served to refine the direction and purpose of Melanesia, ensuring it remained steadfastly on the right course.

‘Safeguarding’ Melanesia
He said he was content with the summit’s conclusion, characterising it as a “joyous occasion”.

“To ensure the safeguarding of Melanesia’s wellbeing and to achieve the highest levels of contentment among its people on the horizon, we have united as a collective whole,”  Kalsakau remarked.

Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders have signed off on two declaration for the first time. The first on climate and and the second one of security in North Efate a while ago. A presser will be held in Port Vila. West Papua issue likely to be referred to Pacific Islands Forum. pic.twitter.com/IJuzBnbjmE

— Kelvin Anthony (@kelvinfiji) August 24, 2023

He expressed gratitude to his colleagues for their contributions in shaping the final outcomes.

Concluding his address, Kalsakau invoked blessings upon the people of Melanesia and expressed his profound gratitude for the presence of all attendees.

This unity and collaboration, he affirmed, was the cornerstone of progress for the entire region.

The leaders shared in a tradition deeply rooted in Vanuatu culture — sharing a shell of kava to conclude the regional diplomatic dialogue.

• Pacific Media Watch reports that there was no mention of West Papua or the long awaited full membership issues and a promised media conference had not eventuated.

Doddy Morris is a Vanuatu Daily Post reporter. Republished with permission.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat’s Director-General, Leonard Louma, says the Pacific region continues to be the centre of geopolitical interests by global superpowers.

The 22nd MSG Leaders’ Summit is taking place in Port Vila this week– the first full in-person meeting since the covid pandemic.

The prime ministers of Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and the president of the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) of New Caledonia are confirmed to attend the leaders’ session on Wednesday.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: MSG Leaders’ Summit has a packed agenda
• Other MSG reports

Louma said the battle for influence “impels the region to take sides, but it does not protect Melanesia and the region”.

“There are some who would like us to believe that taking sides in that geopolitical posturing is in our best interest. May I hasten to add, I tend to defer — it is not in our best interest to take sides,” Louma said.

The director-general also took aim at MSG member countries for not moving with “urgency” on issues that have been on the Leaders’ Summit agenda.

“Certain decisions also made by leaders and the foreign ministers of past continue to languish on the shelf and there seems to be no real sign of a desire to implement.”

Free trade
Louma said the MSG Free Trade Agreement had “somehow been tethered to other training and commercial arrangements”.

“Our enthusiasm to cooperate appears to have waned. We need to rejuvenate this enthusiasm and appetite for industrial cooperation that once was the hallmark of MSG,” he said.

Vanuatu’s Foreign Minister Matai Seremaiah has urged Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea to sign up to the trade agreement which has already been signed by Fiji and Solomon Islands.

Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau told RNZ Pacific he shared the concerns of his deputy on the issue of the free trade agreement.

“Vanuatu must adhere quickly. If you look at the theme of the meeting it’s about being relevant and being relevant means that we’ve got got to participate as a core group so that we can advance all our interests together,” he said.

Leonard Louma said the MSG needed to make concessions where it was needed in the interests of MSG cohesion.

“The nuclear testing issue in the Pacific could not have proceeded the way we had proceeded without MSG taking a strong position on it.”

Declarations
On Monday, MSG Secretariat officials said there were up to 10 issues on the agenda, including West Papua.

In his opening statement at the Foreign Minister’s session on Monday, Seremaiah said there were two key draft declarations that would be put for the leaders’ consideration.

The first one would be on climate action and “urging polluters not to discharge the treated water in the Pacific Ocean,” he said.

“Until and unless the treated water is incontrovertibly proven to be safe to do so and seriously consider other options.”

The second was a declaration on a MSG region of peace and neutrality, adding that “this declaration is aimed at advancing the implementation of the MSG security initiatives to address national security needs in the MSG region, through the Pacific way, talanoa or tok stori and binded by shared values and adherence to Melanesian vuvale, cultures and traditions”.

The MSG Pre-Summit Foreign Ministers Meeting has concluded with recommendations to be submitted to this weeks’ 22nd MSG Leader’s Summit. It was chaired by Hon. Matai Seremiah, MP, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation & External Trade. pic.twitter.com/Xe87w27BtW

— MSG Secretariat (@MsgSecretariat) August 21, 2023

West Papua
This year’s agenda also includes the issue of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) application to become a full member of the sub-regional body.

The movement is present at the meeting, as well as a big delegation from Indonesia, represented by its Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs.

However, neither Seremaiah nor Louma made any mention of West Papua in their opening statements.

West Papua observers and advocates at the meeting say the MSG is like a “custom haus or nakamal” for the Melanesian people.

They say Vanuatu has the opportunity to make this more than a “normal MSG” if it can be the country that gets the MSG Leaders’ Summit to agree to make the ULMWP a full member.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Two researchers examining responses to conspiratorial pandemic narratives have warned Aotearoa New Zealand not to be complacent over the risk of fringe views over climate crisis becoming populist.

Byron C. Clark, a video essayist and author of the recent book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Emmanuel Stokes, a postgraduate student at the University of Canterbury, argue in a paper in the latest Pacific Journalism Review that policymakers and community stakeholders need to be ready to counter politicised disinformation with a general election looming.

They say that in their case study, Intersections of media influence: Radical conspiracist ‘alt-media’ narratives and the climate crisis in Aotearoa, has demonstrated that “explicit references to US narratives about stolen elections, communist plots and existential dangers to society – many of which bear the hallmarks of American far-right narratives, such as those of the John Birch Society” – are part of the NZ climate discourse.

• READ MORE: Disinformation and climate crisis, governance, training feature in PJR
• Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists
• Russel Norman: Don’t be fooled by NZ greenwashing, the lack of real climate action is dangerous
• Other climate change disinformation

“Tellingly, these were often linked with wider sets of issues into which the climate challenge was crudely bundled,” the authors say.

Their paper argues that “complex matters of national importance , such as climate change or public health emergencies, can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers and incorporated onto emotionally potent, reductive stories that are apparently designed to elicit outrage and protest”.

The authors cite examples in the Pacific, saying that they “suspect that a danger exists that . . . the appetite for this kind of storytelling could increase in tandem with growing social disruption caused by the climate crisis, including a large-scale refugee influx on our shores”.

Such a scenario would need to be covered with “a high degree of journalist ethics and professionalism” to prevent “amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

‘Concerning’ statements
In an interview with Asia Pacific Report, Clark highlighted how various fringe parties in New Zealand were all making “concerning” statements about climate change as the October 14 election drew closer.

“New Conservatives begin their environment policy with ‘There is no climate emergency’. Then they pledge to ‘end all climate focused taxes, subsidies, and regulations’,” he said.

“DemocracyNZ wants to repeal the Climate Change Response Act and veto any new taxes on farming. Elsewhere in their policy they appear to downplay the impact of methane (Aotearoa’s largest source of emissions),” Clark said.

The FreedomsNZ party had not yet released detailed policy but promised to “end climate change overreach”.

Clark found the comments from DemocracyNZ on methane particularly interesting as Groundswell recently sponsored a tour by American scientist Dr Tom Sheahen, who — in contrast to the scientific consensus on climate change — made the claim that methane was an “irrelevant” greenhouse gas.

Dr Sheahen also appeared on the Reality Check Radio show Greenwashed, hosted by former Federated Farmers president Don Nicholson and Jaspreet Boparai, a dairy farmer and member of Voices for Freedom, who was last year elected to the Southland District Council.

“Greenwashed is the kind of alt-media that could influence how people vote,” Clark said.

“While none of these parties I’ve mentioned are likely to get into Parliament, if they get, say, 50,000 votes between them, more mainstream parties could look at how they could appeal to the same constituency in the future, as 1 percent of the vote can be the difference between being in government and being in opposition.

Mainstreaming of misinformation
“That could lead to the mainstreaming of misinformation about climate change.”

However, Clark believes Pacific nations are “less susceptible to climate change disinformation as they’re experiencing the direct effects of climate change.

“In Aotearoa, many people remain insulated from it (notwithstanding events like Cyclone Gabrielle) and many people’s livelihoods, as well as the economies of some regions, are dependent on activity that contributes to the greenhouse effect (such as dairy farming) which makes downplaying the significance of the crisis appealing.”

But Clark admits that misinformation about covid and the vaccine has spread in the Pacific. Also competition between large powers in the region – such as China and the US — could lead to more disinformation targeting the Pacific, potentially including climate change disinformation.

I think Pacific nations are less susceptible to climate change disinformation as they are experiencing the direct effects of climate change, while in Aotearoa many people remain insulated from it (notwithstanding events like Cyclone Gabrielle) and many people’s livelihoods, as well as the economies of some regions, are dependent on activity that contributes to the greenhouse effect (such as dairy farming) which makes downplaying the significance of the crisis appealing.

Targeting the Pacific
However, misinformation about covid and the vaccine has spread in the Pacific, and competition between large powers in the region (the US and China for example) could lead to more disinformation targeting the Pacific, potentially including climate change disinformation.

In his book Fear, Clark devoted two out of the 23 chapters — “The Fox News of the Pasifika community” and “Counterspin Media” — to examining the impact of misinformation on the Pasifika community in Aotearoa.

APNA Television cancelled the Pacific Fox News-style programme Talanoa Sa’o, although the show is still recorded and uploaded to YouTube.

“Its reach appears to be smaller than it was. Counterspin Media also looks to have a declining reach. The show originally aired on GTV, a network operated by the dissident Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.

“While there has not been any explicit evidence to suggest that Guo or his businesses were funding Counterspin, they have appeared to be struggling since Guo filed for bankruptcy, having to find a new studio.

Are there any new trends — especially impacting on the Pacific communities, or perceptions of them?

“The biggest chance in the disinformation landscape since I wrote Fear has been the arrival of Reality Check Radio, which produces 9 hours a day of content on weekdays (unlike Talanoa Sa’o or Counterspin Media, which would produce an hour or two a week).

“None of their content is designed to appeal in particular to a Pacific audience, however.

“Another development is organisations like Family First and some evangelical churches campaigning against LGBT+ rights and sex education in schools, with the New Conservatives continuing to campaign on these same issues.”

Affecting democracy
Clark remains convinced that mis- and disinformation are going to continue to be an issue affecting New Zealand’s democracy.

“The networks established during the pandemic remain and are starting to pivot from covid and vaccine mandates to other issues — climate change being a significant one, but also co-governance and LGBT+ rights,” he said.

“This means journalism will be increasingly important.”

In a separate paper in Pacific Journalism Review, the journal editor, Dr Philip Cass, examines the impact of conspiracy theories on Pacific churches and community information channels, drawing a contrast between evangelical/Pentecostal and mainstream religious institutions.

He said that “in spite of the controversial behaviour of [Destiny Church’s] ‘Bishop’ Brian Tamaki, most mainstream Pacific churches were highly alert to the reality of the virus and supportive of their communities”.

Dr Cass called for further research such as an online study in Pacific languages to gauge any difference between diasporic sources and home island sources, and a longitudinal study to indicate whether anti-vaccination and conspiracy theory messages have changed — and in what way — since 2020.

Dr David Robie is an editor of PJR and convenor of Pacific Media Watch.

A new report has found practical solutions to address climate change in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), including raising roads and using mangrove forests.

Decision-makers have been urged to prepare for major changes.

These include heatwaves, stronger typhoons, a declining ecosystem, threatened food security and increased health issues.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific climate reports

The research is part of a series of reports by the Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment, with support of several government, NGO, and research entities.

Climate variability and extreme events have brought unprecedented challenges to remote atoll communities of Micronesia, especially in the state of Yap.

The report highlighted key issues for health, food security, agriculture, agroforestry, marine and disaster management sectors.

It also looked at the importance of using local knowledge and pairing this with new technology and science to help Micronesia adapt to climate change.

Hope for action
Coordinating lead author Zena Grecni hopes the findings will help policy-makers take action.

“We could see a 20-50 percent decrease in coral reef fish by 2050,” Grecni warned.

Climate proofing

The findings pushed for change at a “grass roots level,” and for state agencies to recognise the need for traditional knowledge and cultural resources in coastal adaptation measures.

About 89 percent of the FSM’s population lives within one kilometre of the coast, and buildings and infrastructure are vulnerable to coastal climate impacts.

The report looked at “climate proofing” interventions such as raising roads and using natural barriers like mangrove forests.

Mangroves have been shown to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels and are more effective long-term for sea level rise, instead of hard structures.

Another key priority was strengthening infrastructure like schools and medical centres.

Climate change in curricula
The report suggested climate change be included in school curricula to help inform future generations.

It highlighted the importance of learning from local knowledge and historical experiences to inform the future of local food supply.

Indigenous practices such as stone-lined enclosures, taro plantings raised above coastal groundwater, and replanted mangroves, were set to respond to sea level rise.

In the past, these reports have been used by other Pacific Islands “as a tool for negotiation,” Grecni said.

The report authors hoped it would help Micronesia in the same way.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau says Pacific security is about the security of the Pacific peoples and their way of life as identified by Forum leaders in the Boe Declaration.

Kalsakau said this reaffirmed climate change as the single greatest threat to regional security.

The PM was speaking at the opening of the Pacific Fusion headquarters in Port Vila on Tuesday, alongside Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific climate action reports

He said Vanuatu, with the world’s first climate change refugees with the relocation in 2005 of 100 villagers in Torba Province, “will always consider climate change its top priority”.

He said climate change is real, an existential threat, impinging on the security and stability of all nations.

“We do not have to look too far to see how the increased intensity of climate change-induced tropical cyclones wreak havoc on the daily lives and livelihoods of our people and set us back years in our development,” said Kalsakau.

He said Vanuatu’s Pacific brothers also faced human security challenges caused by the nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands (by the US), Mororoa Atoll (France) and Australia (United Kingdom).

‘Our reefs are dying’
“With the effects of global warming and nuclear testing, our ocean is getting warmer, our reefs are dying and fishes are now very scarce.

“Our children and grandchildren are bound to never experience what we’ve enjoyed in our childhood.

“The maintenance and sustenance of our marine resources must be the top priority of our Pacific leaders.”

Kalsakau said there were other pressing issues such as the Fukushima nuclear waste water discharge and AUKUS.

“I say again that Pacific security is about the security of our Pacific peoples and way of life.

“This is why Vanuatu stood alongside our Pacific brothers and sisters to produce the Rarotonga Treaty. Which brings me to today’s very special occasion.

“The Pacific Fusion Centre is guided by the regional security priorities identified by the Boe Declaration and supports regional decision-making on these shared security priorities,” he said.

The centre, which is funded by Australia and to be run in collaboration with Pacific Forum member states, will aim to provide training and analysis on regional security issues.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: SCORI – the ‘official’ view of the Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute
• India launches ‘celebration of future’ climate research centre at USP
• Other Pacific climate research reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A partnership forged between the Indian government and the University of the South Pacific (USP) will see the establishment of a new Fiji-based centre for climate change, coastal and ocean management in the region.

The Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI) at USP’s Suva campus was launched on May 22 by India’s High Commissioner to Fiji, Palaniswamy Subramanyan Karthigeyan, who described the initiative as a “celebration of the future”.

“This is a meeting of the best minds from both sides in the scientific, technology world and possibly being on the frontline of climate action,” Karthigeyan said.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific climate reports

He added that the institute would have India’s unstinted support and the way forward was going to be more critical.

“Unfortunately, due to the [covid] pandemic, we have lost quite a bit of time in taking this initiative forward and we have the momentum to make sure that this is not lost sight of and we make it a benchmark project not just for the region but the entire world,” he said.

“The onus of responsibility is on all of us to make sure that we do justice to that. The best way to do that is to make it a benchmark project in the shortest possible time, and to make it a sustainable model of excellence.”

Karthigeyan echoed similar sentiments made earlier in the day by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the 3rd India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit in Papua New Guinea.

Focused on Global South problems
Modi focused on the problems faced by the Global South, including the issues of climate change, natural disasters, hunger, poverty, and various health-related challenges among others.

“I am glad to hear that the Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute has been established at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. This institute connects India’s experiences in sustainable development with the vision of Pacific Island countries,” he told the summit.

“In addition to research and development, it will be valuable in addressing the challenges of climate change. I am pleased that SCORI is dedicated to the well-being, progress, and prosperity of citizens from 14 countries,” Modi added, drawing attention to India’s desire to partner the region in tackling issues that regional countries have placed priority on.

Prime Minister Modi said Pacific Island countries were not Small Island States, but rather, “large ocean countries”. He noted it was this vast ocean that connected India with the Pacific region.

“The Indian philosophy has always viewed the world as one family. Climate change, natural disasters, hunger, poverty, and various health-related challenges were already prevalent.

“Now, new issues are emerging. Barriers are arising in the supply chains of food, fuel, fertiliser, and pharmaceuticals,” Modi said.

India, he said, stood with its Pacific Island friends during challenging times, whether it was vaccines or essential medicines, wheat or sugar.

‘Unwavering’ support for SCORI
USP’s vice-chancellor and president, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, said the “unwavering support” and endorsement of SCORI by PM Modi and the Fiji government underscored the significance of the institute in advancing climate change and oceans management in our region.

“With the establishment of SCORI, we embark on a new chapter of cooperation between India, Fiji, and the University of the South Pacific,” he said.

“This institute will serve as a hub for the exchange of knowledge, ideas, and cutting-edge technologies, ensuring that our work in climate change and oceans management remains at the forefront of global research.”

Through the collaboration of esteemed scholars from India and Fiji, Professor Ahluwalia said the university aimed to publish ground-breaking research and set new agendas in the field of coastal and ocean studies.

“This institute will greatly enhance our research activities and capacity building, contributing to the sustainability of the Pacific Ocean and aligning with the Blue Pacific 2050 Strategy launched by our Pacific leaders,” he said.

USP deputy vice-chancellor and vice-president (education) Professor Jito Vanualailai said that SCORI would serve as a hub for research and development to meet the needs of Pacific Island countries.

“SCORI will spearhead research and development initiatives that address pressing issues in the region,” he said.

“Together, we strive to develop policies for sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems while effectively tackling coastal hazards and vulnerabilities stemming from global warming, ocean acidification and climate change.”

‘Remarkable individuals’
USP’s director of research, Professor Sushil Kumar, said the project was a reality due to the integral role played by some “remarkable individuals and organisations”.

Professor Kumar thanked the governments of Fiji and India for their support to foster collaboration and partnership under SCORI.

He said apart from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Indian government, several Institutes such as the National Center for Coastal Research are part of the collaborations.

The center will have a dedicated focus on areas of common interests such as coastal vulnerability, coastal erosion and coastal protection, monitoring and mapping of marine biodiversity, ocean observation systems, sea water quality monitoring and capacity building.

SCORI will be funded and maintained by the Indian government for five years until it is handed over to USP.

Joeli Bili is a final-year student journalist at the University of the South Pacific’s Suva campus. He is a senior reporter for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s training newspaper and online publication. This article is republished through a partnership between Asia Pacific Report and IDN-InDepthNews and Wansolwara.

