Pacific islands populations to be displaced?

Nic Maclellan


Christina Ora from Solomon Islands carried the voice of young people to the United Nations Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen.
Chosen to address a plenary session of the climate change conference, 17-year-old Christina said: “I was born in 1992. You have been negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time.”
But her voice, like many others from the Pacific, was not heeded. After two weeks of chaotic activity in Denmark’s capital, the Copenhagen climate conference ended in failure, without a legally binding treaty to promote long-term action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Pacific governments and community organisations have been calling for urgent action on climate change, ever since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Rio conference on Environment and Development, and the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
There were high hopes that the 15th UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen would develop new agreements on climate change, based on two tracks of negotiations: strengthening and extending commitments by developed countries that have signed on to the existing Kyoto Protocol and also long-term co-operative action by all countries, including major powers like the United States that have not ratified Kyoto.
But obtaining stronger action in Copenhagen was always going to be difficult. In the lead-up to the conference, major developed countries like the United States indicated that they would not accept a legally binding treaty without verifiable commitments from China and India.
In turn, Beijing and other developing nations called for developed nations to address their historic responsibility for existing emissions.
Even though the 2006 climate conference in Bali set out a roadmap of action and negotiations have continued for two years, there were still many unresolved issues as delegates arrived in Denmark.

Tuvalu stands up
Government delegates from Forum member countries were joined by SPREP officials and non-government activists from around the Pacific, who launched a range of public events to raise the profile of vulnerable Pacific states.
Pacific youth delegates spoke to the media and lobbied government officials about their fears of global inaction and their hopes for the future. Indigenous activists from Samoa, Kanaky and Hawai’i campaigned on issues of deforestation and indigenous rights, and joined other indigenous leaders at the head of a 100,000 strong march to the conference centre.
A delegation from the Pacific Conference of Churches met other ecumenical partners in worship as church bells rang out around the world, starting in the Pacific and then throughout North America and Europe, to call for government action at the summit.
Early in the conference, Tuvalu’s chief negotiator Ian Fry called for consideration of a proposal that the country had formally lodged six months before.
This initiative aimed to develop an agreement which would complement (not replace) the Kyoto Protocol and strengthen the UNFCCC with a new “Copenhagen Protocol” for all developed and developing countries (especially rapidly industrialising nations like China, India and Brazil and countries like the United States that have not ratified Kyoto).
Tuvalu’s strong stand gained international headlines and won support from many official delegations and community organisations lobbying for stronger action.
But in spite of increased international attention on the threat to low-lying atoll nations, Pacific delegates came away angry and disappointed as the meeting foundered without agreeing on a new legally binding treaty.

Copenhagen Accord
In the dying hours of the two-week conference, US President Barack Obama joined leaders from China, India, Brazil and South Africa to cobble together a three page political statement dubbed the “Copenhagen Accord”.
President Obama described the accord as a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough”, committing key industrialised nations to make voluntary pledges to reduce their carbon emissions and promising funds to developing countries to help deal with the effects of climate change.
However in chaotic circumstances, the final plenary of the conference failed to fully endorse the Accord, simply stating: “The conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord.”
Seven nations, including Tuvalu, formally stated that they could not accept the deal. Countries will have to endorse the Copenhagen Accord to unlock the adaptation funds outlined in the agreement, including $30 billion in quick-start funding in 2010-12, increasing to “a goal” of $100 billion a year from 2020.
Tuvalu’s chief negotiator Fry stated the lack of mandated action was insufficient to deal with the adverse effects of global warming.
“In biblical terms it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our future and our people.
“Our future is not for sale. I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document.”
After the conference, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Copenhagen Accord was “a result that underpins action”, in the face of danger that the negotiations would collapse altogether.
But most civil society organisations were critical the accord failed to meet the challenges facing the most vulnerable nations:
— the Accord is simply a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty for all UN members and doesn’t include a date to finalise such a treaty;
— there is no set date when greenhouse gas emissions should peak and start falling and no targets for the reduction of greenhouses gas emissions by 2020 (Pacific governments have been calling for a 45 percent reduction by that date);
— the agreement fails to provide any details about how programmes such as the REDD deforestation prevention plan would be funded or managed.
— although the Accord pledges action to limit global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, Pacific governments have been advocating a target “well below 1.5 degrees”, in line with the latest scientific analysis.

