All posts by wantok

Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries

New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than the other way around. Why?

e have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies – but that’s all in the past. These days, they give more than $125bn (£102bn) in aid each year – solid evidence of their benevolent goodwill.

This story is so widely propagated by the aid industry and the governments of the rich world that we have come to take it for granted. But it may not be as simple as it appears.

The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.

What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.

In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States

What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.

What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 – a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeria’s oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africa’s gold mines.

Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system. Basically, corporations – foreign and domestic alike – report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as “trade misinvoicing”. Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five.

GFI doesn’t include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.

That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.

Who is to blame for this disaster? Since illegal capital flight is such a big chunk of the problem, that’s a good place to start. Companies that lie on their trade invoices are clearly at fault; but why is it so easy for them to get away with it? In the past, customs officials could hold up transactions that looked dodgy, making it nearly impossible for anyone to cheat. But the World Trade Organisation claimed that this made trade inefficient, and since 1994 customs officials have been required to accept invoiced prices at face value except in very suspicious circumstances, making it difficult for them to seize illicit outflows.

Still, illegal capital flight wouldn’t be possible without the tax havens. And when it comes to tax havens, the culprits are not hard to identify: there are more than 60 in the world, and the vast majority of them are controlled by a handful of western countries. There are European tax havens such as Luxembourg and Belgium, and US tax havens like Delaware and Manhattan. But by far the biggest network of tax havens is centered around the City of London, which controls secrecy jurisdictions throughout the British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

In other words, some of the very countries that so love to tout their foreign aid contributions are the ones enabling mass theft from developing countries.

The aid narrative begins to seem a bit naïve when we take these reverse flows into account. It becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world. It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system really works.

Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice. And justice is not difficult to deliver. We could write off the excess debts of poor countries, freeing them up to spend their money on development instead of interest payments on old loans; we could close down the secrecy jurisdictions, and slap penalties on bankers and accountants who facilitate illicit outflows; and we could impose a global minimum tax on corporate income to eliminate the incentive for corporations to secretly shift their money around the world.

We know how to fix the problem. But doing so would run up against the interests of powerful banks and corporations that extract significant material benefit from the existing system. The question is, do we have the courage?

Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/

For Pacific Island States, Climate Change Is an Existential Threat

 By Grant Wyeth

The decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has caused much concern across the Pacific. Pacific Island states are some of the most vocal advocates for aggressive carbon reduction targets, and the Paris Agreement had been welcomed at the time of its creation by Pacific Island states.

For many Pacific Island states, the current forecasts for rising sea levels due to climate change will severely impact their territory. For island states such a Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands, rising sea levels are a genuine and immediate existential threat. These island states exist on territory that rises only a few meters above sea level, at best. This means that any rise in the sea level, no matter how incremental, eats into their very limited landmass. The current predicted sea level rise of 2 meters by 2100 would mean an almost total submersion for these three states.

Other Pacific Island states will also be greatly affected. Five low-lying islands within the Solomon Island archipelago have already been submerged. Changes in both geographic features and water temperatures also have the potential to alter the fishing stocks that Pacific Islands states rely on for food security.

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga was so concerned by Trump’s decision that he ordered his country’s officials to cancel any cooperation with the United States until Washington has a new climate change policy in place. In regards to Trump’s decision, Sopoaga stated: “I think it doesn’t make any sense to talk about any other thing if we don’t fix the problem of climate change… We are very, very distressed, I think this a very destructive, obstructive statement from a leader of perhaps the biggest polluter on earth and we are very disappointed as a small island country already suffering the effects of climate change.”The global, stateless, nature of the climate change phenomenon is keenly understood by Pacific Islands. With little capacity to stem this threat to their existence themselves, these countries rely on the big players to instigate reforms that might prevent more drastic warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and surfaces.

For Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, a man who has set himself up as the global champion of the interests of Pacific Island states, the decision was disappointing, but he remained hopeful international cooperation could still result, stating: “I did what I could — along with many leaders around the world — to try to persuade President Trump to remain standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us as we tackled the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced. While the loss of America’s leadership is unfortunate, this a struggle that is far from over.”

Trump’s decision came right before Fiji assumes the presidency of Conference of the Parties (COP), the annual forum for countries that signed up to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The forum will be held in Bonn, Germany from November 6-17 this year.