RNZ News

Prominent environmental groups in Aotearoa New Zealand are less than impressed with what they describe as underwhelming budget investments in climate, but an expert says the government has taken a multifaceted approach.

Among the announcements yesterday was $402.6 million to expand the duration and scope of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, $120 million to expand EV charging infrastructure, $100 million fund to help councils invest in future flood resilience, $24.7 million to improve data on impacts of climate change and adaptation and mitigation, and $167.4 million in building resilience to future climate events.

It came on the same day the World Meteorological Organisation said global temperatures were now more likely than not to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within the next five years.

• READ MORE: NZ’s Budget 2023 at a glance: What you need to know — full climate and science, research and technology investments
• Other NZ Budget 2023 reports

Forest and Bird said the budget did little to tackle climate change and turn around biodiversity loss.

“Keeping New Zealanders safe is clearly a ‘bread and butter’ issue, yet the government’s lack of investment in nature-based solutions is putting us all at risk,” chief executive Nicola Toki said.

“What we looked for but have not found, is meaningful investment in nature-based solutions to climate impacts. And our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture, has not yet been priced more than 30 years after New Zealand promised the world it would cut emissions.”

The government’s $6 billion infrastructure-focused National Resilience Plan needed to prioritise investment in areas like river catchments, forests, and wetlands — otherwise it might even affect people’s ability to get insurance in the future, Toki said.

Insulation and heating retrofits
Electricity Networks Aotearoa chief executive Richard Le Gros said the association, which represents New Zealand’s 27 electricity distribution businesses (EDBs), supported the focus in the budget on decarbonisation initiatives as well as insulation and heating retrofits.

“We welcome the government’s greater investment in public EV charging infrastructure throughout the country,” Le Gros said, adding it would help reduce household energy bills and encourage a green transition.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Christine Rose was critical of the government for missing the chance to implement radical change in farming, climate solutions, transport, and energy.

“While it’s positive to see that half-price fares remain for some, we needed bolder and more visionary strategies, including significant investment in expanding rail and making public transport fares free for all,” Rose said.

“We welcome the funding boost for home insulation and heat pumps, but are disappointed not to see significant investment in locally-owned renewable energy.

“This would end our dependence on oil, gas and coal, and also reduce the power bills of everyday New Zealanders, addressing both the cost of living and climate crisis.”

Long-term behaviour change
University of Canterbury professor Bronwyn Hayward said the budget appeared “deceptively simple” but, for example, allowing children to use public transport for free was not just about increasing bus use, it would also ease family budgets and instigate long-term behaviour change.

“Critics of the government will rightly point out there is now less money available to spend on climate resilience due to the crash in carbon pricing, and yet a sizable new spend of $1.9 billion has been allocated in this budget for climate resilience alongside the $1 billion pledged for cyclone recovery,” Hayward said.

“This, together with spending on retrofitted housing, new homes, prescription charges and school lunches all contributes to the social infrastructure that communities will badly need when facing ongoing climate risk.

“We need to join the dots when we talk about climate budgets and see how many of the wellbeing initiatives are also very real investments in climate resilient futures too.”

While making transport more equitable was important, University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning senior lecturer Timothy Welch said the focus should also be on the infrastructure’s resilience as more intense and frequent weather events could be expected.

“New funding for maintaining public transport service and workforce development is important, but we need more funding to expand our public transport networks and help drive down transportation emissions.”

Research, science, and tech
Universities New Zealand welcomed the announcement of $55 million for research fellowships and an applied doctoral training scheme, as well as the allocation of $451 million for multi-institutional research collaboration hubs in the Wellington region focused on health and wellbeing, oceans, climate and hazards, advanced manufacturing, biotech and energy futures.

However, it said it was unfortunate to see funding for the Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence had been discontinued.

Professor Hayward said integrating science agencies based in Wellington was important, but it omitted “arts and imagination”.

“The climate crisis will bring repeated, cascading and compounding weather events that will test our resolve and tear at the fabric of our society. These are not challenges which can be fixed by science or investment in infrastructure alone,” Professor Hayward said.

“We need the arts, alongside sciences to help imagine a low-carbon economy in fair and just ways,” she said.

“While government could justifiably argue its attention to digital screen industries is a creative investment in ‘a high-wage low emissions and creative economy’ we also need a wider vision for the deeper integration of arts and sciences, one which helps us imagine new ways we might yet flourish in a climate challenged world.”

Addressing inequities
Environmental consultant Andrea Byrom said it was heartening to see some of the tertiary investment addressing long-recognised inequities, with dedicated fellowships and awards for Māori and Pacific people and a boost to provision of Mātauranga Māori in the tertiary sector, and applied postdoctoral fellowships.

Byrom also applauded trialling apprenticeship training in the tech sector and boost to research fellowships and PhDs.

“The historical gap in funding for these types of fellowships, particularly at postdoctoral level, has resulted in much of Aotearoa New Zealand’s best and brightest talent heading offshore — sometimes never to return.

“Hopefully these fellowships will stem that flow.”

Malaghan Institute director Graham Le Gros said the investment in science and innovation recognised the sector’s value to the country’s resilience and prosperity.

“From building resilience in the face of future pandemics to investing in biotech, innovation and talent to help move New Zealand to a high-wage economy, we can rejoice in some much needed infrastructure so that all New Zealand scientists have a place to really focus their energy and attention,” Le Gros said.

“The multi-institutional research hubs will increase collaboration and productivity, allowing us to work together to tackle some of New Zealand’s most pressing challenges and opportunities.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The New Zealand government has committed $15 million to support Solomon Islands provincial administrations to strengthen climate resilience at the grassroots level.

Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who is on a three-country Pacific tour, made the announcement in Honiara today, with the funding coming out of the $1.3 billion climate finance commitment for 2022-2025.

The money — guided by the Tuia te Waka a Kiwa, New Zealand’s international climate finance strategy — will go directly into the existing Solomon Islands Provincial Capacity Development Fund that assists with developing climate adaptation plans and managing climate adaptation projects at a local level.

The funding has been made available though the Local Climate Adaptive Living (LoCAL) Facility designed by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF).

LoCAL builds on the existing Solomon Islands Provincial Capacity Development Fund by providing performance-based climate resilience grants to cover costs of adapting to climate change — particularly small projects at a local level that reach the people who need help the most, such as women and youth.

NZ’s Deputy Prime Minister Hon @CarmelSepuloni is leading the first mission to the Pacific since 2019, landing in Solomon Islands on Sunday evening.

The delegation is welcomed by Solomon Island’s Foreign Minister Manele and traditional performances. @RNZPacific pic.twitter.com/iozhdGfjSa

— Susana Suisuiki (@SanaSuisuikiRNZ) April 16, 2023

Sepuloni said effective climate actions requires partnerships.

“Climate change is a global challenge that requires global and collective action,” Sepuloni said.

“That’s why we’re stepping up to provide climate finance to support provincial governments to build climate resilience at the grassroots.

“At the heart of this mission and our shared focus as a Pacific region, is the importance of supporting local and indigenous-led solutions to support effective climate action.”

She said the support delivered on that and doubled down on Aotearoa’s focus to tackle the threat of climate change in the Pacific.

Empowering provincial governments to integrate climate change resilience and adaptation into their planning, as well as accessing additional sources of climate finance to respond and adapt to climate change at the community-level is a priority of the Solomon Islands government, Sepuloni said.

She said the support was also an immensely practical investment in building climate resilience in the region.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said most Solomon Islanders lived in rural, low-lying coastal areas of the country, where provincial governments, churches and other community groups deliver essential services.

“These communities are among those on the frontline of the climate crisis – but are those who have contributed the least to climate change,” Shaw said.

He said the support package was aimed at reaffirming New Zealand’s efforts to ensuring the response to the climate crisis is inclusive and supportive of local leadership and support communities’ right across Solomon Islands.

“We also welcome the opportunity this creates for others to invest in Solomon Islands provincial government programmes to respond to climate change,” he added.

Meeting with PM Sogavare
Sepuloni’s first stop on the Pacific tour marks the return of the government’s regional visits which, prior to the pandemic, had been undertaken annually.

She was scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele later today.

Her delegation of New Zealand MPs, government officials, community leaders and journalists will also attend various presentations and events led by the local community with a focus on early childhood education, climate change, youth development and labour mobility.

Over the course of the week, Sepuloni will also be visiting Fiji and Tonga.

These annual Pacific missions are described as an integral part of the New Zealand government’s commitment to maintaining its relationship with Pacific Island countries through consultation and helping them respond to ongoing challenges.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

With tourism back and booming, Fiji is again a number one destination for travellers seeking an island paradise experience.

And while water lapping on the shoreline might make for an Instagram-worthy picture, for the people of Fiji, it presents a threat to their way of life.

This week on ABC’s Foreign Correspondent, special guest reporter Craig Reucassel travels across the islands of Fiji to see how the nation is combating climate change.

• WATCH MORE: Other ABC Foreign Correspondent reports

With his trademark style, Craig goes off the tourist track and shows what living with climate change actually means for those who don’t have the luxury of arguing about it.

Fiji: The Last Resort          Video: ABC Foreign Correspondent

More than 800 villages are now on a government climate risk list — some communities have already been moved to higher ground but others are resisting.

And many are asking: who caused the problem and who should pay to fix it?

Special guest reporter Craig Reucassel files this video report for ABC Foreign Correspondent.

There was euphoria at the campus of the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Suva in Fiji last Thursday when news came from New York that a historic resolution on climate action had been adopted unanimously at the United Nations General Assembly.

The resolution refers to the International Court of Justice case that would result in an advisory opinion clarifying nations’ obligations to tackle the climate crisis and the consequences they should face for inaction that could be cited in climate court cases in the future.

The campaign for the landmark resolution, supported by more than 130 member countries, started its journey in 2019 when a group of final-year law students conceived the project as an extra-curricular activity known as “learning by doing” on USP’s international environmental law course at their campus in Port Vila in Vanuatu.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu hails ‘historic resolution’ in climate battle on the world stage
• UN adopts Vanuatu-led resolution in ‘epic win’ on climate change
• Other Pacific climate reports

An elated Dr Justin Rose, adjunct associate professor of law and coordinator of the 2019 class where the campaign originated, told University World News from New York where he had joined his former students for the UN vote that it was any lecturers dream to see such results achieved by the students he had guided.

“Teaching and learning about climate change and climate change governance can increasingly be somewhat depressing — I teach what are essentially the same problems, and the same proposed but unimplemented solutions, that were taught to me at ANU [Australian National University] in 1992 when I studied the course I now coordinate.

“Those same problems and solutions have been ignored for so long that catastrophic climate impacts are occurring,” notes Rose.

Then in 2019 he set up an extra-curricular exercise that students could volunteer for.

A different skillset
“There were 20 participants from a class of 140,” he said, recalling how the project started.

“It was a way to teach a different skillset to those interested in doing some extra work and to empower them to do something positive about climate change.

“The exercise was, firstly, to discuss among the group the most productive legal action Pacific island countries could initiate within international law, and secondly to prepare letters and a brief that could be sent to PIF [Pacific Island Forum] leaders seeking to persuade them to implement it,” explained Rose.

When, at the annual summit meeting of the PIF leaders in 2019, the leaders only “noted” the proposal, the students did not give up but instead formed an organisation — Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) — to start what soon became a global youth campaign for an International Court of Justice climate change opinion.

Their key objective was to convince the governments of the world to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice answering a question that would develop new international law integrating legal obligations around environmental treaties and basic human rights.

They were soon joined by the World’s Youth for Climate Justice.

The world ‘has listened’
“We are just ecstatic that the world has listened to the Pacific youth and has chosen to take action. From what started in a Pacific classroom four years ago,” noted Cynthia Houniuhi, the Solomon Islands-based president of PISFCC, who was one of the original law students at USP that initiated the project.

“We in the Pacific live the climate crisis. My home country Solomon Islands is struggling. Through no fault of our own, we are living with devastating tropical cyclones, flooding, biodiversity loss and sea-level rise.

“The intensity and frequency of it is increasing each time. We have contributed the least to the global emissions that are drowning our land,” said Houniuhi in a statement released from New York.

“The vote in the United Nations is a step in the right direction for climate justice.”

The International Court of Justice will now hold hearings and hear evidence on the obligations of states in respect to climate change, with a view to handing down an advisory opinion in 2024.

A favourable opinion should make it easier to hold polluting countries legally accountable for failing to tackle the climate emergency, possibly with compensatory payments given to victim countries.

“This isn’t the end of our campaign for climate justice. The court process will unfold, taking evidence from around the world,” said Vishal Prasad, a campaigner for PISFCC and a graduate from USP in politics and law.

“The real work begins in applying whatever the court advisory opinion says in domestic law, especially in countries that continue to drive the climate crisis with their toxic emissions.”

Merilyn Temakon, an assistant lecturer in legislation and intellectual property law at USP, said: “I am very proud indeed of these students as one of their leaders is Solomon Yeo whom I had the privilege of teaching.

“I was invited on one or two occasions to sit in the main conference room at Emalus (Vanuatu campus) and to listen to their presentations on the effect of climate change,” she recalls.

“At that time there were only a few active members, but now the whole of the PICs [Pacific Island Countries] and half the globe are behind their submission.”

Countries face escalating losses
USP politics and international affairs Associate Professor Sandra Tarte, who sent out an email to all colleagues on March 30 saying “Colleagues, we did it”, told University World News that the resolution emerged out of “mounting frustration at the mismatch between the global community’s rhetoric and action on climate change amid escalating losses for countries such as Vanuatu, which face an existential threat due to sea-level rise”.

The frustration spawned a social movement led by Vanuatu law students turned youth activists, and work on the resolution was led by Indigenous lawyers in the Pacific, she said.

Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau, speaking after the vote at the UN General Assembly, said: “Today we have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions. Vanuatu sees today’s historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation.”

Solomon Yeo, one of the students involved in the initial project at USP, who was part of Vanuatu’s delegation to the UN General Assembly meeting, argues that securing the resolution demonstrates that Pacific youth can play a part in tackling climate change.

“Today we celebrate four years of arduous work in convincing our leaders and raising global awareness of the initiative,” he told Radio New Zealand, speaking from New York.

“The adopted resolution is a testament that Pacific youth can play an instrumental role in advancing global climate action [and] young people’s voices must remain an integral part of the process.”

“We are enormously proud of everything our alumni at PISFCC have achieved,” said USP vice-chancellor and president Professor Pal Ahluwalia in a statement.

“These are exactly the kind of high-achieving publicly minded graduates that we aim to produce.”

Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is consultant lecturer with the University of the South Pacific journalism programme based in Suva. This article was first published by University World News and is republished with permission.

Vanuatu is in celebration mode after winning a significant battle on the world stage over climate change.

In a United Nations resolution spearheaded by Vanuatu, the world’s top court will now advise on countries’ legal obligations to fight climate change.

It also means the International Court of Justice can advise on consequences for those countries which do not comply. The resolution was passed overnight on Wednesday.

• READ MORE: UN adopts Vanuatu-led resolution in ‘epic win’ on climate change
• Other Vanuatu climate reports

Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau was ecstatic. He was in New York for the vote.

He called it a “historic resolution” and the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate co-operation.

“I celebrate today with the people of Vanuatu who are still reeling from the devastation from two back-to-back cyclones this month caused by the fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions that they are not responsible for,” he said.

His country is still picking up the pieces from Cyclone Judy and Cyclone Kevin, which struck within a couple of days of each other earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has been in Vanuatu looking at what support New Zealand can give — and ensuring help gets to those who need it.

She has witnessed first-hand the climate challenge that the people are facing. Mahuta said New Zealand had supported Vanuatu’s drive to get the UN resolution across the line.

NZ’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta . . . “”We have to acknowledge Vanuatu’s leadership.” Video: 1News

“We have to acknowledge Vanuatu’s leadership,” Mahuta told 1News.

“It’s not really the size of the country, but it’s the size of the vision, and Vanuatu’s voice has clearly put front row centre an aspiration to have the ICJ recognise the impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries.”

Accompanying New Zealand’s delegation is a 10-member Pasifika Medical Association PACMAT team. They will be based at the Aotearoa-funded Mindcare Mental Health facility for the next 28 days helping those traumatised by the two cyclones.

New Zealand has announced $12 million to add to a funding pool for the region to help people get back on their feet quicker after the disaster.

In Vanuatu, New Zealand is offering $18.5 million for a clean drinking water project, $4 million for tourism recovery and $3 million for general budget support.

Barbara Dreaver is 1News Pacific correspondent. Republished with permission.

The UN General Assembly has adopted a Vanuatu-led resolution calling for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change and human rights.

The resolution was tabled by Vanuatu and a core group of 17 countries, aiming to clarify what the obligations of states are in protecting the rights of current and future generations from the adverse effects of climate change.

The motion, sponsored by more than 130 countries, was greeted with cheers.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Pacific climate action

The ICJ will now prepare an advisory opinion that could be cited in climate court cases.

Vanuatu is one of the worst-affected nations affected by the climate crisis. Earlier this month, the country was hit by two Category 4 tropical cyclones in less than five days, which is estimated to cost Vanuatu more than half of its annual gross domestic product.

“Today we have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions,” said Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau.

“Vanuatu sees today’s historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and inter-generational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making,” he said.

“The very fact that a small Pacific island nation like Vanuatu was able to successfully spearhead such a transformative outcome speaks to the incredible support from all corners of the globe.”

Kalsakau said he was celebrating the move but sees it is a “win” for the nation.

“I celebrate today with the people of Vanuatu, who are still reeling from the devastation from two back-to-back cyclones this month, caused by the fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions that they are not responsible for. To my people, today shows us that the world stands with Vanuatu.

“This celebration is a win for the rule of law, for protecting human rights, for improving multilateral climate cooperation, for climate justice and for acting with ambition to address the planetary climate crisis.

Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called the move “a shift in narrative which may yield greater climate action and ambition among all states in the global community”.

Youth can play a part in saving planet
Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change played a key role in the campaign, and spokesman Solomon Yeo said the move shows that Pacific youth can play a part in tackling climate change.

“Today we celebrate four years of arduous work in convincing our leaders and raising global awareness on the initiative. We commend the undying support of our Pacific civil society organisations, communities, and youth who, without their support, we would not have ventured this far,” he said.

“The adopted resolution is a testament that Pacific youth can play an instrumental role in advancing global climate action.

“This further solidifies why young people’s voices must remain an integral part of the process. Now the first stage is over, we look to join hand-in-hand with governments and partners in bringing the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court.”

Oxfam Aotearoa has congratulated the student group for its role in the campaign.

Its climate justice lead, Nick Henry, said the world’s governments, especially in rich countries, must urgently take stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop the climate crisis getting worse.

He said a strong opinion from the International Court of Justice would help to hold governments to account on their obligations to act.

“To put this into perspective, the last comparable opinion was in 1996, when, after a long campaign from civil society, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion on nuclear weapons that was critical to nuclear disarmament and keeping the Pacific nuclear free.”

