Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama accompanied by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Climate Change, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, left Fiji for Glasgow in Scotland, some 15,000 kilometres away.
They will be attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26, which begins tomorrow, and ends on November 12. Mr Bainimarama was President of COP23.
The Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention is an annual summit to gauge progress, urge implementation, check on existing and make new commitments to reduce greenhouse gases responsible for global warming and climate change.
One of its main objectives is to seek to design, a global governance regime to transition the global economy to a net zero economy over the course of the next 30 years.
The United Kingdom will be the conference hosts. COP26 had been delayed by a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
More than 20,000 delegates are expected to attend the two week summit.
The large Fiji delegation to COP26 is led by the Prime Minister.
It includes senior public servants from his office, as well as the ministries of economy and climate change.
The carbon footprint generated by Fiji’s attendance at the COP26 is estimated to be close to 200 metric tons of CO2 Incidentally, New Zealand, which is a much larger and richer country, is sending a delegation of nine to COP26. Marshall Islands is sending five delegates.
Others like Kiribati and Federated States of Micronesia are not attending, some citing difficulties with COVID-19 restrictions and travel logistics.
A former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Fiji, and now leader of the Unity Party, Savenaca Narube said: “This number is exorbitant, unnecessary, and extremely insensitive when many families cannot even afford enough food to feed their families.”
Mr Narube said: “Large delegations seem to have become fashionable for Fiji since its Presidency of COP23 in 2017.
But despite the huge delegations, our research from the UNFCCC records shows lack of participation of the Fiji delegation in the detailed discussions, which begs the question: Are they there just for the per diems?
The leader of the newly formed Peoples Alliance Party, Sitiveni Rabuka, was equally scathing on his official Facebook page, querying the expense and size of the Fiji contingent when little was being done to tackle environmental problems and pollution in our backyard.
At a recent meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum several weeks ago, senior ministers from Palau, Tuvalu, Fiji and Marshall Islands were designated “Champions” at COP26 to advocate for one of five priorities identified by the Pacific, including Climate Finance, Climate Ambition, Environmental Integrity, Loss and Damage, and Oceans. Fiji’s Minister for Climate Change was appointed as Champion on Ocean-Climate Nexus and Climate Finance.
The appointment of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has been met with disquiet by some eminent Pacific islanders.
Tarcisius Kabutaulaka, a Solomon Island academic at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, was highly critical of Fiji’s Attorney-General being nominated as Pacific Oceans Champion.
He said: “Through the USP saga Sayed-Khaiyum demonstrated to future Pacific Island leaders that he is not interested in their future. It is therefore insulting that such a person be put on a pedestal as a regional climate champion. He is not a champion.”
Kabutaulaka called for the withdrawal of Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s name by the regional body.
That is unlikely to occur given Fiji’s chairmanship of the Forum.
Another senior Solomon islander who has extensive experience working in the region has supported calls for the Forum to reconsider
the appointment of the Attorney-General as the oceans spokesperson for the region at COP26.
He said his appointment is rather “hollow” given his role in the USP saga and what he described
as his disrespect for the other island countries, which undermined regionalism.
“He does not have the standing to represent the region and should not represent it.”
Addressing Parliament in March 2019 and recounting Fiji’s journey while it held the presidency of COP 23, Fiji’s Prime Minister said:
“Fiji’s legacy is not one of confrontation. Fiji’s legacy is a legacy of inclusion, cooperation and respect.”
The circumstances that led to USP’s vice-chancellor Pal Ahluwalia being ordered out of the country, and government’s refusal to pay Fiji’s grant to the university if the current vice-chancellor remained at his post, reflect a refusal to cooperate with her neighbours.
It is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s speech to parliament two years ago.
The manner in which Fiji expressed its dissent at USP is hardly a mark of respect to her neighbours.
The anecdotal evidence suggests that Fiji’s attitude on the USP Council throughout the Pal saga, has been belligerent.
Global warming
A major goal of the COP is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century.
The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.
Fiji was the first country to sign the Paris Agreement on April 22 2016.
As part of the Paris Agreement, every country agreed to communicate or update their emissions reduction targets Climate change constitutes probably one of the most pressing challenges of our generation.
The United Nations has declared 2021 through 2030 to be the Decade for Ecosystem Restoration to draw attention to and address linked triple global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and waste.
Scientists believe that growing healthy ecosystems are the best way of counteracting climate change, and stopping the collapse of biodiversity.
The global environmental and socioeconomic impacts of climate change weigh significantly on the current international agenda and on national policymaking.
Small island developing states bear a disproportionate cost of addressing climate change as they are affected by more rapid pace of climate change, including temperature rise, even though they have contributed only marginally to global carbon flows and stocks.