Fiji’s presidency is a historic event, as it is the first Small Island Developing State to hold the presidency. Fiji’s presidency was designed to highlight the problems that climate change is producing for Pacific Island states — not just rising sea levels, but more intense weather events causing severe destruction, like Cyclone Winston last year, which caused damage valued at 10 percent of the country’s GDP.

In his speech to the UN Climate Change Conference in May (a precursor to the COP23 forum in November), Bainimarama reaffirmed Fiji’s commitment to the goals and the implementation of the Paris Agreement. He outlined his vision that Fiji’s presidency of the COP would have the interests of small island states at its core, wishing to build a coalition of partners to help these states build greater resilience against rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement severely undermines Bainimarama’s position, and Fiji’s prominent role in a major multilateral forum.

While Pacific Island leaders have been disappointed with Trump’s decision, that other major powers have reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris agreement will give them some solace. The recent India-Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Conference held in Suva, Fiji, is an indication that other significant powers have an understanding of the situation that Pacific Island states are in. The hope will be that the recalcitrance of the world’s major power will only be temporary, and a future administration will reaffirm its commitment to the Paris goals.

Source: https://thediplomat.com/ 

Genetic ‘trace’ in Papuan genomes suggests two expansions out of Africa

Date:September 21, 2016

Source: University of Cambridge

Summary:

A new study of human genomic diversity suggests there may have in fact been two successful dispersals out of Africa, and that a “trace” of the earlier of these two expansion events has lingered in the genetics of modern Papuans.  

Abstract:

A new study of human genomic diversity suggests there may have in fact been two successful dispersals out of Africa, and that a “trace” of the earlier of these two expansion events has lingered in the genetics of modern Papuans.  

Three major genetic studies are published today in the same issue of Nature. All three agree that, for the most part, the genomes of contemporary non-African populations show signs of only one expansion of modern humans out of Africa: an event that took place sometime after 75,000 years ago.   

Two of the studies conclude that, if there were indeed earlier expansions of modern humans out of Africa, they have left little or no genetic trace. The third, however, may have found that ‘trace’. 

This study, led by Drs Luca Pagani and Toomas Kivisild from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, has found a “genetic signature” in present-day Papuans that suggests at least 2% of their genome originates from an even earlier, and otherwise extinct, dispersal of humans out of Africa.

Papuans and Philippine Negritos are populations that inhabit Papua New Guinea and some of the surrounding islands in Southeast Asia and Oceania. In the genomes of these populations, the researchers discovered more of the African ‘haplotypes’ – groups of genes linked closely enough to be inherited from a single source – than in any other present-day population.   

Extensive analysis on the extra 2% of African haplotypes narrowed down the split between African (Yoruban) and Papuan lineages to around 120,000 years ago – a remarkable 45,000 years prior to the very earliest that the main African expansion could have occurred.  

The study analysed genomic diversity in 125 human populations at an unprecedented level of detail, based on 379 high resolution whole genome sequences from across the world generated by an international collaboration led by the Cambridge team and colleagues from the Estonian Biocentre.   

Lead researcher Luca Pagani said: “Papuans share for most part same evolutionary history as all other non-Africans, but our research shows they may also contain some remnants of a chapter that is also yet to be described.

“While our research is in almost complete agreement with all other groups with regard to a single out-of-Africa event, this scenario cannot fully account for some genetic peculiarities in the Papuan genomes we analysed.”

Pagani says the sea which separates the ‘ecozones’ of Asia and Australasia may have played a part: “The Wallace line is a channel of deep sea that was never dry during the ice ages. This constant barrier may have contributed to isolating and hence preserving the traces of the otherwise extinct lineage in Papuan populations.”

Toomas Kivisild said: “We believe that at least one additional human expansion out of Africa took place before the major one described in our research and others. These people diverged from the rest of Africans about 120,000 years ago, colonising some land outside of Africa. The 2% of the Papuan genome is the only remaining trace of this otherwise extinct lineage.”

The Estonian Biocentre’s Dr Mait Metspalu said: “This endeavour was uniquely made possible by the anonymous sample donors and the collaboration effort of nearly one hundred researchers from 74 different research groups from all over the world.”

Metspalu’s colleague Richard Villems added: “Overall this work provides an invaluable contribution to the understanding of our evolutionary past and to the challenges that humans faced when settling down in ever-changing environments.”