The UN Human Rights chief Volker Türk said the resolution could be an important catalyst for the “urgent, ambitious and equitable climate action that is needed to stop global heating” and to limit and remediate climate-induced human rights harms.

The move comes as the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that says current action and plans are insufficient to keep warming below 1.5 degrees.

The core group of countries behind the resolution also includes Pacific nations Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa and New Zealand, as well as Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Germany, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Mozambique, Portugal, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Uganda, and Vietnam.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

COMMENT: By Ralph Regenvanu and Seve Paeniu

The cycle is repeating itself. A tropical cyclone of frightening strength strikes a Pacific island nation, and leaves a horrifying trail of destruction and lost lives and livelihoods in its wake.

Earlier this month in Vanuatu it was two category 4 cyclones within 48 hours of each other.

The people affected wake up having nowhere to go and lack the basic necessities to survive.

• READ MORE: Some Pacific nations ‘won’t survive’ if NZ and world drop the climate ball
• Port Vila call to phase out fossil fuels
• UN calls for rapid, ambitious action to tackle climate crisis
• IPCC report: world must cut emissions and urgently adapt to climate realities
• The AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

International media publishes grim pictures of the damage to our infrastructure and people’s homes, quickly followed by an outpouring of thoughts, prayers and praise for our courage and resilience.

We then set out to rebuild our countries.

The Pacific island countries are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and Vanuatu is the most vulnerable country in the world, according to a recent study. Our countries emit minuscule amounts of greenhouse gases, but bear the brunt of extreme events primarily caused by the carbon emissions of major polluters, and the world’s failure to break its addiction to fossil fuels.

The science is clear: fossil fuels are the main drivers of the climate crisis and need to be phased out rapidly, as the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report once again confirms. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has shown that ending the expansion of all fossil fuel production is an urgent first step towards limiting warming to 1.5C.

Driven by greed
The climate crisis is driven by the greed of an exploitative industry and its enablers. It is unacceptable that countries and companies are still planning to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels that the world can withstand by 2030 if we are to limit warming to 1.5C, a limit Pacific countries fought hard to secure in the Paris agreement.

As the UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly declared, fossil fuels are a dead end. Governments must pursue a rapid and equitable phase-out of fossil fuels.

Countries cannot continue to justify new fossil fuel projects on the grounds of development, or the energy crisis. It is our reliance on fossil fuels that has left our energy infrastructure vulnerable to conflict and devastating climate impacts, left billions of people without energy access, and left investment in more flexible and resilient clean energy systems lagging behind what is needed.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is crucial to mitigating the impacts of climate change and ensuring a sustainable future for Pacific island countries and the world.

This requires ambitious collective effort from governments, businesses and individuals around the globe to transition towards renewable energy systems that centre the needs of communities and avoid replicating the harms of fossil fuel systems, while supporting those most affected by the transition.

Transitioning to clean energy and battling climate change is also a human rights and justice issue. This is why our countries will soon be asking the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states under international law to protect the environment and the climate.

We urge all countries to support us in that endeavour.

Planning our transition
We acknowledge that Pacific countries are still reliant on fossil fuels for our daily lives and our economy. This is why we are planning our own just transition.

Last week, Pacific ministers and international partners met in cyclone-stricken Vanuatu to chart our collective way forward. We have affirmed a new commitment to work tirelessly to create a fossil fuel free Pacific, recognising that phasing out fossil fuels is not only in our best interest to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe — it is also an opportunity to promote economic development and innovation that we must seize.

By investing in renewable energy sources, we can build resilient, sustainable economies that benefit our people and the planet; and momentum for this shift is already building.

Last year at Cop27 in Egypt, more than 80 countries supported the phasing out of all fossil fuels. We must drive this new ambition around the world. Pacific nations will continue to spearhead global efforts to achieve an unqualified, equitable end to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.

We will raise our collective voices at Cop28 and through leading initiatives such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

We know what needs to be done to keep 1.5C alive, and are aware of the small and shrinking window which we have left to achieve it. We are doing our part and urge the rest of the world to do theirs.

Ralph Regenvanu is Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change, Adaptation, Meteorology and Geohazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Risk Management. Seve Paeniu is the Minister of Finance for Tuvalu. This article was first published by The Guardian and has been republished with the permission of the authors.

There is “is much to win by trying” to take action on climate change — that is a key finding in a major new international climate report the UN chief is calling a “survival guide for humanity”.

It is something of a mic drop moment for the army of scientists who wrote it — the culmination of seven years’ work and three previous lengthy reports.

Thousands of scientific studies and nearly 8000 pages of findings have been boiled down in the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released overnight.

• READ MORE:  UN calls for rapid, ambitious action to tackle climate crisis
• IPCC report: world must cut emissions and urgently adapt to climate realities
• The AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

In a nutshell, it said huge changes were needed to stave off the worst climate predictions but it was not too late.

“This Synthesis Report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action & shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable sustainable future for all.” – #IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee on the release of #IPCC’s Synthesis Report.

Read here https://t.co/zAMzd12lR7 pic.twitter.com/YcCqIHxuLJ

— IPCC (@IPCC_CH) March 20, 2023

Pacific Climate Warriors Te Whanganui-a-Tara coordinator Kalo Afeaki agrees there is no time for despair.

“My family live in Tonga, my father has an export business, my brother works with [him], his family depends on that livelihood,” he said.

“We do not have the luxury of being able to turn our backs on the climate crisis because we are living with it daily.”

The IPCC authors were optimistic significant change can happen fast — pointing to the massive falls in the price of energy from the sun and wind.

New Zealand has seen a big increase in the number of renewable energy projects in the works.

University of Otago senior lecturer Dr Daniel Kingston said the world had the tools it needed to reduce emission.

“We can still do something about this problem, and every small change that we make makes a difference and decreases the likelihood of major, abrupt, irreversible changes in the climate system.”

Those impacts need to be avoided at all costs — there are tipping points after which comes staggering sea level rise, storms and heat waves that could imperil swathes of humanity.

No country too small
Aotearoa New Zealand has an important role to play. It is one of the largest emitters per capita in the OECD, and its emissions, combined with the other smaller countries, adds up to about two-thirds of the world’s total.

New Zealand’s gross emission peaked in 2005 and have essentially plateaued, while other countries, including the UK and US, have actually made reductions.

Dr Kingston said Aotearoa finally had comprehensive emissions reduction plans on the books.

“Now’s the time to be doubling-down on our climate change policies, not pressing pause or scaling them back in any way.”

Action would never be cheaper than it was now, and not making enough cuts would be far more expensive in the long run.

Humans at fault
Meanwhile, the reports showed human activities had unequivocally caused global surface temperatures to rise: No ifs, no buts.

Massey University emeritus professor of sustainable energy and climate mitigation Ralph Sims said emissions needed to be slashed in the cities and the countryside alike.

Without a doubt farmers needed to cut methane emissions, but people also needed to eat less meat, he said.

Professor Sims said cities had a huge role to play.

“Design the cities around… public transport. [Putting] it onto the cities to plan for a more viable future means that local people can get involved locally.”

Afeaki said some Pacific nations would not survive unless the world got real about cutting emissions.

“When people are feeling disheartened they really need to understand the humans on the other side of this crisis,” he said.

“It is easy to be deterred by numbers, by the science, which isn’t always positive, but you have to also remember that this is happening to someone.”

Afeaki said Pacific communities’ experience living with climate change meant they should be given lead roles in coming up with solutions.

The IPCC scientists have now done their part, there likely will not be another report like this until the end of the decade. It is now time for the government, and for everybody, to act.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This decade is the critical moment for making deep, rapid cuts to emissions, and acting to protect people from dangerous climate impacts we can no longer avoid, according to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The synthesis report is the culmination of seven years of global and in-depth assessments of various aspects of climate change.

It reiterates that the world is now about 1.1℃ warmer than during pre-industrial times. This already results in more frequent and more intense extreme weather, causing complex disruption and suffering for communities worldwide.

• READ MORE: ‘It can be done. It must be done’: IPCC delivers definitive report on climate change, and where to now
• Floods, cyclones, thunderstorms: is climate change to blame for New Zealand’s summer of extreme weather?
• Other climate reports

Many are woefully unprepared.

Key takeaway from #IPCC 2023 Synthesis Report for every nation, business, investor & individual who contributes to #climate change: we must move from climate procrastination to climate activation. And we must do it today.https://t.co/wqPf6CveMB

— Inger Andersen (@andersen_inger) March 20, 2023

The report stresses our current pace and scale of action are insufficient to reduce rising global temperatures and secure a liveable future for all. But it also highlights that we already have many feasible and effective options to cut emissions and better protect communities if we act now.

Many countries have already achieved and maintained significant emissions reductions for more than ten years. Overall, however, global emissions are up by 12 percent on 2010 and 54 percent higher than in 1990.

The largest rise comes from carbon dioxide (from the burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes), followed by methane.

The world is expected to cross the 1.5℃ temperature threshold during the 2030s (at the current level of action). Already, the effects of climate change are not linear and every increment of warming will bring rapidly escalating hazards, exacerbating more intense heatwaves and floods, ocean warming and coastal inundation.

These complex events are particularly severe for children, the elderly, Indigenous and local communities, and disabled people.

But in agreeing to this report, governments have now recognised that human rights and questions of equity, loss and damage are central to effective climate action.

New @IPCC_CH Synthesis Report released
One of the most impressive figures relates to the fairness across generations. The generation of my kids born in 2010s will face substantially more heatwaves, heavy rainfall and droughts during an average lifetime than their grandparents. pic.twitter.com/hWivpq74iO

— Erich Fischer (@erichfischer) March 20, 2023

This report also breaks emissions down to households — 10 percent of the highest-emitting households contribute 40-45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while 50 percent of the lowest-emitting households (including small islands communities), contribute less than 15 percent of overall greenhouse gases.

Climate-resilient development
The report points to solutions for climate-resilient development, a process which integrates actions to reduce or avoid emissions with those to protect people to advance sustainability. Examples include health improvements that come from broadening access to clean energy and contribute to better air quality.

But the choices we make need to be locally relevant and socially acceptable. And they have to be made urgently, because our options for resilient action are progressively reduced with every increment of warming above 1.5℃.

This report is also significant for recognising the importance of Indigenous knowledge and local community insights to help advance ambitious climate planning and effective climate leadership.

Cities can make a big difference
Cities are key drivers of emissions. They generate around 70 percent of carbon dioxide emissions globally, and this is rising largely through transport systems relying on fossil fuels, building materials and household consumption.

But this also means urban spaces are where we can really exercise climate leadership. Decisions made at the level of local councils are going to be significant globally in terms of bringing national and global emissions down and protecting people.

Cities are sites for solutions where we can decarbonise transport and increase green spaces. While tackling climate risks can feel overwhelming, acting at the city level is a way communities can have more control over reducing emissions and where local action can really make a difference to our quality of life.

We know there is much more money flowing into mitigation than adaptation. But we have to do both now, and move beyond adaptation focused on physical protection (such as sea walls).

We also need to be thinking really carefully about green infrastructure (trees and parks), low-carbon transport and social protection for communities, which includes income replacement, better healthcare, education and housing.

This report was particularly difficult to negotiate because we now live in a changed reality. More and more countries are experiencing very significant losses and damages. As countries face increasingly extreme weather events, the stakes are higher.

Governments everywhere, in my view as a political scientist, are now facing hard choices about how to protect their own national interests while also making significant efforts to tackle our global climate crisis.

In negotiations, larger countries can dominate debate and it can take a long time to get to agreement. This puts enormous pressure on smaller nations, including Pacific delegations with fewer people and diplomatic resources.

This is yet another reason to ensure action is inclusive, fair and equitable.

After working beyond the scheduled conclusion of #IPCC58, exhausted policymakers and authors celebrated the adoption of final outputs of the sixth assessment cycle: the Synthesis of the Sixth Assessment Report and its Summary for Policymakers #AR6

Read https://t.co/Qf2U4EXPgJ pic.twitter.com/mQa4R8eu0i

— Earth Negotiations Bulletin (@IISD_ENB) March 20, 2023

For authors of the IPCC core writing team, the past 18 months have been intense. We all felt significant responsibility to accurately summarise years of work, completed by hundreds of our global scientific colleagues, who contributed to six reports in this assessment cycle: on physical science, adaptation and vulnerability, mitigation, and special reports on land, global warming of 1.5℃, and ocean and cryosphere.

These reports show the choices we make in this decade will impact current and future generations, and the planet, now and for thousands of years.

• Fear & Wonder is a new climate podcast, brought to you by The Conversation. It will take you inside the IPCC’s era-defining climate report via the hearts and minds of the scientists who wrote it. The first episode drops on March 23. Learn more here, or subscribe on your favourite podcast app via the icons above.

Dr Bronwyn Hayward, Professor of Politics, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

ANALYSIS: By Wendy Bacon in Sydney

New South Wales police withdrew a false allegation that four climate change protesters who had stopped traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge last year blocked an ambulance.

Police included this false allegation in a statement of the so-called “facts” that police prepared on the day of the arrests. The false allegation was designed to paint a hostile image of four peaceful protesters and to successfully argue for onerous bail conditions, including severe restrictions on their movements, and tough sentences.

The documents drawn up on the day of the protest stated: “The actions today have not only caused serious disruption to peak-hour traffic, but this imposition to traffic prevented an ambulance responding to an emergency under lights and sirens as it was unable to navigate through the increased heavy traffic as previously mentioned. This imposition to a critical emergency service has the potential to result in fatality.”

• READ MORE: Wendy Bacon reports on a trail of NSW police allegations ‘bad habits’ – police admit to false allegation against protesters
• Climate activist Deanna ‘Violet’ Coco’s 15-month jail sentence quashed on appeal
• ‘It’s time to be the crowd’, Knitting Nannas tell protest against jailing of climate activist

An unprecedented tough sentence was given to Violet Coco who had already spent 84 days “imprisoned” at home between her arrest in April 2022 and her appearance before Magistrate Alison Hawkins in December.

Hawkins referred to the blocking of the ambulance in her remarks when she sentenced Coco to 15 months in prison and refused bail. After spending 10 days in prison, Coco was released on bail by District Court judge Timothy Gartelmann.

Her appeal against sentence was heard on March 15 when the matter of the false allegations was raised.

The new information emerged during the sentencing hearing against two of Coco’s co-defendants Alan Glover and Karen Fitz-Gibbon who appeared for sentencing earlier this month.

They pleaded guilty to charges arising from blocking one lane of the Harbour Bridge for 30 minutes in April last year. Magistrate Daniel Reiss sentenced both to 18 months Community Correction Orders with a fine of $3000 each.

Compared to previous sentences for peaceful protesters, these are harsh sentences. Their lawyer told the court that they regretted causing inconvenience.

Outside the court, Glover, a comedian and actor who has been a firefighter for 40 years, told the media, “I’m very unhappy and angry. I think the judgement is wrong and I’m going to appeal.”

Asked whether he thought the tactics were appropriate, he said, “I’m a firefighter and what do I have to do to make sure firefighters have the resources to do the job properly. I want the government to recognise that we are already in the midst of climate change problems…We’ve got people dying from smoke inhalation from bushfires that are bigger than anything we’ve ever seen.”

Asked by a journalist if he still agreed with his lawyer’s statement in court that he recognised the action was “inappropriate”, he said, “I do, I thought it was inappropriate at the time but we have to do something to get the government to act now now.. a few minutes delay is nothing compared to the massive disruption that will occur if we do not get action on climate change.”

Greens spokesperson and NSW Upper House MP Sue Higginson who has appeared for hundreds of environmental protesters wrote on Facebook: “I nearly fell off my chair when the Magistrate handed down his sentence — a conviction, an 18 month community corrections order and a $3000 fine. I have represented hundreds of environmental protesters and this sentence is just so wrong. He should not be punished this way. I hope he appeals.

“On the upside, the case today put to rest the dangerous false shrill claims that an ambulance was obstructed during the protest. It wasn’t! When you have a state government and an opposition in lock step in an anti-protest draconian stance and a legal intolerance to dissent and civil disobedience we fail our democracy, our climate, our environment and our communities.”

Greens Senator David Shoebridge agreed and wrote on Facebook: ”The police went into court and REPEATEDLY lied that this had blocked an ambulance — all to try to get a harsher penalty for a climate protector!

Magistrate Daniel Reiss noted that Glover’s two co-accused “Violet” Deanna Coco and Jay Larbalestier had both been sentenced on the “false ambulance assertion” and that “no emergency vehicles were obstructed”.

This could open the way for Larbastier to appeal on his sentence. Police acknowledged that they had taken no steps to inform him that the evidence used against him was partly false.

If it wasn’t for the publicity, he would not know about the ambulance lie.

The cases of the Harbour Bridge protesters were among the first to take place after the LNP government’s draconian anti-protest laws were passed with NSW Labor’s support in April last year.

CCL condemns disproportionate sentences of climate protesters
The NSW Council for Civil Liberties is one of scores of organisations calling for the repeal of the laws. Its president Josh Pallas described the case as “an outrageous” example of “police misstating the facts which have been consequential in the sentences of others.

“The police have offered no justification for this misstatement of facts. They must be held accountable and at the very least, explain how they got this so wrong.

“Climate protesters are being increasingly and disproportionately subjected to punitive legal action by Australian authorities and this has taken that legal action to a new extreme,” he said.

Pallas described this period as “some of the darkest times our members have seen for protesters,” since CCL started advocating for protest rights in 1963.

“We have fought the slow repression of police and the state in cracking down on protest every step of the way. But the fight is hard when the government is protecting mining and business interests and when the mainstream media side with government and large corporates with vested interests to stifle the right to protest,” he said.

“These cases provide yet another example of why everyone should be concerned about increasing repression of public assemblies and protests in NSW and elsewhere around the country. The right to protest and public assembly is an essential democratic right.

“Stifling protest stifles freedom of expression. Enough is enough, the government and the police must respect the right to protest and be accountable for their actions.”

Magistrate focused on ambulance in Coco case
The non existent ambulance featured in the first sentencing hearing against Coco.

The police referred Magistrate Alison Hawkins to the “fact” that Coco had prevented an ambulance with lights and sirens indicating an emergency. Coco’s barrister did not dispute that the ambulance “may have been” on the bridge but warned the magistrate against drawing implications from that or overblowing its significance.

Magistrate Hawkins disagreed asking why she would be going too far to accept that “impeding an ambulance under lights and sirens might be something that potentially has the potential to cause harm to some other person? Why is that a stretch too far?.”

She accepted the existence of the ambulance and the sirens as relevant “facts”.

She then applied these facts in her sentencing saying, “You have halted an ambulance under lights and siren. What about the person in there? What about that person and their family? What are they to think of you and your cause?”

Because Hawkins accepted the ambulance as fact, she felt free to accept that inside the ambulance was a very real person whose life was in danger. This was part of the basis for her referring to the protest as a “childish” and “dangerous” stunt.