We have seen an increase in the number and intensity of cyclones in Fiji and the Pacific in recent years.
Tropical cyclones affect nearly all Pacific island countries. They are the most frequent natural disaster to affect Fiji, with around two to three cyclones occurring every year.
As a result of climate change, cyclone frequency has also doubled in the last decade. Cyclones Winston, Harold, Yasa, Ana have all caused widespread destruction. Cyclone Winston was the most intense tropical cyclone in the southern hemisphere on record.
Weather records suggest that tropical cyclones have become more intense in the past 40 years.
According to some studies, a sustained 1°C temperature in global temperature increase lowers real GDP per capita annual growth by 0.74 to 1.52 percentage points, irrespective of levels of development.
The main driver of climate change is what is known as the “greenhouse effect”.
Some gases in the Earth’s atmosphere act a bit like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun’s heat and stopping it from leaking back into space, and causing a rise in the Earth’s temperature, or global warming.
“Global warming constitutes a development trap that threatens the gains in living standards, particularly since the beginning of the 21st Century. It requires even greater adaptation efforts in developing countries, particularly in the countries with the lowest levels of income given their lower resilience and higher socioeconomic vulnerability”. (Olivier et al)
The world has already warmed by about 1.2 Celsius since the industrial era began, and temperatures will keep rising unless governments around the world make steep cuts to emissions.
Fiji’s new Climate Change Act
In September this year, in the middle of a global, life-threatening pandemic which has claimed more than 900 lives (depending on who you talk to), Fiji’s Parliament enacted the Climate Change Act (CCA).
My first reaction when I read the 85- page law spread over 112 sections was: “Does the country really need this?” Is this law really necessary?
The CCA is comprehensive, taking a “whole of government approach” based on its 17 parts and 112 sections.
However, it might have been better if the law took a “whole of Fiji approach” to addressing climate change issues.
One of its main challenges will be to operationalise the law and make it meaningful for grassroots communities.
To its promoters, the Act represents a positive step by government to initiate adaptive and mitigating policies and actions against climate change, environmental degradation and global warming to address environmental and climate challenges.
The overall responsibility for the implementation of the Act will be under the Minister for Climate Change who so happens to be the Attorney General (as well as Minister for Economy, Minister for Civil Service, Minister for Communications and Minister for Public Enterprises).
This will be done through extensive ministerial powers.
The roles and responsibilities vested in a single minister are far ranging and concerning, and could lead to a conflict of interest given that the current Minister holds multiple portfolios.
History teaches us when too much power is vested in one person, it is open to abuse and could lead to oppressive behaviour.
Under the CCA, the Minister has enormous and centralised powers to intervene in extensive areas of national activity across both the public and private sector which is concerning since the proper exercise of those powers is not guaranteed.
It does not require the sanction or approval of the Prime Minister, Cabinet or Parliament or other bodies. There is an absence of checks and balances on the minister’s powers.
The situation in neighbouring Papua New Guinea is quite different. Its Climate Change Management Act of 2015 contains checks and balances on who has powers to implement the Act.
Legal powers are spread between the Climate Change and Development Authority (CCDA) and the National Climate Change Board which controls and guides over the exercise of the functions and powers of the CCDA.
The Board reports to the Minister for Climate Change who is not involved in the operational and day to day matters.
This makes sense since climate change action is a massive undertaking and cannot be conveniently vested under a single politician.
For example, section 18 (1), requires that all state entities decisions, policies, programs and processes be developed or implemented consistent with the guidelines published by the Minister.
Under section 18 (2), state entities must also review previous decisions and actions to be compliant with the Minister’s guidelines.
Section 18 (4) will also ensure that the minister “in consultation with” the National Climate Change Coordination Committee, will issue guidelines to other state entities on how to do their job, make decisions and run their programs to be compliant with the Act.
Under section 19, all new initiatives by state entities must also comply with the guidelines.
While the Act requires the Minister to appoint a committee of advisers, if past experience is anything to go by, this will largely be an “echo chamber”, comprising sycophants who are not likely to disagree with the Minister.
He is even allowed to prescribe fiscal incentives without consulting the Minister of Finance because he holds both ministerial portfolios.
Another criticism of the Act is that it needs to be better aligned with current laws and frameworks so that it does not undermine the responsibilities of existing government agencies and departments.
For example, under section 85, the minister must consult with the ministers responsible for transport, forests, energy and fisheries on the development of regulations policies, measures and actions under this section to the extent that they may have an impact on the management of fisheries.