Researchers say the deluge of freely available data will serve as future starting point to further studies on the genetic history of modern and ancient human populations.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Cambridge. The original story is licensed under a Creative Commons LicenceNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Luca Pagani, Daniel John Lawson, Evelyn Jagoda, Alexander Mörseburg, Anders Eriksson, Mario Mitt, Florian Clemente, Georgi Hudjashov, Michael DeGiorgio, Lauri Saag, Jeffrey D. Wall, Alexia Cardona, Reedik Mägi, Melissa A. Wilson Sayres, Sarah Kaewert, Charlotte Inchley, Christiana L. Scheib, Mari Järve, Monika Karmin, Guy S. Jacobs, Tiago Antao, Florin Mircea Iliescu, Alena Kushniarevich, Qasim Ayub, Chris Tyler-Smith, Yali Xue, Bayazit Yunusbayev, Kristiina Tambets, Chandana Basu Mallick, Lehti Saag, Elvira Pocheshkhova, George Andriadze, Craig Muller, Michael C. Westaway, David M. Lambert, Grigor Zoraqi, Shahlo Turdikulova, Dilbar Dalimova, Zhaxylyk Sabitov, Gazi Nurun Nahar Sultana, Joseph Lachance, Sarah Tishkoff, Kuvat Momynaliev, Jainagul Isakova, Larisa D. Damba, Marina Gubina, Pagbajabyn Nymadawa, Irina Evseeva, Lubov Atramentova, Olga Utevska, François-Xavier Ricaut, Nicolas Brucato, Herawati Sudoyo, Thierry Letellier, Murray P. Cox, Nikolay A. Barashkov, Vedrana Škaro, Lejla Mulahasanovic´, Dragan Primorac, Hovhannes Sahakyan, Maru Mormina, Christina A. Eichstaedt, Daria V. Lichman, Syafiq Abdullah, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Joseph T. S. Wee, Evelin Mihailov, Alexandra Karunas, Sergei Litvinov, Rita Khusainova, Natalya Ekomasova, Vita Akhmetova, Irina Khidiyatova, Damir Marjanović, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Doron M. Behar, Elena Balanovska, Andres Metspalu, Miroslava Derenko, Boris Malyarchuk, Mikhail Voevoda, Sardana A. Fedorova, Ludmila P. Osipova, Marta Mirazón Lahr, Pascale Gerbault, Matthew Leavesley, Andrea Bamberg Migliano, Michael Petraglia, Oleg Balanovsky, Elza K. Khusnutdinova, Ene Metspalu, Mark G. Thomas, Andrea Manica, Rasmus Nielsen, Richard Villems, Eske Willerslev, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu. Genomic analyses inform on migration events during the peopling of EurasiaNature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature19792

MLA: University of Cambridge. “Genetic ‘trace’ in Papuan genomes suggests two expansions out of Africa.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 September 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921131119.htm>.

APA: University of Cambridge. (2016, September 21). Genetic ‘trace’ in Papuan genomes suggests two expansions out of Africa. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 20, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921131119.htm

‘Small and Far’: Pacific Island States Gather at Annual Forum

The 16 states are meeting this week to discuss regional challenges, particularly climate change.

The forum describes its mission as: “to work in support of forum member governments, to enhance the economic and social well-being of the people of the South Pacific by fostering cooperation between governments and between international agencies, and by representing the interests of forum members in ways agreed by the forum.” It has met annually since 1971, when the forum was founded as the South Pacific Forum.

Sixteen states in the South Pacific are members of the Pacific Islands Forum: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Reflecting the predominant geographic nature of the forum’s members, the theme for this year’s summit is: “Small and Far: Challenges for Growth.” While each of the members have small land masses and populations (Australia aside), their combined sovereignty covers an area of 8,538,293 sq km (3,296,653 sq mi), making their agreement over maritime concerns important not only for members of the forum, but also for states outside the forum with interests in the South Pacific.This geographic reality is usually reflected in the priority of regional fisheries and shipping lanes on the forum’s agenda. However, in recent years the impact of climate change has begun to dominate discussions within the forum.

The smaller states within the South Pacific have become a leading voice on the global stage on the issue of climate change and its potential effects on human security, as well as the environment. Pacific Island nations take climate change extremely seriously, with some forecasts predicting a potential loss of territory due to rising sea levels. For Tuvalu, a country whose highest point is only 4 meters above sea level, rising sea levels are very real threat to its existence.