She then justified her harsh and angry stance on the basis that this “dangerous behaviour… deserves “condemnation from not only the courts but the community” because Coco had not only illegally protested but she had done so in a manner to cause a “significant level of distress to the community”.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, Hawkins said she had no other option than to impose a full-time jail sentence.

Protester uses body cam footage to prove innocence
One of the effects of the anti-protest laws is to make it less likely that protesters will plead not guilty. This is because the laws are framed so that, for instance, you are either on a road or off a road. You do not have to be given a direction to move.

If an accused pleads not guilty and is then found guilty, there is a risk that a sentence could be even harsher.

When people plead guilty, there is less likelihood that police version of the facts will be tested in cross-examination. This means that there is more latitude for police to create their own facts — in other words, fabricate evidence.

In another case this week, climate activist Richard Boult was found not guilty of all charges brought by NSW Police for stepping onto a road during a climate protest in Sydney last June.

Boult who is part of the Extinction Rebellion drumming group was charged under NSW road rules with obstructing traffic and causing a traffic hazard arising from his participation in Blockade Australia’s call for stronger climate action.

Green Left reported that after attending the protest, he attended a media conference. When he left the conference, police followed him to his car and laid charges alleging he left the footpath and stepped onto the road.

Boult pleaded not guilty, saying his movement from the footpath was at a point in the road designated as a closing point. Significantly, he used body camera evidence that validated his claims. So it was not just his word against the police version of events.

He also rejected a plea deal, which would have dropped one charge but retained another. The court upheld Boult’s plea of not guilty and dropped the charges.

Wendy Bacon was previously the professor of journalism at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and is supporting the Greens in the NSW election. One of the reasons, she supports the Greens is because they are the only party committed to repealing the protest laws. Wendy Bacon’s investigative journalism blog.

New Zealand’s Green Party has told other parties to come to the table with faster, bolder climate action if they want their support at the election later this year.

The Greens gathered in Auckland for the party’s “State of the Planet” speech.

Co-leader James Shaw — who is also the Climate Change Minister outside cabinet — said the 2023 election would be a climate election.

• READ MORE: Other NZ climate reports

“I am proud of what we have achieved with the governments we have been given. I am proud that over the last five years we have taken more action on climate change than the past 30 years of governments combined,” he said.

“But it’s not enough. I do not want another generation to have to bear the burden of slow progress.”

The speech came at the end of a week which started with the government dumping or deferring a number of emissions reduction-focused policies, including the clean car upgrade scheme and the container return scheme.

While Prime Minister Chris Hipkins gave the Greens a heads up, he did not consult with them, breaching the co-operation agreement. Te Pāti Māori also called for Shaw to stand down over the policy purge.

Cutting climate pollution
Shaw said the Greens would set out a plan to cut climate pollution over the next few months, and are planning to get Green ministers into cabinet.

“To any political party that wants the Green Party’s support to form a government after the election, let us put it as simply as we can: The Green Party will not accept anything less than the strongest possible climate action.

“The stakes are too high, the consequences of failure too great.”

Co-leader Marama Davidson said many people were struggling to put food on the table and pay the bills.

“We can address climate change and inequality at the same time.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Thousands of people turned up for climate strikes across Aotearoa New Zealand today — and briefly staged a sit-in at Christchurch City Council.

School students and others around the country protested for climate change action from the government.

School Strike 4 Climate Christchurch spokesperson Aurora Garner-Randolph, 17, said she expected between 15,000 to 20,000 people to participate.

• READ MORE: Other climate protests reports

After the fallout from the Auckland floods and the devastating effects of Cyclone Gabrielle across the North Island, the organisers of the protest have five demands, including no new fossil fuel mining or exploration and a rebate for e-bikes.

Other demands include greater marine protection, funding a transition to regenerative farming and lowering the voting age to 16.

Earlier this evening in Christchurch, young climate activists breached the doors of the city council offices and staged a sit-in.

One of the organisers for School Strike for Climate Ōtautahi, Aurora Garmer-Ramdolph, said the group had been planning to protest at the council’s office for a while.

‘Strike protests a long time’
“We feel that we’ve been having these strike protests for a long time now.

“Young people, people of all generations have been showing up in the streets to protest for climate action and we’re not seeing the change that we need, so we’ve decided to step it up this time. We decided to come directly into the Christchurch City Council.”

Garmer-Ramdolph said the group’s key demand is that the council retracts its support for the proposed new international airport at Tarras in Central Otago.

More than 1000 people of all ages joined the Wellington march, which arrived at Parliament in the afternoon.

Speaking after the march to Parliament, Te Umanako Waa said the horrific weather events of the last few weeks should be a wake-up call for those in authority.

“I feel like the facts are in their face. The students, the people, everyone is telling them what needs to be done.

“If the response for covid can happen this quick surely the response for a worldwide disaster, a natural breakdown, can happen too.

“It’s really important that we hold our leaders to account.”

Time for politicians to take notice
Waa said it was time for politicians to take notice of what their citizens were telling them.

The crowd of protesters, who were mainly young people, stretched half the length of Lambton Quay, with shoppers stopping in doorways to watch them pass, some breaking into spontaneous applause.

In Auckland, the march began at Britomart Station and went to Victoria Park, where a concert continued until 7pm.

Addressing the crowd at the Auckland march, the co-president of Unite Union Xavier Walsh said the government had failed to deliver the radical change needed to tackle the climate crisis.

“Plans by the opposition, such as to reopen deep sea oil drilling, would make the situation even worse — and that is a shame.

“So I say to the Labour and National parties, I can smell the fossil fuels on your breath!”

Walsh said real change will only come from ordinary people standing together and refusing to accept injustice.

Auckland Transport warned of delays
Auckland Transport said more than 1000 people were expected to march in the city. Public transport users could also expect detours, cancellations and delays.

In Wellington, the protesters marched down Lambton Quay before gathering at Parliament.

Student Breeana was among them.

She told RNZ it was important to protest for a better future.

“Most people in the older generation assume we do it … well, I’ve had a lot of people say you’re just doing this to get out of going to classes.

“We have to grow up with this. This is our future that we’re trying to prepare for and our planet. We don’t have another option.”

Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau was also among them.

She used the opportunity to tell the crowd in order to get climate justice, the right politicians needed to be voted into central government.

“Now I know that your Minister for Climate Change is listening. I know he backs the kaupapa. So my message to you, this year, it is election year.

‘Vote for environment parties’
“So if you can vote, make sure you vote for the parties that put the environment at the top of their priorities.”

Students also gathered near Nelson’s church steps as part of the global climate strike calling for change.

Garin College student Nate Wilbourne said they were demanding transparent and meaningful climate action from decision-makers.

He said the evidence of climate change was clear.

Nate Wilbourne said teenagers had many concerns about the environment.

Climate strikers wanted to see real commitment to achieve climate goals from policy and decision makers, Wilbourne said.

They marched to the Nelson City Council buildings this afternoon to present a letter to Mayor Nick Smith calling for free public transport, he said.

‘This is going to be a climate election’ – Greens co-leader
Labour will have to commit to stronger climate change policy if it wants the Green Party’s support come election 2023, Greens co-leader James Shaw said.

Shaw made the comments to reporters on Parliament’s forecourt after speaking to climate inaction protesters.

“Frankly, this election is going to be a climate change election and it is clear from the experience that we’ve had over the course of the last month that we’re now living in an age of consequences,” he said.

“I think if any political party wants the Greens’ support they’re going to have to come to the table.”

Shaw said he could not imagine a scenario where he would choose to work with the National Party over Labour.

“If you look at National’s track record in the last 20 years on climate change it’s frankly appalling and while they say that they’re committed to the targets we’ve committed to, they’ve actually voted against every single policy we’ve put in place to meet those targets without proposing alternatives.”

Shaw said he hoped everyone, including politicians from all parties, would support stronger climate policy in the wake of terrible weather events.

Cyclone ‘wake up’ call for politicians
“I really hope that if anything, the experience that people have had of the cyclone and the floods in such close proximity will cause politicians to wake up and start to take it seriously and treat it at the level of emergency that it actually is.”

Speaking from Christchurch on Friday, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said the government was making a lot of progress on many of the topics students were striking about.

“Climate change has been at the forefront of the government’s agenda for the past five years and it will continue to be so,” Hipkins told reporters.

“If you look at the emissions reduction plans that we’ve already set out, you can see that we’re making significant progress — of course we’ve still got some heavy lifting to do though, there’s no question about that and the government’s absolutely committed to doing it.”

There was no question we were seeing the effects of climate change here and now, Hipkins said.

“What’s happened with our flooding, with the cyclone, we’re going to see more of these sorts of events, and that just I think underscores to New Zealand how important it is that we do two things: one is that we do everything we can to reduce climate change, the human-induced effects on the climate,” he said.

“The second is that we also look at how we can be more resilient and how we can make sure that we’re adapting to accept that actually there are going to be more of these sorts of events in the future.

‘It doesn’t happen overnight’
“Many of the things that are going to make the biggest difference to our emissions are going to take some time, so when we think about transitioning to more renewable energy use … that doesn’t happen overnight, it requires some hard work and some ongoing work to make that happen.”

On the voting age, he said people should expect to hear something further on the government’s intentions on that soon.

“The courts made a ruling, Parliament now has to consider that, that’s been referred to a select committee for consideration. How the government ultimately responds to that process is something that we will turn our minds to in due course.”

In November last year, the Supreme Court declared the voting age of 18 inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Any change would require the backing of three quarters of MPs, or a majority vote in a referendum.

New Zealanders on average in 2021 produced 6.59 tonnes of carbon dioxide each — about 40 percent above the world average, according to the Our World In Data Global Carbon Project.

Climate Action Tracker, an international project which rates countries’ efforts towards meeting their climate obligations, ranks New Zealand’s efforts overall as “highly insufficient”.

New Zealand’s farming industry also produces a lot of methane, which though it does not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, traps a lot more heat.

‘No time for finger-pointing’
But the country’s small population meant it contributed only about 0.09 percent of the world’s total C02 emissions.

Garner-Randolph said it did not matter that Aotearoa only accounted for a tiny fraction of the world’s emissions.

“Now isn’t the time for finger-pointing and saying, ‘Oh other countries are producing far more emissions.’ It’s our responsibility as global citizens, as players on the global stage, to step up and do our part, no matter how big or small it is.

“And we have incredibly high per capita emissions here in Aotearoa, so although we may be small, we are high individual emitters and that needs to change.”

The last school climate strikes took place in September.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is now “a family reconciled” as its leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to reforms to strengthen the regional body.

Stepping back into the fold, Kiribati President Taneti Maamau inked the final signature on the Suva Agreement ending two years of uncertainty and marking the start of a new chapter for Pacific solidarity.

“In unity we will surely succeed,” Maamau told RNZ Pacific.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

“We have a duty as a Pacific family to keep us together and to meet the challenges together,” he added.

The reforms deemed “non-negotiables” include the endorsement of Micronesian candidates for certain regional roles and the establishment of two sub-regional offices in the north Pacific.

The result is Nauru’s former president, Baron Waqa, is set to become the next PIF secretary-general starting in 2024.

Current Forum Deputy Secretary-General Filimon Manoni, a Marshall Islander, will become the Pacific Ocean Commissioner hosted in Palau, and Kiribati will be home to the PIF sub-regional office in Micronesia.

Australia and New Zealand have agreed to foot the bill and committed to “transitional funding of NZ$3 million towards the operationalisation of the Suva Agreement” over the next three years.

“The fracture is now history,” outgoing PIF Secretary-General Henry Puna said.

“We have all collectively decided to move on and today we have cemented that . . . we are not looking back at all,” Puna said.

A range of other issues were also discussed by the leaders, such as Japan’s plans to release over a million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

“Forum leaders reaffirmed the importance of science and data to guide the political decisions on the proposed discharge,” the final communique for the 5th Forum Special Leaders Retreat stated.

They also agreed – in response to increased geopolitical tensions in the region – to establish a permanent representation at the UN and in Washington in the form of a PIF special envoy to the United States to “report back to Leaders at the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in the Cook Islands.”

Fiji passes baton to Cook Islands
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said he was “pleased to be able to contribute” towards the final outcomes of the Nadi meeting.

“As I hand over the baton, I know that we are in good hands as we paddle our drua (canoe) to achieve our collective aspirations,” said Rabuka in his final statement as outgoing Forum chair.

The chairmanship has been transferred to the Cook Islands which will host the 52nd PIF summit later this year.

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has promised to keep the region’s “unity intact”.

Brown said that while the main challenges in the Suva Agreement had been overcome with the allocation of offices within the region, “resourcing and financing” were issues that would need attention.

“We have to thank the governments of Australia and New Zealand for providing that support for the next three years,” he said.

“But I would expect that there will be more work done by officials to actually finalise what the financing requirements will be as negotiations will take place for costs and resources.”

The final member of the Forum Troika and next in line for chair is Tonga.

Other decisions
Other decisions set out in the communique included:

• PIF leaders pledging their support for Australia’s joint bid to host COP31 alongside Pacific countries.
• Support for a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on climate change and human rights.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Another house done, and onto the next . . . Volunteers working in Mount Albert community over the past few days helping those suffering from Auckland’s flash flood devastation have done us proud.

Tremendous work by everybody. Here are some random photos of our volunteer teams on the job.

Many thanks to everybody who has contributed.

• READ MORE:  ‘We lost everything’: Refugees, migrants draw on backgrounds to help flood victims
• Earlier volunteer photo gallery
• Other Auckland flash flood reports

Thanks to sponsors Chicking for supporting the community with hot meals for families in motels and volunteers.

And also thanks to Karla for the Bunnings Warehouse New Zealand donating safety equipment for the volunteers helping the community.

• Need help, please contact these numbers:
  Accommodation support: 0800 222 200
  Clothes, bed, and blankets etc: 0800 400 100
• Photographs by Red Tsounga, Aotearoa Africa Foundation community leader, and Ernestina Bonsu Maro

Mt Roskill volunteers after the floods

1 of 12

My family and I are lucky to have come through it unscathed, but my neighbourhood in Titirangi has been ravaged.

Many people here and around the wider region have lost their homes altogether.

I’ve seen people’s belongings out on the streets in piles ruined beyond repair, houses swamped and whole properties carved away by slips leaving them unlivable. It’s hard to imagine what that is like.

• READ MORE: Cyclone Hale: This is what the climate crisis looks like
• Other Auckland flash flood reports

And it made me angry.

Angry that this storm, and storms like it are now all made more intense by climate change that’s caused by industry that has been left to pollute unregulated for far too long. And this is only the latest in a series of similar climate floods in Aotearoa that have left people’s lives in ruin.

We’ve been let down by governments who have failed to regulate the dairy industry to cut methane emissions. They’ve failed to eliminate fossil fuels fast enough, and failed to redesign our towns and cities to be resilient enough.

They’ve known this was coming. Scientists have been saying it for years. Everyone’s been saying it. But still government has failed to act.

Confronting climate crisis
So as our communities come together to clean up after the floods and help make sure everyone has shelter, food and essentials, our resolve to confront and eliminate the causes of climate change is stronger than ever.

These climate floods have brought home the stark truth: People and communities are paying the price of a climate crisis that’s driven by corporate greed and governments unwilling to stand up to them.

I’ve also been inspired seeing the people coming together to help each other in a crisis. People helping out a neighbour, offering a place to stay, feeding tireless volunteers, donating bedding and clothes to the evacuation centres.

It shows me that we can work together to face the bigger challenges.

This is going to be a big year. With your help we can confront the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions. Together we can push our elected government to act to cut emissions from the biggest climate polluters.

• Tui Warmenhoven (Ngāti Porou) is the new chair of the board of Greenpeace and her home base is in Tairāwhiti, which was also recently hit by Cyclone Hale. She shares her personal perspective here: This is what the climate crisis looks like.

Nick Young is head of communications at Greenpeace Aotearoa. Follow him on Twitter. Republished on a Creative Commons licence.

Greenpeace claimed today claimed New Zealand’s extreme rain and flooding crisis in the North Island at the weekend as a “climate disaster”.

“As our friends, family and neighbours across Auckland and the North Island have been battered by unprecedented rain and flooding, it’s a visceral reminder that climate change is upon us right now,” the environmental watchdog said in a statement.

“We need to band together as communities through this disaster, then collectively demand more climate action from our politicians,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson.

• READ MORE: NZ police confirm fourth death after man swept away by floodwaters
• Auckland floods a future sign – city needs stormwater systems fit for climate change
  NZ’s first climate adaptation plan is a good start, but crucial questions about cost and timing must be answered
• With seas rising and storms surging, who will pay for New Zealand’s most vulnerable coastal properties?
• GALLERY: Massive volunteer effort in tackling Auckland’s floods
• Other Asia Pacific Report coverage of Auckland’s flooding
• Follow RNZ live news updates

“Climate change is already impacting us, and people are paying the price. It’s not enough for politicians to talk about climate change, they must also act to prevent further climate chaos by cutting climate heating gasses and adapting society to become more climate resilient.

Larsson said the unprecedented rain and flooding that had hit over recent days — a record 249mm fell in 24 hours on Friday causing four deaths — was not only a “terrible sign of things to come” but a visceral reminder that climate change was upon New Zealand right now and a clarion call for more action.

“The science is clear that the vast volume of climate-heating gasses now in our atmosphere due to fossil fuels and industrial agriculture is driving the intensity and frequency of extreme climate events like this,” she said.

“We need to see the authorities name this for what it is — a climate disaster, and then act to mitigate by cutting climate heating gasses and to adapt by designing more climate resilience into our society,” said Larsson.

Climate rescue plan
In his first week on the job, Greenpeace called on Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to adopt a three-point climate rescue plan which included regulating dairy, electrifying transport and keeping oil and gas in the ground.

“We have seen important acknowledgement from Prime Minister Hipkins and the Emergency Management Minister McAnulty that climate change is a driver,” she said.

“Once the immediate risks from the North Island floods have been managed, we need to see meaningful action by this government to actually cut the climate pollution that drives the climate crisis.

She added that while opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon had acknowledged the catastrophic event by saying ‘Climate change is real,’ this was a “total disconnect” from his party’s plans to reinstate offshore oil and gas drilling.

“These climate floods are a visceral reminder of the need for politicians to take real action to cut climate pollution. Lofty statements and far-off targets are not going to stop the climate crisis.

“We need courageous action to regulate the worst polluters.”

Climate change is forcing people around the world to abandon their homes. In the Pacific Islands, rising sea levels are leaving communities facing tough decisions about relocation.

Some are choosing to stay in high-risk areas.

Our research investigated this phenomenon, known as “voluntary immobility”.

• READ MORE: Climate change forced these Fijian communities to move – and with 80 more at risk, here’s what they learned
• An entire Pacific country will upload itself to the metaverse. It’s a desperate plan – with a hidden message

The government of Fiji has identified around 800 communities that may have to relocate due to climate change impacts (six have already been moved). One of these is the village on Serua Island, which was the focus of our study.

Coastal erosion and flooding have severely damaged the village over the past two decades. Homes have been submerged, seawater has spoiled food crops and the seawall has been destroyed.

