Pacific Islands Nations Consider 'Pioneering' Treaty to Ban Fossil Fuels

July 14, 2016

'This is an avenue where the Pacific could again show or build on the moral and political leadership...to tackle climate change'

Published on Commondreams.org by Nadia Prupis

An aerial view of Marovo Lagoon in the Solomon Islands shows the effects of deforestation and climate change. (Photo: United Nations Photo/flickr/cc)

Pacific Island nations are reportedly considering the world's first treaty to ban fossil fuels, which would require signatories to work toward renewable energy targets and prohibit any expansion of fossil fuel mines.

The leaders of 14 nations on the front lines of climate change are considering the treaty after an annual summit in the Solomon Islands known as the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF). The treaty would establish a "Pacific framework for renewable energy" and require "universal access" to clean energy by 2030. It would also bind leaders not to approve any new coal or other fossil fuel mines nor provide subsidies for extraction or consumption.

"They seemed convinced that this is an avenue where the Pacific could again show or build on the moral and political leadership that they've shown earlier in their efforts to tackle climate change," PIDF climate change adviser Mahendra Kumar told the Guardian on Thursday.

The Guardian explains:

The PIDF was formed in 2013, spearheaded by Fiji, and excludes Australia and New Zealand, which are members of the older Pacific Islands Forum. There were claims at the time that Australia and New Zealand attempted to sabotage the group's first meeting.

[....] But the treaty being considered by the newer group embraces the aspirational 1.5C target set at Paris, setting mitigation targets that are in line with it, as well as establishing adaptation mechanisms to cope with the effects of that warming.

Kumar said the treaty could be adopted in 2018, though it was unlikely to happen earlier. The model treaty was crafted by the Pacific Island Climate Action Network (PICAN). According to the Guardian, the coalition of nongovernmental organizations wrote in a report that "The rationale is that potential Parties to the Treaty already possess the political courage and commitment needed to adopt a flagship legal instrument that is sufficiently ambitious to prevent catastrophic changes in the global climate system."

As Common Dreams reported in May, five Pacific Islands that make up part of the Solomon Islands' archipelago have already been lost to rising seas and coastal erosion associated with climate change. Residents have also been forced to relocate due to encroaching waters.

In 2015, the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of the most vulnerable Pacific Islands nations, demanded a moratorium on new coal mines.

PICAN's report continues: "As there is currently no treaty that bans or phases out fossil fuels, the Treaty would set a pioneering example to the rest of the world."

US military build-up on Guam worries islanders

US military build-up on Guam worries islanders

Fri, Jan 22, 2010
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan

HAGATNA, Jan 22, 2010 (AFP) - Residents of the US territory of Guam fear the planned influx of thousands of American troops and their families will leave their Pacific island home swamped.

Around 19,000 personnel and their families are set to relocate to Guam from southern Japan in a move that will treble the US military presence on the island.

But despite proclaimed economic benefits, not all of the 178,000-strong population is looking forward to the troops' arrival.

"This proposed military build-up, with our current political status, will result in the cultural and racial genocide of the Chamorro people," said Frank J. Schacher, chairman of the Chamorro Tribe Inc., a group representing the island's indigenous people, who make up a third of the population.

"It is our island, our ancestral remains, our sacred artifacts, our waters, our culture, and our right to exist as a race that would be destroyed by these intended actions."

It is a long time since the Chamorro have been masters of their own destiny: Spain controlled the island for more than two hundred years until the late 19th century, when it was taken over by the United States, and it was occupied by Japan during World War II.

In 2006, Washington and Tokyo agreed to shift thousands of marines from Okinawa after complaints that, with half of the country's 47,000 US military personnel, the island was over burdened.

Guam's US Congress delegate, Madeleine Bordallo, hailed the plan as a great opportunity for the territory. The local government and the business community have also welcomed an expected economic boom fuelled by the build-up.

"We acknowledge the unprecedented growth that lies ahead," Guam Governor Felix P. Camacho said recently.

"Our future, however, will test our resolve and we will be called upon to display our commitment to doing what is good and right for our people."

An 11,000-page US Defense Department draft environmental impact statement said the military expansion would strain the island's limited infrastructure, healthcare, and ecology.

The study says the relocation, costing up to 15 billion dollars, would bring 8,600 marines, 630 army personnel, and about 10,000 dependents to Guam.

More than 33,000 foreign workers would also be needed to build wharves, aircraft carrier berths, roads, military barracks, and homes.

The Guam Chamber of Commerce, an early supporter of the relocation, said it was not oblivious to growing scepticism within the community.

"We're the voice of the businesses, but our members all live in Guam too. So we're looking out for the best interests of our businesses and the community at large and so we're looking at everything," Chamber president David Leddy said.

"There are positive and negative impacts. We just have to weigh the positive and negative and see what's good for the people."

About a third of Guam's 549 square kilometres (212 square miles) is already owned by the US government, mainly for military use, and it wants to buy another 2,200 acres (890 hectares) as part of the troop transfer.

"Lands that our ancestors fought for are passed down from one generation to the next until they are indiscriminately taken away for purposes other than sustaining and nourishing the family clan," said Gloria B. Nelson, whose property is being eyed by the Department of Defense.

Melvin Won Pat, one of the founders of a new activist group opposed to the build-up, said it was false to suggest the move was supported by the wider community.

"I think a lot of our people have been misled into believing the general population is in full support of this move," he said.

The Department of Defense's Joint Guam Project Office, which is in charge of the relocation, has held a series of public meetings to discuss the draft report, but some locals remain sceptical.

"I refuse to dignify this whole charade," resident Filamore Alcon Palomo said.

"Attending public hearings would just be a waste of time because I know - everybody knows - this is a done deal. The military won't listen to us. They will do what they want to do."