In my press release on October 19 titled Another COP Junket, I argued against the extravagance and wastage of Fiji sending 26 people to United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP26) meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.
Well, I had seriously underestimated the attendance. We have just learnt that Fiji has sent a huge official delegation, numbering around 36.
Climate change is important for Fiji and the Pacific Region. Fiji must show its face at COP26 in solidarity with the Small Islands Developing States (SIDS).
But a Minister or the Prime Minister (PM) with a few technical people is all that is necessary to attend the COP, especially during this COVID-19 times when even the hosts (UK & Italy) have been stressing a smaller delegations given the risks and quarantine requirements.
We have also established that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), which Fiji currently chairs, is taking an unprecedented delegation of 10.
This is surprising as the mandate for climate change and environment rest with the other regional organisations, like SPREP and SPC.
It looks like this large PIFS delegation is influenced by Fiji’s Chairmanship. Compare Fiji’s 36 to the numbers from other Pacific Island countries like Marshall Islands (5), Solomon Islands (10), Vanuatu (3) and New Zealand (9).
This begs the question: Why is Fiji sending an extremely large delegation?
I will argue in this opinion that the large expenses are not aimed at fighting climate change, but simply for personal and political gains.
I fully agree with the growing list of commentators that this number is exorbitant, unnecessary, and extremely insensitive when many families cannot even afford enough food to feed their families.
But as always, the Government has thumbed its noses at the people and have gone on another COP junket.
The major task of the annual COP event, which was postponed from last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is for the Parties to the climate change framework to complete the Paris Rulebook, a task which has been dragging on for the past 6 years.
This is not a task for politicians but for the technical people, as it requires intimate understanding of many rules and processes.
The issues in the Paris Rulebook are complex such as Article 6 which talks about carbon mechanisms, enhanced transparency framework, guidance to financial entities such as access to Global Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), adaptation, loss and damage, and the mechanics of reporting and reviewing NDCs.
Our research of the COP meeting records suggests that Fiji’s participation in the detailed discussions is insignificant.
For 36 people to jet halfway around the world just to make up the numbers is unforgiveable.
It begs the question, are they there for the per diems?
The representatives of several Pacific Island countries such as RMI, Samoa, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have been invited by the chairpersons of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies to chair contact groups on important technical issues.
This provides credibility and visibility to these countries and their ability to interact and harness benefits for countries at high level bilateral meetings. But their delegations are much less than Fiji.
On climate change like almost everything in life, actions speaks louder than words. Bainimarama’s claim to be the champion of climate change is hollow.
He had the chance to show leadership, as UK and Italy are doing for COP26, but failed badly.”
Fiji’s Presidency of COP23 in 2017 was the greatest opportunity for the PM to show real climate leadership, but was wanting, through a shameful dependence on expatriate peddle the donors’ agenda.
Fiji, to the surprise and bewilderment of the other PSIDS, seemed not to want to share this “glory’ with the other Pacific Island states to make it a truly ‘Pacific COP”.
Even the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and G77 & China, the two key negotiating blocks, were often frustrated by Fiji’s lack of skills, exacerbated by changes to the people leading the negotiations on key issues pertinent to SIDS.
Fiji’s failure was perhaps the reason Bainimarama was not included in the list of world leaders who were invited to the recent Biden summit. Instead, the President of the United States invited countries like Marshall Islands and New Zealand, which have been far more active and decisive in the negotiations for about a decade now.
Fiji, as we all know, is in a financial mess. So, the PM with his Ministers in tow, is looking for money to fund its election budget. The global climate change funds are potential sources of money.
The table below lists what some of the Pacific Islands have been able to access climate finance (in millions of USD).
Even smaller countries like Tuvalu have managed to get more GCF and GEF funding than Fiji. This is evidence that Fiji is not doing enough to fight climate change at home.
In my opinion, the biggest barrier for Fiji in accessing climate change funds is not the identification of projects as we have many climate change projects for funding, but the fiduciary requirements that are pre-requisites to funding.
These fiduciary requirements are many and include disclosures, expenditure tracking, transparency, and accountability.
But the important question the public is asking is, who is paying for this junket, given our dire economic situation when many people have no jobs, are struggling to provide food and shelter and the poverty levels is at record level?
My rough estimate of the total cost of this junket is more than $2.5 million. This includes first class and business class airfares for some, allowances, cost of accommodation, and per diems.
It is also remarkable that the PM and his entourage jetted off on Tuesday, 6 days before the COP officially opens on October 31st.
It officially concludes on the 12 November and the earliest the delegation will return to Fiji is 16 November, assuming they are not required to quarantine.
The High-Level segment, at which Leaders are given 3 minutes to read statements, does not even begin until 8 November. So, what was the necessity of this early departure?
Was it to maximize the per diems?
The absence of the delegation from Fiji is estimated at a minimum of 24 days. At an average of $2000 allowance, that amounts to $48,000 a person and a total per diem bill of $1.7 million. On top of this amount, we can add air travel and other allowances bringing the total junket to $2.5 million.
Our investigation suggests that the cost of this trip is being covered by Australia, which will no doubt show it as part of the “aid” or “climate change finance” to Fiji.
The vexed question is why Australia is prepared to pay for this when their own delegations is small by comparison (the Australian taxpayers wouldn’t even allow such massive numbers) and, from our information, its PM is only attending after pressure from the G20.
Australia is one of the top emitters of greenhouse gasses. Pacific Island countries continue to express disappointment at Australia’s lack of sensitivity to its call for greater action.
By footing Fiji’s bills to the COP26 and COP23, is it also buying Fiji’s and PIFS allegiance and silence less vociferous about Australia in Glasgow?
Is it also aimed at balancing China’s growing influence in the region?
The adage ‘whoever pays the piper, plays the tune’, is very relevant.
The bottom line is that Fiji is playing climate change diplomacy to fund its extravaganza in Glasgow in search of money for the election next year. Fiji has failed miserably in protecting the environment at home. Its failures are reflected in its small access to global climate change funds because it does not fulfil the fiduciary requirements.
It is a no brainer to imagine what this $2.5 million could do to protect Fiji from climate change in Fiji.
- Savenaca Narube is the leader of Unity Fiji party and former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Fiji. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of The Fiji Times.