Despite this, almost all of Serua Island’s residents are choosing to stay.

We found their decision is based on “vanua”, an Indigenous Fijian word that refers to the interconnectedness of the natural environment, social bonds, ways of being, spirituality and stewardship of place. Vanua binds local communities to their land.

Residents feel an obligation to stay
Serua Island has historical importance. It is the traditional residence of the paramount chief of Serua province.

The island’s residents choose to remain because of their deep-rooted connections, to act as guardians and to meet their customary obligations to sustain a place of profound cultural importance. As one resident explained:

“Our forefathers chose to live and remain on the island just so they could be close to our chief.”

The link to ancestors is a vital part of life on Serua Island. Every family has a foundation stone upon which their ancestors built their house. One resident told us:

“In the past, when a foundation of a home is created, they name it, and that is where our ancestors were buried as well. Their bones, sweat, tears, hard work [are] all buried in the foundation.”

Many believe the disturbance of the foundation stone will bring misfortune to their relatives or to other members of their village.

The ocean that separates Serua Island from Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu, is also part of the identity of men and women of Serua. One man said:

“When you have walked to the island, that means you have finally stepped foot on Serua. Visitors to the island may find this a challenging way to get there. However, for us, travelling this body of water daily is the essence of a being Serua Islander.”

The ocean is a source of food and income, and a place of belonging. One woman said:

“The ocean is part of me and sustains me – we gauge when to go and when to return according to the tide.”

Serua Islanders are concerned that relocating to Viti Levu would disrupt the bond they have with their chief, sacred sites and the ocean. They fear relocation would lead to loss of their identity, cultural practices and place attachment. As one villager said:

“It may be difficult for an outsider to understand this process because it entails much more than simply giving up material possessions.”

If residents had to relocate due to climate change, it would be a last resort. Residents are keenly aware it would mean disrupting — or losing — not just material assets such as foundation stones, but sacred sites, a way of life and Indigenous knowledge.

Voluntary immobility is a global phenomenon
As climate tipping points are reached and harms escalate, humans must adapt. Yet even in places where relocation is proposed as a last resort, people may prefer to remain.

Voluntary immobility is not unique to Fiji. Around the world, households and communities are choosing to stay where climate risks are increasing or already high. Reasons include access to livelihoods, place-based connections, social bonds and differing risk perceptions.

As Australia faces climate-related hazards and disasters, such as floods and bushfires, people living in places of risk will need to consider whether to remain or move. This decision raises complex legal, financial and logistical issues. As with residents of Serua Island, it also raises important questions about the value that people ascribe to their connections to place.

Serua Island is one of about 800 communities in Fiji being forced to consider the prospect of relocation.

A decision for communities to make themselves
Relocation and retreat are not a panacea for climate risk in vulnerable locations. In many cases, people prefer to adapt in place and protect at-risk areas.

No climate adaptation policy should be decided without the full and direct participation of the affected local people and communities. Relocation programs should be culturally appropriate and align with local needs, and proceed only with the consent of residents.

In places where residents are unwilling to relocate, it is crucial to acknowledge and, where feasible, support their decision to stay. And people require relevant information on the risks and potential consequences of both staying and relocating.

This can help develop more appropriate adaptation strategies for communities in Fiji and beyond as people move home, but also resist relocation, in a warming world.

Merewalesi Yee, PhD candidate, School of Earth and Environment Sciences, The University of Queensland; Dr Annah Piggott-McKellar, research fellow, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Celia McMichael, senior lecturer in geography, The University of Melbourne, and Dr Karen E McNamara, associate professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

A climate activist furious with the Aotearoa New Zealand government’s watering down of the proposed emissions pricing scheme says he hopes for stronger environmental representation from the Pāti Māori and the Green Party next year.

David Tong told RNZ Morning Report he wanted the proposed Agricultural Emissions Pricing Plan reconsidered, but acknowledged it could be rolled back even further after the next election.

Despite advice from the Climate Change Commission to base behavioural change on the rising price of carbon, farmers will now be charged the lowest levies possible.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: David Tong on the proposed emissions pricing scheme
• Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard on sustainable food production
• Other climate action reports

They will be able to manage and report their emissions as collectives.

More types of tree and vegetation cover can now be used to offset emissions.

Tong said it was a humiliating move for Green Party coleader James Shaw to be Climate Change Minister at the time of this decision.

Tong told Morning Report it was appalling that after years of lobbying the farming sector had been able to further erode an already flawed process that would have only reduced agricultural pollution by 1 percent.

He said having a pricing mechanism was good, but it needed to be effective in reducing carbon emissions.

‘Not fair on rest’
“In 2017, when New Zealand First-Labour coalition deal committed to putting agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Now five years later, after delay and prevarication, the entire sector — the biggest polluting sector in the country — has been given its own special deal and a commitment to have the lowest price possible.

“That’s not fair on the rest of us.

“I’d like to see all sectors paying the cost of their emissions. Farmers are just as any other sector — they are an emissions intensive trade exposed sector.”

He said the government had not locked in a strong process, but rather a compromised process that could still be rolled back further by National and lobbyists.

Those in the farming sector now coming out and attacking the scheme further demonstrated a lack of genuine engagement in negotiating towards a consensus deal between government and the sector, he said.

“The same agricultural lobby groups who are part of designing the system have come out to attack it. That shows that there is not a good faith engagement in the system and the government is trying to negotiate with organisations that operate that way.

Hope in minority parties
Tong was putting his hope in minority parties strengthening their commitment to environment policies and being able to influence decision-making.

“We’re hoping that in the coming election year there is a stronger environmental representation from Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party, and that this could be reconsidered,” he said.

“However, there is also the possibility that it could be rolled back to an even more compromised state.”

James Shaw declined to be interviewed on Morning Report, as did Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor.

Federated Farmers remains opposed to the government’s Agricultural Emissions Reduction scheme, despite changes in its favour.

The body said the policy was still too vague, and it would not agree to any pricing scheme until a review of the methane targets is undertaken.

Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard told Morning Report the government’s emphasis on targets based on generalised global data meant farmers had a hard time accepting the plan.

Signed up
“We signed up at the start on the basis that we would support a pricing mechanism that applies at the margin, that’s only there to incentivise the uptake of mitigations and doesn’t lead to emissions leakage,” he said.

“So go back to those original founding sort of principles for this. If we can get there, then, you know, we’d be on board, but at the moment, we’re not there.

“We believe the targets are too high. They’re not based on latest science around how stable methane actually impacts on warming.”

He wanted the government to establish data and targets “required for no additional warming from New Zealand agriculture”. Targets based on generalised global data should not apply to New Zealand farmers who already work sustainably, Hoggard said.

He believed there was a need to improve sustainable methods of global food production and that New Zealand does so within its own borders, so that others in the world need to follow that example.

“What the planet needs to do is actually improve the efficiency of food production elsewhere and in New Zealand we can still keep trying to do more and better,” he said.

“The solution is going to be developing more mitigations at the moment that the toolbox is pretty damn empty. There isn’t a lot we can do beyond just cutting production, and it makes very little sense when we’re one of the most efficient in the world.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is pleased that a Sydney magistrate jailed protester Deanna “Violet” Coco on Friday. But he is out of step with international and Australian human rights and climate change groups and activists, who have quickly mobilised to show solidarity.

On Monday, protests were held in Sydney, Canberra and Perth calling for the release of Coco who blocked one lane of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for half an hour during a morning peak hour in April.

She climbed onto the roof of a truck holding a flare to draw attention to the global climate emergency and Australia’s lack of preparedness for bushfires. Three other members of the group Fireproof Australia, who have not been jailed, held a banner and glued themselves to the road.

• READ MORE: What Violet Coco’s jailing says about the Australian justice system – Crikey

Coco pleaded guilty to seven charges, including disrupting vehicles, possessing a flare distress signal in a public place and failing to comply with police direction.

Magistrate Allison Hawkins sentenced Coco to 15 months in prison, with a non-parole period of eight months and fined her $2500. Her lawyer Mark Davis has lodged an appeal which will be heard on March 2, 2023.

Unusually for a non-violent offender, Hawkins refused bail pending an appeal against the sentence. Davis, who will again apply for bail in the District Court next week, said refusal of bail pending appeal was “outrageous”.

Climate change protester sentenced to jail over Sydney Harbour Bridge protest. Video: News 24

‘People shouldn’t be jailed for peaceful protest’
In Sydney, about 100 protesters gathered outside NSW Parliament House and then marched to the Downing Centre. The crowd included members of climate action groups Extinction Rebellion, Knitting Nannas and Fireproof Australia but also others who, while they might not conduct a similar protest themselves, believe in the right of others to do so.

One of the protest organisers, Knitting Nanna Marie Flood, was unable to attend due to illness. Her message called for the release of Coco and an end to the criminalisation and intimidation of climate activists.

It was read by another Knitting Nanna, Eurydice Aroney:

“Nannas have been on Sydney streets protesting about gas and coal mines for about 8 years now. Over that time we’ve had lots of interactions with the Sydney Events police, and not a lot of trouble.

“You could say we are known to the police. We were amused and surprised at the recent climate emergency rally at town hall, when one of the police said to some Nannas that he thought we’d fallen in with the wrong crowd!

“Looks like we better clear some things up.”

“We ARE the crowd who knows that climate action is urgent and it starts with stopping new gas and coal. We know the importance of public protests to bringing about social and political change.

“We will stand up against any move to take away the democratic right to protest. What is happening to Violet Coco is a direct result of the actions of the NSW government with the support of the ALP opposition.”

The message ended with a call to all climate activists: “Now is the time to BE THE CROWD — we can’t afford to fall for attempts to divide the climate movement. We all want to save the climate, and to do that we need to protect democracy.”

The Knitting Nannas have launched a challenge to the validity of the protest laws through the Environmental Defenders’ Office.

Snap rally at NSW Parliament and a march to the courts at the Downing Centre where climate activist Violet Coco was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week.

We demand repeal of the draconian anti-protest laws, an end to new fossil fuel projects and serious climate action now! pic.twitter.com/F1Yxs8L0DG

— Padraic Gibson (@paddygibson) December 5, 2022

One of those attending the protest was Josh Pallas, president of NSW Council for Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties has been defending the right to protest in NSW for more than half a century.

In a media release, he said: “Peaceful protest should never result in jail time. It’s outrageous that the state wastes its resources seeking jail time and housing peaceful protesters in custody at the expense of taxpayers.

“Protesters from Fireproof Australia and other groups have engaged in peaceful protest in support of stronger action on climate change, a proposition that is widely supported by many Australians across the political divide and now finding themselves ending up in prison.

“Peaceful protest sometimes involves inconvenience to the public. But inconvenience is not a sufficient reason to prohibit it. It’s immoral and unjust.”

Deputy Lord Mayor and Greens Councillor Sylvie Ellsmore told the crowd that they had the support of the City of Sydney which recently passed a unanimous motion calling for the repeal of the NSW government’s draconian anti-protest laws.

“If you are a group of businesses in the City of Sydney and you want to close the street for a street party, this state government will give you $50,000. If you are a non-violent protester who cares about climate change and you are blocking one lane of traffic for 25 minutes, they will give you two years [in jail].

“We know these laws are designed to intimidate you… Thank you for being the front line in the fight. you are the ones to put your bodies on the line to protest about issues we all care about, ” she said.

Amnesty International support for democracy
Amnesty International spokesperson Veronica Koman emphasised how important it was to see the defence of democratic rights from a regional perspective. She said that Amnesty was concerned that severe repression of pro-independence activists in West Papua was spreading across to other parts of Indonesia.

She fears the same pattern of increasing repression taking hold in NSW.

Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeil, who has won many awards for her journalism, was another person who was quick to respond.

“Outrageous. Climate activist who blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge jailed for at least eight months” she tweeted on Friday.

Since then she has followed the issue closely, criticising the ABC for failing to quote a human rights source in its coverage of the court case and speaking at a protest in Perth on Monday.

Today she posted this tweet with a short campaigning #FreeVioletCoco video that has already attracted nearly 13,000 views:

Authorities in #Australia are disproportionately punishing climate activists in violation of their basic rights to peaceful protest

Violet Coco has been sentenced to 15 months in prison

Her crime? A peaceful protest that lasted 25 minutes#FreeVioletCoco @hrw pic.twitter.com/5qhyCWs2fk

— Sophie McNeill (@Sophiemcneill) December 5, 2022

‘If you’re reading this, you’ll know I am in prison’
In jailing Coco, Magistrate Hawkins went out of her way to diminish and delegitimise her protest. She described it as a “childish stunt’ that let an “entire city suffer” through her “selfish emotional action”.

Coco has been involved with climate change protests for more than four years and has been arrested in several other protests. On one occasion, she set light to an empty pram outside Parliament House.

Rather than fight on technicalities, she chosen to plead guilty, knowing that if the magistrate was hostile, she could be taken into custody at the end of Friday’s hearing.

Several steps ahead of her critics, she made a video and wrote a long piece to be published if she went to prison.

The piece begins: ”If you are reading this, then I have been sentenced to prison for peaceful environmental protest. I do not want to break the law. But when regular political procedure has proven incapable of enacting justice, it falls to ordinary people taking a stand to bring about change.”

She describes how her understanding of the facts of climate science and the inadequacy of the current response led her to decide to give up her studies and devote herself to actions that would draw attention to the climate emergency.

“Liberal political philosopher John Rawls asserted that a healthy democracy must have room for this kind of action. Especially in the face of such a threat as billions of lives lost and possibly the collapse of our liveable planet.

“But make no mistake — I do not want to be protesting. Protest work is not fun — it’s stressful, resource-intensive, scary and the police are violent. They refuse to feed me, refused to give me toilet paper and have threatened me with sexual violence.

“I spent three days in the remand centre, which is a disgusting place full of sad people. I do not enjoy breaking the law. I wish that there was another way to address this issue with the gravitas that it deserves.”

She describes how she has already been forced to comply with onerous bail conditions:

“I was under 24 hour curfew conditions for 20 days in a small apartment with no garden. After 20 days effectively under house arrest, my curfew hours changed — at first I could leave the house for only 5 hours a day for the following 58 days, then 6 hours a day under house arrest for the following 68 days.

“This totalled 2017 hours imprisoned in my home for non-violent political engagement in the prevention of many deaths. Cumulatively, that is 84 days or 12 weeks of my freedom.”

Premier Perrottet says he does not object to protest so long as it does not interfere with “our way of life”.

If it does, individuals should have the “book thrown at them.”

His “way of life” is one in which commuters are never held up in traffic by a protest while endlessly sitting in traffic because of governments’ poor transport planning.

A way of life in which it is fine for governments to take years to house people whose lives are destroyed by fires and floods induced by climate change, to allow people to risk death from heat because they cannot afford air conditioners, open more coal and gas operations that will increase carbon emissions and turn a blind eye to millions of climate refugees in the Asia Pacific region.

It involves only protesting when you have permission and in tightly policed zones where passers-by ignore you.

Labor still backs anti-protest laws
Leader of the Opposition Chris Minns also says he has no regrets for supporting the laws which he says were necessary to stop multiple protests.

But laws don’t target multiple actions, they target individuals. He has not raised his voice to condemn police harassment of individual activists even before they protest and bail conditions that breach democratic rights to freedom of assembly.

There was no visible Labor presence at Sydney’s rally.

Perrottet and Minns may be making right wing shock jocks happy but they are out of line with international principles of human rights.

They also fail to acknowledge that many of Australia’s most famous protest movements around land rights, apartheid, Green Bans, womens’ rights, prison reform and environment often involved actions that would have led to arrest under current anti-protest laws.

They display an ignorance of traditions of civil disobedience. As UNSW Professor Luke Macnamara told SBS News: “[V]isibility and disruption have long been the hallmarks of effective protest.”

He believes disruption and protest need to go hand in hand in order to result in tangible change.

“There’s an inherent contradiction in governments telling protesters what are acceptable, passive, non-disruptive means of engaging in protests, when the evidence may well be that those methods have been attempted and have proven to be ineffective,” he said.

“It’s not realistic on the one hand to support the so-called ‘right to protest’, and on the other hand, expect the protest has no disruptive effects. The two go together.”

Wendy Bacon was previously a professor of journalism at the University of Technology Sydney and is an editorial board member of Pacific Journalism Review. She joined the protest. This article was first published by City Hub and is republished with the author’s permission.

For 30 years, developing nations have fought to establish an international fund to pay for the “loss and damage” they suffer as a result of climate change. As the COP27 climate summit in Egypt wrapped up over the weekend, they finally succeeded.

While it’s a historic moment, the agreement of loss and damage financing left many details yet to be sorted out.

What’s more, many critics have lamented the overall outcome of COP27, saying it falls well short of a sufficient response to the climate crisis. As Alok Sharma, president of COP26 in Glasgow, noted:

“Friends, I said in Glasgow that the pulse of 1.5 degrees was weak. Unfortunately it remains on life support.”

But annual conferences aren’t the only way to pursue meaningful action on climate change. Mobilisation from activists, market forces and other sources of momentum mean hope isn’t lost.

• READ MORE: Global carbon emissions at record levels with no signs of shrinking, new data shows. Humanity has a monumental task ahead
• Toxic cover-up’: 6 lessons Australia can draw from the UN’s scathing report on greenwashing
• How young climate activists are making their voices heard at COP27 over Egypt’s protest suppression

One big breakthrough: loss and damage
There were hopes COP27 would lead to new commitments on emissions reduction, renewed commitments for the transfer of resources to the developing world, strong signals for a transition away from fossil fuels, and the establishment of a loss and damage fund.

By any estimation, the big breakthrough of COP27 was the agreement to establish a fund for loss and damage. This would involve wealthy nations compensating developing states for the effects of climate change, especially droughts, floods, cyclones and other disasters.

Most analysts have been quick to point out there Is still a lot yet to clarify in terms of donors, recipients or rules of accessing this fund.

It Is not clear where funds will actually come from, or whether countries such as China will contribute, for example. These and other details are yet to be agreed.

JUST IN: #COP27 has concluded in #Egypt.

Marathon negotiations saw hard-won progress on addressing #LossAndDamage, but woefully inadequate shared outcomes around phasing out fossil fuels and tackling the causes of the climate crisis. #auspol

— Climate Council (@climatecouncil) November 20, 2022

We should also acknowledge the potential gaps between promises and money on the table, given the failure of developed states to deliver on US$100 billion per year of climate finance for developing states by 2020. This was committed to in Copenhagen in 2009.

But it was a significant fight to get the issue of loss and damage on the agenda in Egypt at all. So the agreement to establish this fund is clearly a monumental outcome for developing countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change — and least responsible for it.

It was also a win for the Egyptian hosts, who were keen to flag their sensitivity to issues confronting the developing world.

The fund comes 30 years after the measure was first suggested by Vanuatu back in 1991.