For fishing related issues however, the responsibility to make regulations falls on the Minister for Fisheries under the Marine Spaces Act
The reference to internal waters, archipelagic waters and the exclusive economic zone in the Act need to be aligned with the Marine Spaces Act.
The Oceans Policy Steering Committee established under section 86 of the Act are likely to duplicate the work of the Marine Affairs Coordinating Committee (MACC) established by Cabinet to oversee all marine affairs issues of Fiji.
The MACC is coordinated and managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its secretariat.
There is a distinct possibility of the Ocean Policy Steering Committee clearly duplicating and undermining the role of the MACC as the same members of MACC also sit on the Oceans Policy Steering
Committee under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Act is wordy and complex, and contains a lot of high-sounding principles and goals.
The 18 objectives alone of the Act are enough to overwhelm the mildly curious reader.
Some of the objectives of the Act include:
- providing a framework by which Fiji
can develop and implement clear and long
term climate change measures and policies
that will safeguard the future of Fiji
and its people, ecosystems and biodiversity - getting a long-term emissions reduction
target and carbon budgets, and reducing
Fiji’s greenhouse gas emissions to
long-term emissions reduction target; - establishing a framework for securing
nationally and internationally derived fi –
nance for the implementation of the Act.
Ambition is not such a bad thing, but given Fiji’s limited resources, national priorities, and record of implementing existing laws, such ambitious targets set up the legislation for possible failure.
Our record for example, in enforcing Fiji’s litter laws, has not been impressive.
In a nutshell, the new CCA seeks to help Fiji deal with and address the challenges caused by global warming, and creates the framework to achieve this.
Curiously, however, the Act recognises that Fiji makes a very small contribution to global greenhouse gas levels (see section 5(g)).
This being the case, one wonders whether such an elaborate law is really necessary.
The pie chart shows CO2 emissions by region.
It is obvious from the pie chart that Fiji and her small island neighbours’ contribution to global CO2 emissions is negligible.
Fiji in other words, is not a big contributor to greenhouse gases which science tells us is responsible for global warming and climate change.
If you accept this as fact, then surely it must logically follow our policy and legislative response to the problem must be calibrated and proportionate to Fiji’s contribution to the problem.
There is little mention of rolling out the legislation in parts or raising awareness of the public or stakeholders.
The Act uses the “big stick” of punishment to encourage enforcement.
For example, if a person deliberately provides false or misleading information in a “material particular” under the CCA, he or she is liable on conviction to a fine of up to three quarters of a million dollars or a jail term of up to 10 years, or both.
To put things into perspective, this is in a country where the minimum wage is $2.68 an hour.
There is also the likelihood of the Climate Change Act overlapping with the Environment Management, the Town Planning, Local Government, Lands, Forestry and other Acts.
The latter was passed to ensure that Fiji’s commitments made at regional and international fora on environment and development are implemented.
It was also enacted to provide a framework to advise the government on international and regional treaties, conventions and agreements relating to the environment.
Conclusions
In 1971, Pope Paul VI referred to ecological concerns about planet Earth as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity saying, “Due to an ill-considered exploitation of nature, humanity runs the risk of destroying it and becoming in turn a victim of this degradation.”
Humans and human activities have been responsible for climate change. While Fiji has a brand new Climate Change Act, the challenge will be in ensuring that it is implemented in a cost effective way.
The fear is that it will be an additional burden which will add to the cost of doing business in a country which is already heavily regulated.
Glasgow should not just be another talk shop. COP26 needs to be resolute and move from talk, to action.
It is time for action.
Fiji and small island developing states from the Pacific must urge developed countries to put their money where their mouth, and to take urgent steps to reduce and mitigate climate change.
The rich industrialised countries and the big emitters of greenhouse gases must honour the $100 billion pledge to fund climate action and adaptation in developing states.
Climate finance for the poorest countries most affected by climate change must be identified and mobilised.
The developed countries, more advanced economies, especially the G7, and the biggest emitters must make stronger commitments from advanced economies to developing countries
Fiji and its Pacific neighbours are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We have seen this in floods and cyclones with villages disappearing under water or having to relocate.
There is no viable pathway to net zero emissions that does not involve protecting and restoring nature on an unprecedented scale.
If the world is serious about holding temperature rises to 1.5 degrees and adapting to the impacts of climate change, we must change the way we manage and protect the environment.
At COP26, Fiji must work with partners and like-minded states to take forward action on protecting and restoring forests and critical ecosystems.
Climate action plans to significantly reduce emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by mid-century, and to support adaptation to tackle climate threats must be agreed to.
The world will be watching to see whether its leaders have the resolve to address these critical issues.
- GRAHAM LEUNG is a lawyer and former director of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. The views expressed in this article are his and not of this newspaper