Limiting temperatures
This 2-degree target is in line with Australia’s climate policy Engaging our Pacific neighbours on climate change, and was accepted by island leaders at the August 2009 Forum leaders meeting in Cairns.
At Cairns and Copenhagen, Australia also advocated “an ambitious global effort to stabilise greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) or lower.”
Since then however, Pacific governments have reaffirmed their commitment to the Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS) policy which calls for much stronger targets, aiming for temperature increases well below 1.5 degrees Celsius and a limit of 350ppm of carbon dioxide and other gasses in the atmosphere.
In Copenhagen, this tougher 350 target won support from 112 nations, including the members of AOSIS and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) grouping, some African and Latin American nations and other developing countries such as Egypt, Malaysia and Pakistan.
Speaking from Copenhagen, General Secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi highlighted this gap between Forum members over climate action.
“Whilst the Pacific islands government delegations in Copenhagen are all in support of the AOSIS proposal, it is strange to see that New Zealand and Australia are surprisingly silent and nowhere to be seen.
“Failure to demonstrate support for the AOSIS position will be indicative of the policy guidelines that really dictate New Zealand and Australian governments’ involvement and interests in the Pacific region.”
In the last days of the conference, islands leaders reported that there was pressure on Pacific states to abandon their stronger targets.
In a press conference on December 17, Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia stated: “There are some countries like Australia who have been trying to arrange a meeting with us to probably water down our position on 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
He added: “I heard from other small islands that Australia was trying to tell them if they agree to the 2 degrees limit, money would be on the table for adaptation process. That’s their choice to accept the money and back down. But Tuvalu will not.”
At the time of writing, the future of post-Copenhagen negotiations is uncertain. Industrialised nations which support the Copenhagen Accord must announce emissions reductions targets by February, but these pledges are not binding.
Hopes for a legally binding treaty will be debated at another conference of UNFCCC parties (COP16), to be held in Mexico in late 2010, preceded by a negotiating session in Germany in late May.
But the failure to agree on a legally binding treaty in Denmark has set back efforts for global co-operation between developed and developing countries.
United action by the Pacific Islands Forum, chaired by Australia’s Rudd, will be complicated by national elections that must be held in Australia this year (the conservative opposition parties oppose Rudd’s efforts to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme, and climate will be a key election issue).
And for the longer term?
Interviewed on Radio Australia during the Copenhagen conference, Rudd’s key climate adviser Ross Garnaut said it is now inevitable that climate change will displace Pacific islands populations.
 “The South Pacific countries will end up having their populations relocated to Australia or New Zealand and the rest of the world expects that. In the end, we’re likely to accommodate them, so there’s a solution there.”

TUVALU, KIRIBATI LOOK AT OPTIONS TO RELOCATING By Robert Matau Time is running out for small Pacific Islands nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati. And the islands are looking at some real drastic options. Options like reclaiming land to make up for land eroded by rising sea levels, an option Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia is seriously contending. Or even the floating island concept mooted by Japan and warming to it, is President Anote Tong of Kiribati. Both leaders were in Copenhagen to negotiate new climate change commitments and to promote these new alternatives as they race to stay above waters. Ielemia says his nation is looking at reclamation alternatives, which other low-lying nations like the Maldives, some parts of Korea and Japan are currently undertaking. “We want to build new islands and add more land mass to the current set of islands in Tuvalu and we hope this facility is going to be created by leaders in Copenhagen where we can access funds for these purposes. “There have not been any studies yet but similar projects have been done in the Maldives, big nations like Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian nations, who have reclaimed land. These kinds of projects would cost millions of dollars. He said to do this would mean importing soil from nearby nations. He said Japan was also looking at studying ways to create sand from the seabed, particularly in lagoon areas. The floating island concept was raised at the 2009 Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting in Japan—a proposal President Tong took a keen interest in. Pacific islands leaders were hosted to a symposium on the new floating island concept organised with the sponsors. Shimizu Corporation unveiled its Green Float future concept and the Chikyu Club Network 2000, an environmental non-profit organisation that has been active in many fields, unveiled its Farm Float 2015 concept. The hope is that by 2025 Green Float will be readily available for islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu. The Green Float concept envisions an artificial circular island 3000 metres in diameter that floats on the sea near the equator. This island supports a 1000-metre tower combining various facilities, including residential space, commercial space, and vegetation factories. A Belgian architect is also mooting a similar concept which would be powered by renewable energy sources. Instead of relocating to a foreign territory and being classed as a climate refugee, islanders would insist that they remain in utopia with their own land, their own fishing grounds and the nation they believe God gave them. These two options give them that. Meanwhile, Tuvalu is now speaking out saying the September Cairns Leaders meeting communiqué fell short of even a commitment to reducing emissions. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who rode high on the waves of a strong climate change policy into the good books of Australian voters, seemed to have gained a consensus from his Pacific colleagues.  Insiders in Cairns said they were bullied. Organisations like Oxfam and the Australia Institute have noted an unwillingness by Australia (and New Zealand) to develop a strategy for, or even discuss, forced migration among the Pacific’s 8 million people. The idea of climate refugees is still something these Pacific islands are looking at, and the governments and organisations who could help them–seem to be turning the other cheek. While Tuvalu’s Ielemia was a bit more diplomatic, he was certainly not supportive of the Cairns communiqué outcome. “It was done in the interest of maintaining a general consensus,” he said. “The communiqué we used in the leaders’ retreat in Cairns is not really what Tuvalu wanted. “It was only a matter of reaching a group’s consensus even though there were questions raised by us small islands countries in that meeting.”