The agreement reached at #COP27, imperfect as it may be, moves us forward in implementing the Paris Agreement. But what this COP made clear is that we need greater ambition. Recommitting to the 1.5°C target is an important outcome of #COP27, but it is the bare minimum. (1/4)

— Al Gore (@algore) November 20, 2022

An entire #Pacific country will upload itself to the metaverse. It’s a desperate plan – with a hidden message #Tuvalu #AsiaPacificReport #AsiaPacific #ClimateCrisis #COP27 #climateaction #Metaverse #DigitalTwins @ConversationEDU @shrek45 https://t.co/v1nLIxQcmU pic.twitter.com/hqCzWlHsmI

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) November 17, 2022

Not-so-good news
The loss and damage fund will almost certainly be remembered as the marquee outcome of COP27, but other developments were less promising. Among these were various fights to retain commitments made in Paris in 2015 and Glasgow last year.

In Paris, nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and preferably to 1.5℃ this century, compared to pre-industrial levels. So far, the planet has warmed by 1.09℃, and emissions are at record levels.

Temperature trajectories make it increasingly challenging for the world to limit temperature rises to 1.5℃. And the fact keeping this commitment in Egypt was a hard-won fight casts some doubt on the global commitment to mitigation.

China in particular had questioned whether the 1.5℃ target was worth retaining, and this became a key contest in the talks.

New Zealand Climate Change Minister James Shaw said a group of countries were undermining decisions made in previous conferences. He added this:

“really came to the fore at this COP, and I’m afraid there was just a massive battle which ultimately neither side won.”

Perhaps even more worrying was the absence of a renewed commitment to phase out fossil fuels, which had been flagged in Glasgow. Oil-producing countries in particular fought this.

Instead, the final text noted only the need for a “phase down of unabated coal power”, which many viewed as inadequate for the urgency of the challenge.

Likewise, hoped-for rules to stop greenwashing and new restrictions on carbon markets were not forthcoming.

Both this outcome, and the failure to develop new commitments to phase out fossil fuels, arguably reflect the power of fossil fuel interests and lobbyists. COP26 President Alok Sharma captured the frustration of countries in the high-ambition coalition, saying:

“We joined with many parties to propose a number of measures that would have contributed to [raising ambition].

“Emissions peaking before 2025 as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text. Clear follow through on the phase down of coal. Not in this text. Clear commitments to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text. And the energy text weakened in the final minutes.”

And as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres lamented: “Our planet is still in the emergency room”.

Beyond COP27?
In the end, exhausted delegates signed off on an inadequate agreement, but largely avoided the backsliding that looked possible over fraught days of negotiations.

The establishment of a fund for loss and damage is clearly an important outcome of COP27, even with details yet to be fleshed out.

At the beginning of these talks, loss & damage was not even on the agenda and now we are making history. It just shows that this UN process can achieve results, and that the world can recognise the plight of the vulnerable must not be treated as a political football.

— Mohamed Adow (@mohadow) November 20, 2022

But otherwise, the negotiations can’t be seen as an unambiguously positive outcome for action on the climate crisis — especially with very little progress on mitigating emissions. And while the world dithers, the window of opportunity to respond effectively to the climate crisis continues to close.

It’s important to note, however, that while COPs are clearly significant in the international response to the climate crisis, they are not the only game in town.

Public mobilisation and activism, market forces, aid and development programmes, and legislation at local, state and national levels are all important sites of climate politics — and potentially, significant change.

There are myriad examples. Take the international phenomenon of school climate strikes, or climate activist Mike Cannon-Brookes’ takeover of AGL Energy. They point to the possibility of action on climate change outside formal international climate negotiations.

So if you’re despairing at the limited progress at COP27, remember this: nations and communities determined to wean themselves off fossil fuels will do more to blunt the power of the sector than most international agreements could realistically hope to achieve.

Dr Matt McDonald, associate professor of international relations, The University of Queensland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

After two weeks of negotiations at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference (COP27) talks at an Egyptian resort, it is now down to the wire.

Diplomats have created proposals on the controversial loss and damage agenda that will be decided upon by politicians.

Robust discussions at the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh have seen many collaborations and discord resulting in negotiators not reaching agreement on funding that would see vulnerable countries compensated for climate change-fuelled disasters caused by developed nations.

• READ MORE: ‘Loss and damage’ negotiations dominate COP27’s final day as talks run past deadline
• Other COP27 reports

A key milestone was reached on Friday morning (New Zealand time), when the European Union shifted its position to support the G7 and China which includes Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Pacific.

The EU along with the United States pushed back this agenda as it feared being put on the hook for payments of billions of dollars for decades or even centuries to come.

However, developing nations and their allies have been able to stir up support, with major voting in favour for the set up of a loss and damage facility. Australia has chosen to keep the discussion open while the US maintained an isolated position, showing no flexibility.

Now, there are three options on the table for politicians to agree upon and they were due to be debated over the next few hours.

Climate change with Al Jazeera.

The Pacific’s call
The Pacific through the G7 and China has stressed the urgency of establishing a loss and damage framework at this COP.

Samoa Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa today called on the nations to place the same level of global urgency as seen for the covid-19 pandemic to meeting the 1.5 Celsius degree pathway.

Fiame said more action was needed on upscaling ambition on funding for loss and damage and must remain firmly on the table as nations continued to witness increasing occurrences and severity of climate change impacts everywhere.

Option one also entails need for loss and damage to be a separate funding from adaptation and mitigation.

Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Satyendra Prasad, explained there were gaps in trying to conflate the funding intended for other purposes with compensation as they were not the same thing.

Prasad said vulnerable people in the Pacific “are facing the loss of livelihoods, of land and of fundamental cultural and traditional assets”. These were non-economic losses that could not be compensated through adaptation and mitigation funds.

Financial support for loss and damage must be additional to adaptation funding but also differently structured. Option one calls for existing funding pledges to be made operational in the interim for vulnerable nations.

Short notice funding
Pacific’s Adviser for Loss and Damage Daniel Lund said when responding to damage caused by extreme weather events, finance needed to be available at short notice.

Lund added that current funding available was for project-based support under the Green Climate Fund which took around one year from proposal submission to receiving the first disbursement of funds,

“Something like that doesn’t work when the loss and damage are immediate.”

Republic of Palau’s Minister of State, Gustav Aitaro, in his address to world leaders, said, “every time we have a typhoon, we have to shift funds and budgets allocated for breakfast for students to address the damage. We have to shift funds from our hospital to address the damage, and it becomes such a big burden for us to look for funds to replace that.”

He pleaded with parties to understand the Pacific’s situation as it was a matter of life and death and their very existence depended on it.

“How do I explain to young kids in Palau, the children who live on that atoll, that their homes have been damaged by typhoons and we have to rebuild them over again and again? If they ask me why is it a recurring situation, what do I tell them? Who do we blame?

“Our islands, our oceans are our culture, it’s our identity in this world. I’m sure our developing countries share the same concerns and this is why we are asking them to help.”

Kicking the can down the road
Australia and the US have put forward options two and three for consideration. They propose a soft power influence.

They are proposing more time be given to iron out the finer details to establish a loss and damage finance in COP28 and operationalise the funding by COP29 in 2024.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen as saying: “The world is unlikely to come to an agreement at COP27 over contentious calls for wealthy nations to pay loss and damage compensation to developing countries.”

He said: “Let’s just see how the internal discussions go. But I mean, I doubt very much it’ll be a full agreement on that at this COP.”

The two countries who have spent time in the wilderness of climate diplomacy, have also proposed developed nations continue to tap into climate funding made available through bilateral and multilateral arrangements.

This proposal also suggests that any funding made available for vulnerable states can be channelled through developed nation governments, proposing it does not need to be faciliated by a governing body like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Pacific feels this is problematic. Pacific negotiator Sivendra Michael explained: “This is volatile as it depends on the government of the day.”

Finding a way for more capital
Time reports US climate envoy John Kerry as saying: “We have to find a way for more capital to flow into developing countries.”

Kerry added: “I think it’s important that the developed world recognises that a lot of countries are now being very negatively impacted as a consequence of the continued practice of how the developed world chooses to propel its vehicles, heat its homes, light its businesses, produce food.

“Much of the world is obviously frustrated.”

While the US allowed loss and damage finance to be added to the meeting’s formal agenda for the first time, it took the unusual step of demanding that a footnote be included to exclude the ideas of liability for historic emitters or compensation for countries affected by that pollution.

World leaders will now spend the next few hours deciding on which option to take on loss and damage finance.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu is planning to create a version of itself in the metaverse, as a response to the existential threat of rising sea levels.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Justice, Communication and Foreign Affairs, Simon Kofe, made the announcement via a chilling digital address to leaders at COP27.

He said the plan, which accounts for the “worst case scenario”, involves creating a digital twin of Tuvalu in the metaverse in order to replicate its beautiful islands and preserve its rich culture:

The tragedy of this outcome cannot be overstated […] Tuvalu could be the first country in the world to exist solely in cyberspace – but if global warming continues unchecked, it won’t be the last.

Tuvalu’s “digital twin” message. Video: Reuters

The idea is that the metaverse might allow Tuvalu to “fully function as a sovereign state” as its people are forced to live somewhere else.

• READ MORE: What is the metaverse, and what can we do there?
• The internet consumes extraordinary amounts of energy. Here’s how we can make it more sustainable
• Ending the climate crisis has one simple solution: Stop using fossil fuels

There are two stories here. One is of a small island nation in the Pacific facing an existential threat and looking to preserve its nationhood through technology.

The other is that by far the preferred future for Tuvalu would be to avoid the worst effects of climate change and preserve itself as a terrestrial nation. In which case, this may be its way of getting the world’s attention.

What is a metaverse nation?
The metaverse represents a burgeoning future in which augmented and virtual reality become part of everyday living. There are many visions of what the metaverse might look like, with the most well-known coming from Meta (previously Facebook) CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

What most of these visions have in common is the idea that the metaverse is about interoperable and immersive 3D worlds. A persistent avatar moves from one virtual world to another, as easily as moving from one room to another in the physical world.

The aim is to obscure the human ability to distinguish between the real and the virtual, for better or for worse.

Kofe implies three aspects of Tuvalu’s nationhood could be recreated in the metaverse:

• territory — the recreation of the natural beauty of Tuvalu, which could be interacted with in different ways
• culture — the ability for Tuvaluan people to interact with one another in ways that preserve their shared language, norms and customs, wherever they may be
• sovereignty — if there were to be a loss of terrestrial land over which the government of Tuvalu has sovereignty (a tragedy beyond imagining, but which they have begun to imagine) then could they have sovereignty over virtual land instead?

Could it be done?
In the case that Tuvalu’s proposal is, in fact, a literal one and not just symbolic of the dangers of climate change, what might it look like?

Technologically, it’s already easy enough to create beautiful, immersive and richly rendered recreations of Tuvalu’s territory. Moreover, thousands of different online communities and 3D worlds (such as Second Life) demonstrate it’s possible to have entirely virtual interactive spaces that can maintain their own culture.

The idea of combining these technological capabilities with features of governance for a “digital twin” of Tuvalu is feasible.

There have been prior experiments of governments taking location-based functions and creating virtual analogues of them.

For example, Estonia’s e-residency is an online-only form of residency non-Estonians can obtain to access services such as company registration. Another example is countries setting up virtual embassies on the online platform Second Life.

Yet there are significant technological and social challenges in bringing together and digitising the elements that define an entire nation.

Tuvalu has only about 12,000 citizens, but having even this many people interact in real time in an immersive virtual world is a technical challenge. There are issues of bandwidth, computing power, and the fact that many users have an aversion to headsets or suffer nausea.

Nobody has yet demonstrated that nation-states can be successfully translated to the virtual world. Even if they could be, others argue the digital world makes nation-states redundant.

Tuvalu’s proposal to create its digital twin in the metaverse is a message in a bottle — a desperate response to a tragic situation. Yet there is a coded message here too, for others who might consider retreat to the virtual as a response to loss from climate change.

The metaverse is no refuge
The metaverse is built on the physical infrastructure of servers, data centres, network routers, devices and head-mounted displays. All of this tech has a hidden carbon footprint and requires physical maintenance and energy. Research published in Nature predicts the internet will consume about 20 percent of the world’s electricity by 2025.

The idea of the metaverse nation as a response to climate change is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. The language that gets adopted around new technologies — such as “cloud computing”, “virtual reality” and “metaverse” — comes across as both clean and green.

Such terms are laden with “technological solutionism” and “greenwashing”. They hide the fact that technological responses to climate change often exacerbate the problem due to how energy and resource intensive they are.

So where does that leave Tuvalu?
Kofe is well aware the metaverse is not an answer to Tuvalu’s problems. He explicitly states we need to focus on reducing the impacts of climate change through initiatives such as a fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty.

His video about Tuvalu moving to the metaverse is hugely successful as a provocation. It got worldwide press — just like his moving plea during COP26 while standing knee-deep in rising water.

Yet Kofe suggests:

Without a global conscience and a global commitment to our shared wellbeing we may find the rest of the world joining us online as their lands disappear.

It is dangerous to believe, even implicitly, that moving to the metaverse is a viable response to climate change. The metaverse can certainly assist in keeping heritage and culture alive as a virtual museum and digital community. But it seems unlikely to work as an ersatz nation-state.

And, either way, it certainly won’t work without all of the land, infrastructure and energy that keeps the internet functioning.

It would be far better for us to direct international attention towards Tuvalu’s other initiatives described in the same report:

The project’s first initiative promotes diplomacy based on Tuvaluan values of olaga fakafenua (communal living systems), kaitasi (shared responsibility) and fale-pili (being a good neighbour), in the hope that these values will motivate other nations to understand their shared responsibility to address climate change and sea level rise to achieve global wellbeing.

The message in a bottle being sent out by Tuvalu is not really about the possibilities of metaverse nations at all. The message is clear: to support communal living systems, to take shared responsibility and to be a good neighbour.

The first of these can’t translate into the virtual world. The second requires us to consume less, and the third requires us to care.

Dr Nick Kelly, senior lecturer in interaction design, Queensland University of Technology and Dr Marcus Foth, professor of urban informatics, Queensland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Since Jacinda Ardern described the state of world affairs as “bloody messy” earlier this year there have been few, if any, signs of improvement. Ukraine, China, nuclear proliferation and the lasting impacts of a global pandemic all present urgent, unresolved challenges.

For a small country in an increasingly lawless world this is both dangerous and confronting.

Without the military or economic scale to influence events directly, New Zealand relies on its voice and ability to persuade.

• READ MORE: Putin plays the annexation card, pushing the war in Ukraine into a dangerous new phase
• How will China interact with the world over the next 5 years? Xi’s new speech holds clues
• Nukes, allies, weapons and cost: 4 big questions NZ’s defence review must address

But by placing its faith in a rules-based order and United Nations processes, New Zealand also has to work with — and sometimes around — highly imperfect systems. In some areas of international law and policy the machinery is failing. It’s unclear what the next best step might be.

Given these uncertainties, then, where has New Zealand done well on the international stage, and where might it need to find a louder voice or more constructive proposals?

Confronting Russia
Strength and clarity have been most evident in New Zealand’s response to the Russian attack on Ukraine. There has been no hint of joining the abstainers or waverers at crucial UN votes condemning Russia’s actions.

While it can be argued New Zealand could do more in terms of sanctions and support for the Ukrainian military, the government has made good use of the available international forums.

Joining the International Court of Justice case against “Russia’s spurious attempt to justify its invasion under international law” and supporting the International Criminal Court investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine are both excellent initiatives.

Unfortunately, similar avenues have been blocked when it comes to other critical issues New Zealand has a vested interest in seeing resolved properly.

UN vote to ignore human rights abuses in China leaves west in dead end https://t.co/mTWo4ETubU

— The Guardian (@guardian) October 7, 2022

China and human rights
This has been especially apparent in the debate about human rights abuses in China, and allegations of genocide made by some countries over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

New Zealand and some other countries correctly avoided using the word “genocide”, which has a precise legal meaning best applied by UN experts, not domestic politicians. Instead, the government called on China to provide meaningful and unfettered access to UN and other independent observers.

While not perfect, the visit went ahead. The eventual report by outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet concluded that China had committed serious human rights violations, which could amount to crimes against humanity.

This should have forced the international community to act. Instead, 19 countries voted with China to block a debate at the UN Human Rights Council (17 wanted the debate, 11 abstained). The upshot was that China succeeded in driving the issue into a diplomatic dead-end.

Allowing an organisation designed to protect victims to be controlled by alleged perpetrators isn’t something New Zealand should accept. The government should make it a diplomatic priority to become a member of the council, and it should use every opportunity to speak out and keep the issue in the global spotlight.

Ardern’s Russia warning: New nuclear age dawns – countries want to start and win new nuclear war https://t.co/ft03c2FAI5 pic.twitter.com/DRoA4IDRFN

— nzherald (@nzherald) September 23, 2022

Arms control
Elsewhere, New Zealand’s foreign policy can arguably be found wanting — most evidently, perhaps, in the area of nuclear arms regulation.

Advocating for the complete prohibition of all nuclear weapons, as the prime minister did at the UN in September, might be inspiring and also good domestic politics, but it doesn’t make the world safer.

With the risk of nuclear conflagration at its highest since the Cuban missile crisis, a better immediate goal would be improving the regulation, rather than prohibition, of nuclear weapons. This would entail convincing nuclear states to take their weapons off “hair-trigger alert”.

The other goals should be the adoption of a no-first-use policy by all nuclear powers (only China has made such a commitment so far), and a push for regional arms control in the Indo-Pacific to rein in India, Pakistan and China.

Pandemic preparedness
Finally, there is the danger of vital law and policy not just failing, but not even being born. This is the case with the World Health Organisation’s so-called “pandemic treaty”, designed to better prevent, prepare for and respond to the next global pandemic.

New Zealand set out some admirable goals in its submission in April, but these have been watered down or are missing from the first working draft of the proposed agreement.

This shouldn’t be accepted lightly given the lessons of the past two-and-a-half years. Transparency by governments, a precautionary approach and the meaningful involvement of non-state actors will be essential.

Similarly, improved oversight of the 59 laboratories spread across 23 countries that work with the most dangerous pathogens is critical. Currently, only a quarter of these labs score highly on safety. The proposed treaty does little to demand the kind of biosecurity protocols and robust regulatory systems required to better protect present and future generations.

As with the other urgent and difficult issues mentioned here, New Zealand’s future is directly connected to what happens elsewhere in the world. The challenge now is to keep adapting to this changing global order while being an effective voice for reason and the rule of law.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Award-winning University of the South Pacific student journalist Sera Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti says Pacific voices on the climate fight need to be amplified for big nations to notice and be accountable for their actions.

The final-year student recently won the top prize in the tertiary level journalism students category at the 2022 Vision Pasifika Media Award with her two submissions on the environmental impacts of Tonga’s volcanic eruption on villagers of Moce Island in Fiji, and declining fish populations on the livelihoods of Fijian fishermen in Suva.

Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti said she was “beyond humbled” to receive the award and expressed her gratitude to God for the opportunity to amplify Pacific voices on climate change.

• READ MORE: Other environmental journalism reports
• Bearing Witness: A Pacific climate crisis documentary and journalism development project — David Robie and Jim Marbrook

Originally from Dravuni village on beautiful Kadavu island, Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti said Pacific Island countries contributed the least towards climate change and global carbon emissions — but were the most affected.

“We are known to have a close relationship to the land and sea. To have that severely affected by big world countries whose activities are a big cause of this is unacceptable,” said the student editor of Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s award-winning print and online publication.

“I am passionate about environmental issues and human interest stories. I believe the Pacific stories should be ‘heard’ and ‘told’ from the Pacific Islanders’ perspective and words as it is a crisis they live by and survive every day.

“In Fiji, there aren’t enough journalists covering stories of the environment and how it’s affecting the people. I understand it can be a resource constraint and financially limited area.

Filling the gap
“I want to fill that gap in the industry and be able to do something I’m passionate about because it’s incredibly important to tell our people’s story.”

Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti dedicated her award to her family, USP Journalism students, staff, peers and indigenous women.

“So many times, we limit ourselves to what others perceive us, and it will take you to step out of your comfort zone to be able to experience your full capabilities,” said Tikotikoivatu-Sefeti, who was also a recipient of the EJN story grant for indigenous reporting.

She was recently one of the first recipients of the Native American Journalists Association and the Asian American Journalists Association (NAJA-AAJA) Pacific Islander Journalism Scholarship.

The Pacific Regional Environmental Programme’s (SPREP) acting communications and outreach adviser, Nanette Woonton, reaffirmed that SPREP recognised the critical role of all media in disseminating public information, education and influencing behaviour for the better.

“At the secretariat, we are excited to be able to offer the opportunity through these awards to honour and recognise the hard work by our media colleagues in protecting our people and the environment,” she said.

Vision Pasifika Media Award
The 2022 Vision Pasifika Media Award was facilitated through a collaboration between the SPREP, Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), Internews Earth Journalism Network (EJN), and the Pacific Environment Journalists Network (PEJN), with financial support from Aotearoa New Zealand.

The award comprised five categories — television news, radio production, online content, print media, and tertiary-level journalism students.

• Other category winners were: Fabian Randerath (television news), Jeremy Gwao (online content) and Moffat Mamu (print). Randerath was also named the overall winner for his story “Rising Tides – Precious Lives” on Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC).

Akansha Narayan is a final-year student journalist at USP’s Laucala campus, Suva. USP and Wansolwara collaborate on Pacific stories, and for several years USP and the AUT’s Pacific Media Centre collaborated on a joint Bearing Witness climate journalism project.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele says the country joined an agreement with the United States only after changes to wording relating to China.

He said the country did not want to be forced to choose sides, and the Pacific should be seen as a region of peace and cooperation.

Manele was in Wellington today for an official meeting with his New Zealand counterpart Nanaia Mahuta, and was welcomed to Parliament with a pōwhiri today.

• READ MORE: Climate change gets ‘highest priority’ in US, Pacific agreement

Solomon Islands has been a central focus in discussions over partnerships and security in the region after it signed a partnership agreement with China in April.

After a draft of the agreement was leaked in March, New Zealand had described it as “gravely concerning”, but the full text of the final document has never been made public.

The US has been working to contain China’s growing influence with Pacific countries, and last week brought leaders of 12 Pacific nations to Washington DC for two days with the aim of finalising a new Pacific strategy with a joint declaration of partnership.

Solomon Islands had initially refused to sign the declaration, which covered 11 areas of cooperation, but later agreed after a requirement for Pacific Island states to consult with each other before signing security deals with regional impacts was removed.

Decision clarified
Manele clarified that decision when questioned by reporters this afternoon.

“In the initial draft there were some references that we were not comfortable with, but then the officials under the discussions and negotiations … were able to find common ground, and then that took us on board, so we signed,” he said.

Asked what specifically they were uncomfortable with, he confirmed it related to indirect references to China.

“There was some references that put us in a position that we would have to choose sides, and we don’t want to be placed in a position that we have to choose sides.”

He said the Solomons’ agreement with China was domestically focused and did not include provision for a military base.

“My belief … and my hope is this — that the Pacific should be a region of peace, of co-operation and collaboration, and it should not be seen as a region of confrontation, of conflict and of war,” he said.

“And of course we are guided by the existing regional security arrangements that we have in place — and these are the Biketawa declaration as well as the Boe declaration.

US re-engagement welcomed
“We welcome the US re-engagement with the Pacific and we look forward to working with all our partners.”

After securing its partnership agreement, US officials acknowledged they had let the relationship with Pacific nations “drift” in recent years, and there was more work to do.

Manele said he was “delighted” to be in Aotearoa for the first time in about eight years, after his previous plans to visit two years ago were put on hold by the covid-19 pandemic.

He thanked New Zealand for support in helping manage and contain the virus, including with vaccines and medical equipment.

Manele said the discussion between the ministers covered the RSE scheme, the need to review the air services agreement, the 2050 Blue Pacific strategy, and maritime security.

He was keen to stress the importance of increased flights between New Zealand and Solomon Islands.

“I think this is important, we are tasking our officials to start a conversation, we’ll be writing formally to the government of New Zealand to review the air services agreement that we have between our two countries,” he said.

Boost for business, tourism
“This will not only facilitate the RSE scheme but I hope will also facilitate the movement of investors and business people and general tourism.”

The country was also hopeful of more diplomatic engagement with New Zealand.

“Not only at the officials level but also at the ministerial level and at the leaders level, and your Prime Minister has an invitation to my Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in the near future, and my Prime Minister is looking forward to visiting.”

Increased engagement would be required, he said, from all Pacific Island Forum partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to tackle climate change in line with the Blue Pacific Continent 2050 strategy agreed at the most recent Forum meeting in Fiji.

Both Manele and Mahuta highlighted climate change as the greatest threat to security in the region.

He was to attend a roundtable discussion with New Zealand business leaders this evening.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it. For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

I have spent decades of my life as a climate activist fighting various deliberate forms of climate science denial propagated by climate polluting companies and their allied political parties, politicians, lobby groups and commentators.

The good news is that we have mostly won that battle. The bad news is that they have a new tactic, greenwashing, which is now a major obstacle to progress on climate change. Greenwashing is when businesses or politicians give a false impression, or spin, on their products or policies to give the impression that they have a positive impact on the environment when they don’t.

We now face a new landscape in which even oil companies claim to be doing their bit for the climate with “carbon offsets” and “2050 net zero goals”. Their aim is to stop real action on climate by making people think it is all under control.

One of the jobs of the government is to sort out the real climate actions from the greenwashing, to hold industry to account. And of course, one of the jobs of the government is to not engage in greenwashing themselves.

The problem with some of the actions of the current Aotearoa New Zealand government is that rather than holding business to account for its greenwashing, on some vital climate issues the government is actually a proponent of greenwashing.

This greenwashing is closely linked to a wrong-headed theory of change which we hear repeatedly from this government — the idea that climate issues can only be solved through consensus, especially consensus with the polluters and their representatives. The idea that we can’t make real policy to cut climate pollution without the consent of the polluters and their representatives is dangerous and inconsistent with the history of making change.

There are fundamental conflicts in the climate policy space — some industries will not accept that they need to cut emissions. The attempt to gloss over these conflicts and seek consensus means the government adopts policies that the polluters will accept, and which consequently do not cut emissions. This policy outcome is then sold to the public as a great victory when in truth it is a defeat — it is greenwashed.

Before getting into the specifics of the problems I want to acknowledge that this government has done some good things on climate. The ban on new oil and gas exploration permits was a win, even though it excluded onshore Taranaki and allowed existing permits to be extended.

The cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser was a win, even though it is a very high cap which has yet to be enforced. Greenpeace publicly celebrated these wins and congratulated the government on making these decisions, even while pointing out their limitations.

I tried to provide a transparent assessment of the environmental performance of the Ardern government back in 2020. I spent a decade as Green Party co-leader and I know there are wins and losses in politics and that compromise is a reality of politics in a healthy democracy.

But honestly admitted compromise is one thing, and greenwashing is another.

There will always be arguments as to what is an acceptable political compromise. We need to separate the issue of what is an acceptable compromise to enter government from the issue of greenwashing. Determining what is an acceptable compromise for the Greens to join the Labour government is formally a matter of decision for the Green Party and the Labour Party rather than the climate movement.

People like me are entitled to our views of the compromise, but it is the Green Party and the Labour Party that have to decide if it’s worth it. I am not a member of the Green Party or the Labour Party.

The issue of greenwashing, however, is an issue which is of direct and immediate concern for the wider climate movement. This is because when the government sells their policies as great climate advances, when in reality they are not, it misleads the wider public and the climate movement.

People can think they don’t need to push hard on climate because it is under control, when it is not. We then need to spend our time highlighting and explaining why the claimed win is actually spin, rather than campaigning for meaningful action.

This undermines our ability to get more significant progress on climate policy because the power and leadership to get progress on climate (like all other progressive issues) comes from civil society and if civil society is disarmed by greenwashing then climate policy follows dead end paths, stalls or  stops.

But why is greenwashing the biggest challenge the climate movement faces at the moment. How did we get here?

Goals remain unchanged, but tactics evolve
As I mentioned above, the first thing to understand is that climate policy is unavoidably and irrevocably conflictual, and hence political. That is because on the one hand the enduring overarching goal of big climate polluters in the fossil fuel business and industrial agribusiness is to prevent government regulations that will force them to cut their climate emissions.

While on the other hand the climate movement aims for emission cuts to achieve a stable climate.

This is a fundamental conflict globally, and in Aotearoa, and no amount of pseudo consensus can wish this conflict away.

Big climate polluters believe, rightly, that government regulation and pricing to drive emissions reductions threatens their business models and profitability. Other sectors of the economy, such as IT, can more easily adapt to a low carbon future, but those businesses in the industries like coal and synthetic fertiliser can’t adapt, and they intend to fight efforts to cut emissions all the way.

While their goal of preventing government regulation to force reductions in emissions has remained consistent, their tactics to achieve this goal have changed. And it is understanding the way their tactics have evolved that it becomes clear just how problematic the current government’s climate policies have become.

At the beginning the tactic they used was to deny the compelling weight of scientific evidence supporting the theory of human induced climate change. Climate denial was stock in trade for many right wing parties and agribusiness and oil industry lobby groups from the 1990s through to the 2010s.

But after a while that stopped working so they changed tactics to stressing uncertainty especially in the 2000s. They said climate change might be a thing, but there is so much uncertainty so we shouldn’t do anything about it. They played up the nature of scientific inquiry — that theories are not beyond questioning because they are not religious texts — to emphasise uncertainty and the need for delay. It was really just another form of climate denialism.

Billions spent on climate denialism
The polluting industries spent billions promoting climate denialism and uncertainty in order to block government regulation to cut emissions. They bought politicians, public relations firms and sadly some scientists to promote these ideas to delay action on climate. Their ideas were reproduced widely by the conservative commentariat, and many still are.

I spent many years of my life fighting climate denialism and eventually through the efforts of millions of climate activists we (mostly) won the battle against climate denialism. There are now few major governments or corporations or industry lobby groups that rely on climate denialist arguments to block government regulation to cut emissions.

Straight out climate science deniers have been pushed to the margins like Groundswell or the Act Party.

But the goal of the fossil fuel and agribusiness polluters remains consistent — they still want to stop government regulation to cut emissions — so they need a new tactic. And that tactic is greenwashing.

These days the polluters and their representatives say, “yes climate change is a thing” and “yes we should do something about it and you will be happy to know that we are doing something about it.”

Hence, they argue, there is no need for government regulation. Even though they spent the last 30 years blocking every attempt to reduce emissions and even denying climate science, they argue that they now take it seriously and there is absolutely no need for the government to do anything.

And what they are doing is often nonsense like net carbon zero targets in 2050 or buying offshore carbon credits or an industry controlled pricing mechanism like He Waka Eke Noa, or nitrification inhibitors etc. They don’t actually cut emissions in any significant way.

The purpose of greenwashing may seem relatively retail when it is done by a single company to sell stuff to consumers, but at a systemic level the purpose of greenwashing is to head off government attempts to introduce regulations and pricing that will force emission reductions.

There are of course some corporations and governments taking significant actions to cut emissions, but there are also many corporate and government actions that are just greenwashing.

Separating out the genuine climate actions from greenwashing is something that defines the climate politics of our time. And this is why the approach taken by the New Zealand government is so very problematic. People assume that the Climate Minister, especially a Green Party Climate Minister, will not perpetuate greenwashing, and will call it out, but it has not always been the case with James Shaw, and that makes it all the more insidious.

Government greenwashes the biggest polluter: Agribusiness
Which brings us to the problem with the current New Zealand government climate policy. Climate policy in this country mostly boils down to what you are doing about agribusiness emissions (biogenic agriculture emissions alone are about 50 percent of emissions) and transport (20 percent). The rest matters too but if you aren’t tackling these two then you aren’t tackling climate change.

Transport policy has not been great from a climate perspective but here I want to focus on the bigger problem — agribusiness — particularly intensive dairy.

We have had the same Prime Minister and the same Climate Minister for the nearly five years of this government. There have been a plethora of nice sounding climate announcements — the PM said that climate was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”, we’ve had the so-called Zero Carbon Act, a climate emergency declaration, an independent climate commission established, emissions reductions plans, improved nationally determined targets for reduction, signed the global methane pledge etc.

But there is still no effective government policy to cut emissions from agribusiness, by far the biggest polluter.

The problem is not just that the government is doing virtually nothing to cut emissions from agribusiness, the problem is that it is saying that it is taking climate change seriously.

It is equivalent to the Australian government doing nothing about coal or the Canadian government doing nothing about tar sands oil — all while telling us how seriously they take climate change. This is greenwashing and it is dangerous because many people think climate action is happening.

When the claims of meaningful action are fronted by a “nuclear free-moment” Prime Minister and a Green Party Climate Minister – the general observer could be forgiven for trusting that those claims are true.

The evidence that this government has done very little to cut agribusiness emissions is bountiful but let me focus on just one central area — agriculture and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Taking government at its word
The government repeatedly tells us that the Emissions Trading Scheme is the most important tool to cut emissions. This is debatable but let us take them at their word.

If it is so important then why, 14 years after the ETS began in 2008, is the biggest polluting sector, agribusiness, still exempt from the ETS? For 14 years agribusiness lobbyists and industry groups such as Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ have successfully fought a battle of predatory delay to stop their sector facing a price on emissions, apparently the most important climate tool.

And every government (Clark, Key, Ardern) has given them exactly what they want — perpetual delay.

When the ETS was passed into law in 2008, the Labour government of the day delayed agriculture’s entry until 2013. A bad start.

At the time, myself and many others argued against the delay but the Clark government wouldn’t budge. The John Key-Bill English National government (2008-2017) that followed, delayed agriculture’s entry indefinitely. From the perspective of agribusiness, delaying is winning, and they were winning.

For a moment in 2017/2018 it looked like the newly elected Ardern government might have the courage of its convictions and that the agribusiness lobby would finally lose its battle to stop climate action.

The Labour-NZ First coalition agreement explicitly committed them to support agriculture’s entry into the ETS at 5 percent of its obligations. With NZ First’s vote secured, there was a Parliamentary majority to bring agriculture into the ETS. Finally.

Backed down under pressure
But then in 2019 the Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw backed down to agribusiness pressure and instead of agriculture facing a price on its emissions they adopted an industry proposal — He Waka Eke Noa.

He Waka Eke Noa was a proposal from agribusiness for a joint government-agribusiness initiative looking at pricing agribusiness climate pollution. In effect He Waka Eke Noa handed over to industry the design of the system to price their own pollution. New Zealand agribusiness was beside themselves with joy.

In time it would become clear that it was not just that industry would design the system, but they would design a system that they would control going forward.

And, the target date for starting pricing was 2025. That was two elections away — 2020 and 2023 —  and the chances of the current ministers still being there was remote. And if they did manage to win in 2020 and 2023, it was almost unheard of for a government to win a fourth term in 2026 so anything implemented in 2025 could be easily undone.

He Waka Eke Noa’s timelines left the industry partying. And as for the politicians, none of them were likely to be around to get the blame when nothing happened either.

In one of the defining moments of this government’s climate inaction, Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw stood next to Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers to launch the five year He Waka Eke Noa project, instead of implementing their own policy of immediately putting agriculture into the ETS.

James Shaw celebrated He Waka Eke Noa and went so far as to say “nothing about us without us” —  that is he used the slogan of the disability advocacy movement to infer that the agribusiness sector shouldn’t be regulated without their consent and agreement. That was a real low point I must say.

Predictably, three years of delay later, in 2022, the final report from He Waka Eke Noa was released detailing a complicated system that would cut agribusiness emissions by less than 1 percent. The headline reduction was higher but that is because it included the reductions that are supposed to come from technologies that don’t currently exist (magic bullets), the reductions that result from the unrelated freshwater regulations, and the reductions that come out of the waste sector.

Incidentally agribusiness has been saying those same magic bullets have been just around the corner for the last 20 years. If you strip out reductions projected to come from magic bullets, freshwater regulations and waste, the emissions reductions from the He Waka Eke Noa pricing mechanism are less than 1 percent. In addition, under the proposal industry would control the mechanism for regulating their own pollution — classic industry capture.

From the industry perspective He Waka Eke Noa was designed to stop government regulation i.e. stop agribusiness going into the ETS. Under criticism from Groundswell, both Federated Farmers and DairyNZ touted their achievement in keeping their industry out of the ETS.

The National Party also voiced its support for the final report. The Climate Minister was a little more muted.

Most people listening to the government talk about He Waka Eke Noa would think that it has been a tremendous success — after all doesn’t the government always say it wants consensus on climate? Whereas in fact its sole success has been to delay government regulation of agribusiness climate pollution — by three years so far — and, even if it were implemented, by its own calculations emissions would be reduced by less than 1 percent.

That is what consensus with polluters looks like and that is the corner that Ardern and Shaw have painted themselves into.

The purpose of greenwashing is to make us think industry is finally taking climate seriously and hence there is no need for government regulation, while in reality very little is happening to cut emissions.

He Waka Eke Noa is a perfect example of greenwashing:

• It looks like industry is taking climate change seriously with media coverage of all their hard work;
• The new scheme, if it is implemented, is controlled by industry, so full industry capture;
• The scheme has almost no impact on actually reducing emissions; and
• Even if, god forbid, the government were to reject He Waka Eke Noa and instead revert to putting agribusiness into the ETS when it makes a decision in late 2022, it is too late for that decision to be fully institutionalised before the next election, so it will be easily removed if there is a change of government in 2023 and not so hard even after the 2026 election. Predatory delay has been such a successful tactic so far for the industry, why change now?

The Glasgow target
The decisions by this government not to cut agribusiness emissions created cascading international problems of perception for the New Zealand government when it was required to offer a new target for emissions reductions at the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021.

The government wanted to look good with an ambitious target (known as a Nationally Determined Contribution) but had few policies to actually cut emissions. Other countries were raising doubts about the government’s climate commitment. The ETS was supposed to do the heavy lifting but, as the Climate Commission admitted recently, under current settings the “NZ ETS is likely to deliver mostly new plantation forestry rather than gross emission reductions”.

The answer was to use the potential future purchase of overseas carbon offsets to present a net target that looked ambitious.

The Climate Minister announced with great fanfare that New Zealand would commit to a 50 percent cut in net emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. NZ paraded its 50 percent target around the Glasgow climate conference. It sounds good until you realise not only does the target use tricky accounting to make it look much larger than it is, but that TWO THIRDS of the emissions reductions would come from buying offshore carbon offsets.

Sorry about the shouty capitals but nothing yells “greenwashing” quite like offshore carbon offsetting. Carbon offsets are notoriously corrupt, open to double counting, and are the carbon equivalent of papal indulgences. They are what you do when you don’t have policy to cut emissions but want to look good.

Yet this is the government’s plan to reach our international climate target — greenwashing. The Climate Commission has urged the government to contract the offsets fast: “It is essential that the government secure access to sources of offshore mitigation as soon as possible”. Instead of, you know, actually cutting emissions.

And just to show the government is not without a sense of humour they signed up to the global methane pledge to cut methane emissions — without a plan to cut methane emissions! In fact, in case industry was worried, when Shaw returned from Glasgow he confirmed that the government would not introduce any new policies to cut methane. Moooo.

But what about the giant climate bureaucratic superstructure?
Faced with this evidence of greenwashing on agribusiness and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) some people say “what about the Zero Carbon Act”? That proves they are serious doesn’t it? I think that we do need institutional reform to deal with climate, and I’ve pointed to what we need and some of the problems of the Zero Carbon Act before, but it should not be at the expense of immediate climate action.

Much of the government’s climate policy focus in the last five years has been on building an elaborate climate bureaucratic structure. This began with the years-long process to get cross-party support for the Zero Carbon Act, the years-long process to establish the Climate Commission, then there was the years-long processes to build the carbon budgets and the Emissions Reduction Plan.

These structures and processes do look good but they don’t cut emissions – only regulations and policies that cut emissions actually cut emissions. Now you might argue that over time this bureaucratic superstructure will lead to significant emission reductions, and maybe they will, and maybe they won’t, and maybe they can be improved.

The problem is we don’t have years to wonder and hope. We need to have been tangibly cutting actual emissions for the last five years, and cutting them harder over the next five, if we are to play any part in stalling global climate catastrophe.

Spending five years on not implementing much policy to cut emissions, in order to implement a bureaucratic superstructure that might result in emissions cuts down the road if a future government has the courage to use the climate superstructure to implement the policies that this one has not, is plainly not a serious policy to cut emissions. Just implement the policies.

However, in agriculture, our biggest polluter, there is no ambiguity that this climate policy structure has delivered nothing. The Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) has almost nothing to offer except magical technologies that don’t currently exist. The government’s excuse for offering no serious policy on cutting agribusiness emissions in the ERP is, you guessed it, He Waka Eke Noa. Predictably Federated Farmers really liked the Emission Reduction Plan, because it, you know, didn’t reduce agribusiness emissions!

The 2022-23 Budget that followed the ERP allocated $710 million over four years to agribusiness climate initiatives, but it turns out the money is to look for magic bullets to cut emissions. And some of these magic bullets might be worse — recently $11 million was given to research nitrification inhibitors that kill soil biology in order to cut nitrous oxide emissions following the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.

Killing our soils is the exact opposite of what we need to do. The money in the ERP comes from ETS revenue paid by others, because agribusiness is not required to pay into the Emissions Trading Scheme. It is a giant subsidy from everyone else to agribusiness to maintain the pretence of climate action.

It seems a big price to pay to maintain the pretence — it would be a lot cheaper just to paint the cows green.

Some might argue that the climate bureaucratic superstructure may not achieve much in reality, but it is not actually harmful. Sure, the argument goes, this elaborate policy superstructure has wasted lots of time and energy which could have gone into policies that would actually cut emissions, but it is harmless enough.

Well, maybe you’d only think that if you haven’t been following the litigation. Crown Law, the government’s lawyers, are using the Zero Carbon Act etc to actually block climate action in the courts. Here are two quick examples.

In the most recent case against the Energy Minister’s decision to issue more onshore oil and gas exploration permits, the Minister’s lawyers argued that the Zero Carbon Act allowed for more oil and gas exploration and so it was fine. This is in spite of the fact that the world already has more oil and gas reserves than can be burnt to stay under the 1.5 degree guidance that is in the Zero Carbon Act.

Previously climate lawyers have been able to argue that the global situation for oil and gas must be taken into account but now, significantly, under the Zero Carbon Act, the Crown argues you can only consider the New Zealand situation. So the Zero Carbon Act is being used to justify oil exploration and protect it from legal attack by climate activists.

And in a previous case against the Climate Commission, James Shaw’s lawyers argued that the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act was only “aspirational” and not binding on the government.

Marc Daalder reported it thus:

“Crown Law counsel Polly Higbee told the High Court references to 1.5 degrees [in the Zero Carbon Act] used “broad, aspirational language” and it would be “too prescriptive” to argue that the purpose section placed any actual duty on the Government.”

No actual duty on the government from the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act is what Shaw’s lawyers told the court. Outside the court, when speaking to climate activists, Shaw says that the 1.5 degrees target is binding, but in court, where it matters, his lawyers argue it is not.

It’s hard to think of a clearer example of greenwashing. There were many people in the climate movement who worked hard to deliver the Zero Carbon Act and honestly believed it would be a significant tool to cut emissions, rather than defend oil exploration against legal attack.

The final argument for these bland instruments like the Zero Carbon Act is that we need to get broad political elite consensus on climate to get change. History tells us the opposite. To choose just one example which is close to the PM’s heart — nuclear free.

Nuclear free New Zealand was not a result of a consensus process. It was vociferously opposed by the National Party and its many allies — they voted against the legislation and spoke out against it. Nuclear free NZ was not won by reducing our ambitions to what was acceptable to the National Party and the US State Department.

Thousands of peace and environment activists campaigned for it and the Labour government eventually came round to their position, and stood up to provide leadership. There was no political elite consensus. The reason that the National Party never repealed the nuclear free legislation when they returned to government in 1990 was because of its broad support from civil society, support that resulted from civil society campaigners and a Prime Minister willing to fight for the policy (once he finally came round to it).

Introducing vacuous climate legislation that achieves little, in order to get the National Party to vote for it, is pointless, or worse.

Winning the debate on real climate action is the only way to ensure it sticks, and greenwashing undermines that public campaigning.

Conclusion
During the 2017 election campaign I bumped into Jacinda Ardern in Wellington airport and she told me my job at Greenpeace was to hold her government accountable. I respected her for saying that and I agreed with it, and still do. And so that is what I’m doing.

The government has done some good stuff on climate, but on the really big and difficult climate policy issues they are greenwashing. And the greenwashing has disoriented and weakened the climate movement and meant that we are getting much weaker climate policy out of this government than we would otherwise.

And I refer to Ardern rather than Shaw deliberately because there is an uncomfortable political reality that sits behind all this: Jacinda Ardern makes the climate policy in this government and James Shaw presents it. The first rule of politics is to learn how to count — look at the numbers and you will understand this government — Labour has a simple majority and Shaw isn’t even in Cabinet.

James Shaw may like the climate policy, he may not, I don’t know. He may be the architect of crucial bits of it, or not, I don’t know. He is allowed to say he would like to improve the climate policy, but he cannot speak out against it and keep his job. And once you dwell on that hard political truth, all this makes a lot more sense.

It’s not my job or Greenpeace’s job to say whether that is an acceptable position for the Green Party to find itself in, but it is our job to call out greenwash when we see it. We believe that only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it.

For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa and was co-leader of the Green Party for nine years. He resigned from Parliament as an MP in 2015 to take up the Greenpeace position.

• Petition: Ban synthetic nitrogen fertiliser

For the first time Aotearoa New Zealand has a long-term strategy to deal with the effects of climate change, but the government plan released yesterday contains few answers to some of the toughest questions, including who pays for what.

The 200-page National Adaptation Plan shows the priorities for the next six years and pulls together into one place all government efforts to adapt to the warming globe.

A priority is to embed climate resilience in all government strategies and policies, the plan says.

• READ MORE: Other NZ climate action reports

Despite the draft version asking for public input on the toughest questions of all — for example, who will pay for damage and the cost to adapt to climate change; and how to fairly require people to leave their homes — this final version includes no definitive answers.

Instead, it says the massive Resource Management Act reform under way, and expected sometime next year, will be the primary driver in a number of areas, including managed retreat.

On managed retreat — getting some communities out of harm’s way in places where it is no longer viable to live — the plan says legislation will also be needed.

It reiterates costs will be shared between homeowners, local and central government, insurance companies and banks.

Building away from harm
It also wants to make sure homes and infrastructure are built away from harm.

The plan will see Treasury and Waka Kotahi integrate adapting to climate change into decision making.

Watch Climate Change Minister James Shaw introduce the National Adaptation Plan

It also pledges to:

• work with Māori on climate actions;
• establish an online one-stop-shop for information on adaptation; provide a rolling programme of targeted guidance; and
• start a “programme of work to unlock investment in climate resilience”.

The plan says no two communities will experience climate change in the same way, and the government has pledged that equity will be at its core.

The first three years of the plan are key for both collecting the data and information and starting long-term programmes.

Other major works to address the impact of climate change already under way include reforming the emergency management system and three waters services, and reviewing the future of local government.

What does the government say?
Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the plan was a joined up approach that would support community-based adaptation with national policies and legislation.

The idea was to have tools to prepare for events before they happen rather than after.

He said the National Adaptation Plan brought together more than 120 actions that provided a blueprint for more resilient communities.

“Climate change is a global challenge, but its impacts are felt in our local communities and in our homes,” Shaw said.

“We have already seen what can unfold. Severe weather events that had previously seemed unthinkable, even only a few years ago, are now happening at a pace and intensity we have never experienced before.

“And when they happen, everything from the roads we rely on, to our drains and water supplies, to getting the kids’ to school can be severely disrupted.

“Taking action to prepare for these impacts will make our communities safer, protect our environment, and ensure our towns and cities can continue to support people’s jobs and livelihoods.”

Launching the report, Shaw said that managed retreat was only one of the possibilities for communities.

Accommodating the changes such as by raising houses, or using flood defences like sea walls, were options and the government wanted to ensure communities had “really good information available to them” to make those decisions.

The emphasis was on empowering local communities to determine the risks and map out the options, he said.

Up till now there had been “haphazard approach” with councils doing different things, and the aim was to enable local authorities to do the right thing and make information available to property owners.

“We’ve said that we will not cover every loss and we cannot cover every loss in the country”, he said. “We have to work to support those communities that are going to be really struggling to adapt.”

Managed retreat
Managed retreat is the process of abandoning places where the risk from hazards like flooding or erosion make it no longer viable to live.

It includes RMA reform, which will play a major role. It will require local and central government, hapū, iwi and Māori, and communities to plan together how their areas will adapt

Planning tools will be provided to stop developments in high-risk areas and facilitate retreat where risks are intolerable.

Methods and requirements will be set for councils when planning for natural hazards and considering future climate risks through the National Planning Framework.

Integration between land-use planning and investment decisions will be increased. This means decisions on zoning or other planning mechanisms can occur at the same time as investment and infrastructure planning.

It also includes passing legislation to support managed retreat (this means after a decision has been made that managed retreat is the way to go). The Climate Adaptation Bill sets out the managed retreat framework and will be done by the end of 2023.

Building in the right place
Many communities are in places that face increased likelihood of damage from impacts of climate change. Regulatory frameworks and institutions do not always account for changing risks.

Some plans include:

• RMA reform — This will be a major driver of what gets built where. In 2023, the Natural and Built Environments Act and the Spatial Planning Act are expected to be passed.
• Integrating adaptation into Treasury and Waka Kotahi decisions (both by 2024)
• Set national direction on natural hazard risk management and climate adaptation through the National Planning Framework. It will be released for consultation after the Natural and Built Environments Act is passed.
• Establish an initiative for resilient public housing

What else is in the plan?
The plan is essentially a guide for local authorities, business and individuals to what the government sees as the priorities.

It identifies 43 priority risks that Aotearoa faces from climate change as well as the risk to the telecommunications network.

Some plans include:

• Look at setting a resilience standard for infrastructure
• Finish work on case study exploring “co-investment” of flood resilience
• Flood insurance — Continue work on potential government-run home flood insurance (By the end of 2022, the government will have received advice on flood insurance options and agreed to next steps).
• Prioritising nature-based solutions
• Improving natural hazard information on Land Information Memoranda – Changes to legal requirements for LIMs to help people make better-informed decisions about natural hazard risk when buying a property.
• Designing and developing risk and resilience and climate adaptation information portals — This will give the public natural hazard risk information, and provide access to climate data and information.
• Implementing the National Disaster Resilience Strategy
• Establishing a platform for Māori climate action
• Working with community housing providers to enable effective climate hazard response

On the roles of central and local government
The plan says the government’s role is to set regulation, provide information, invest in infrastructure and the environment.

Local government is at the centre of the response because most hazards happen on a local scale, it says. Local government will maintain its central role in helping communities to understand and respond together.

“Councils have statutory responsibilities to avoid or mitigate natural hazards and to have regard to the effects of climate change when making certain decisions.

“They are also responsible for civil defence and emergency management, and improving community resilience through public education and local planning. ”

Councils also own many assets and infrastructure which are vulnerable to climate change.

The plan gives interim advice to councils advice on making decisions about risks to coastal and other vulnerable areas and under specific warming scenarios of warming using just  released guidance.

This comprehensive guidance will become mandatory by the end of November.

Business and the environment
The plan notes climate change will have a significant impact on native species, ecosystems and the environment.

It will prioritise nature-based solutions, give advice to landowners about how to restore indigenous forests, and help farmers support biodiversity.

The public sector, businesses, property owners and civil society need to take action to reduce the scale of the long-term economic costs, and seize the opportunities of a changing climate, the plan says.

For example, less than 10 percent of firms have assessed risks to their business from a changing climate, and less than 20 percent intend to take action to reduce their risks over the next five years.

What next for the plan?
It is the first in a series of national adaptation plans that will be prepared every six years.

Each will respond to a new national climate change risk assessment. All New Zealanders will be able to have their say on each plan.

Every two years, He Pou a Rangi — Climate Change Commission will report to the Minister of Climate Change on the implementation and effectiveness of the national adaptation plan.

A government climate change board of executives is being established to oversee the emissions reduction plan and national adaptation plan.

It will monitor and report on progress each year, while a group of government ministers will oversee the plan and drive progress.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

New Zealand will provide $15 million to support Samoa with its climate change priorities.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the announcement in Apia today at a joint press conference with Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa.

“This funding will help build Samoa’s resilience to the impacts of climate change and its transition to a low emissions economy,” Ardern said.

• READ MORE: Samoa and NZ mark unique relationship, PM Fiame Naomi Mata’afa says
• Other NZ and Samoa reports

New Zealand will work with the Samoan government to determine where the funding will go — governance arrangements and opportunities for future investments.

The government is also pledging $12 million to rebuild Apia’s Savalalo Market, a historic market which was destroyed by a fire in 2016.

“The market was renowned as a hub for local crafts and food, run primarily by women small business owners. It is at the heart of Apia’s community and economic life, as well as formerly being a major tourist attraction,” Ardern said.

“We are proud to support the government of Samoa re-establish it.”

Rebuilding the partnership
The request for the money came from Samoa’s government, which will fund the rebuild in partnership with New Zealand. Both Ardern and Fiame have indentified climate change as a key joint issue.

Jacinda Ardern is in Samoa to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship between New Zealand and Samoa.

Following an ‘ava ceremony and reception on Monday, she attended a flag raising and guard of honour inspection today.

She said at the bilateral a number of issues were discussed in addition to climate change, such as economic resilience, and covid-19.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

WATCH LIVE – The prime ministers of New Zealand and Samoa, Jacinda Ardern and Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, are speaking to media after bilateral talks today. https://t.co/NtRK7U9EL7

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) August 1, 2022

Critics of New Zealand’s new $4.5 billion global warming plan to help New Zealanders into electric vehicles and hybrids say a significant cheque for the Clean Car programme is sending the wrong message about the role cars play in the country’s future.

Victoria University of Wellington’s environmental studies Professor Ralph Chapman said — electric or not — cars were still heavy on the wallet and on the environment.

“The sheer carbon emissions associated with running cars, the life cycle of a car and all the infrastructure that goes with it — like highways and more spread-out infrastructure for water and waste water … when you start to add it all up, cars are pretty much a disaster.”

• READ MORE: NZ’s first Emissions Reduction Plan spends $2.9b from Emergency Response Fund
• Government plan to tackle climate change to be revealed
• NZ Herald environment writer Simon Wilson: ‘It’s a massive step. But not enough.’
• Other reports on NZ’s climate action

Professor Chapman said there were still carbon emissions that went into making EVs and the like, as well as the emissions involved in importing them to New Zealand.

“The whole model has to change, rather than just encouraging people to go to a slightly more efficient car.”

Professor Chapman said the alternative option of scrapping an old car in return for money towards buying a bike or using public transport was a good move.

Free Fares lobby disappointed
Free Fares, which is lobbying the government to make all public transport free, is also disappointed in the scheme.

A spokesperson for the group said the wider Emissions Reduction Plan was “a continuation of an individualised culture and a focus on car ownership” rather than public transport, “which is what we need”.

Low-income families who scrap their old car will get funding to buy a low-emitting vehicle in a $569 million scheme, one of the big-ticket items in the government’s first Emissions Reductions Plan.

The money will not just be for electric vehicles – it could also help buy an e-bike or could be in the form of public transport vouchers.

But there was very little detail released about the scheme, such as who exactly will be eligible and – critically – how much financial help they would get.

New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan. Video: RNZ News

A pilot will be rolled out for 2500 households first, before an expansion of the scheme in about two years’ time.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw yesterday said it would follow a similar scheme which was introduced in California.

Those who took part in one scheme there got about $NZ15,000 off the price of a new or second hand EV.

“Notoriously challenging” says MIA
But even if a similar discount was offered here, it would still be costly, and “notoriously challenging”, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) said.

Chief executive David Crawford said the cost of new EV imports started at $40,000 and went upwards of $80,000, whereas used models started at about $20,000.

“If it is a new EV, their prices are quite high; would [eligible people] be able to afford debt servicing the difference? The price gap for a new EV can still be big,” Crawford said.

New Zealand has many old cars still being driven around; they pollute more and aren’t as safe so the MIA said it was supportive of moves to get more of them off the road.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA), which represents mechanics and repair shops, wants the government to go further than the $569m scheme, and roll out a scrappage model for everyone.

Its energy and environment manager Ian Baggott said it would be a challenge for the government to determine the criteria for scrappage.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.