This puts them at great odds with the region’s main power. Low-lying Pacific Islands deem Australia’s continued reliance on coal, as both a source of energy and a major export, a menace. Australia remains the third largest producer of coal in the world (behind China and the United States), and the world’s largest exporter of the fossil fuel, with no intention of shifting these positions.

The most prominent external issue for the forum will remain its interest in the Indonesian province of West Papua. In June this year the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu informed the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva that they were very concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in West Papua. While representatives from West Papua have no involvement in the forum, many of the Melanesian states like the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea maintain a strong ethnic solidarity with the Indonesian province, and pay special attention to developments there.

At last year’s Forum in Port Moresby a decision was reached to organize a fact finding mission to West Papua. However, Jakarta indicated it would not welcome any delegation, and had problems with the use of the term “fact-finding.” However, West Papuan leaders in exile remain hopeful that a push for similar pressure on Indonesia will develop from this year’s forum. However, with Australia keen to maintain friendly relations with Indonesia, it is doubtful Canberra will add too much of its weight to these concerns.

The other major concern for the forum will be the continued negotiations of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (known as PACER Plus). There is a developing consensus among the smaller Pacific Islands states that this agreement would not promote further economic development. Given that these island states already have tariff-free and duty-free access to the Australian and New Zealand markets the PACER Plus agreement would do little to enhance this reality.

Fiji’s Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, has stated there “aren’t enough pluses” for Fiji to warrant signing the agreement, and the PNG Trade Minister has flatly stated he is “not interested” in it.  Of greater importance to the Pacific Island states is freer labor mobility for unskilled and semi-skilled workers within the Australian and New Zealand markets. This is seen as having a far more direct positive economic impact for these countries.

The forum will conclude on Sunday September 11 with its traditional communiqué of conclusions reached to be published shortly after.

Blackbirding’s dark secrets revealed

Indira Stewart – indira.stewart@radionz.co.nz

More than 150 years on, many descendants of the victims of blackbirders still don’t know about the dark history which brought around 60,000 Pacific Islanders to Australia.

About 60,000 Pacific Islanders were taken from their mainly Melanesian homelands to Australia in the 1800s to work on plantations. Photo: State Library of Queensland
About 60,000 Pacific Islanders were taken from their mainly Melanesian homelands to Australia in the 1800s to work on plantations. Photo: State Library of Queensland

The short film “Blackbird” has been helping to raise awareness about Australia’s blackbirding history which saw mainly Melanesians kidnapped and sent to work on plantations in the 1800s.

The film was the culmination of a long personal journey for Australian Solomon Island filmmaker, Amie Batalibasi, who wanted to find out more about the experiences of Pacific Islanders in Australia who were blackbirded.

Some people just died of heartbreak Amie Batalibasi

The late 19th century practice of “blackbirding” involved recruiting, often by force and deception, labourers from Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji to work on the sugar and cotton plantations of Queensland.

Although three of her ancestors were blackbirded, she said she knew very little about the history of the trade.

“This history is one that’s very much been shoved under the carpet in Australia, but what does remain is this oral history that has been passed down from generation to generation.

“And you know, I was very privileged to have worked with the South Sea Islander community in and around Brisbane, so through that, I was able to hear some of those stories.”

The cast of the film "Blackbird" Photo: Supplied
The cast of the film “Blackbird” Photo: Supplied

The cast of the film “Blackbird” Photo: Supplied

One of the film’s actors, Jeremy Bobby, said he also had no knowledge about Australia’s blackbirding history.

“To be quite honest, everyone that I speak to, and I say the term ‘blackbird’ – no one knows a clue and this is like, in Australia, this is in Brisbane.

All my friends in Brisbane, my family that I speak to, they really don’t know anything about it and it shows how much has been shoved under the rug, how much we actually haven’t been told.”

The main characters in "Blackbird", Solomon Islander siblings Rosa and Kiko. They were blackbirded to work on a sugar cane plantation in Queensland in the late 1800s. Photo: Supplied
The main characters in “Blackbird”, Solomon Islander siblings Rosa and Kiko. They were blackbirded to work on a sugar cane plantation in Queensland in the late 1800s. Photo: Supplied

The main characters in “Blackbird”, Solomon Islander siblings Rosa and Kiko. They were blackbirded to work on a sugar cane plantation in Queensland in the late 1800s. Photo: Supplied

Blackbird tells the story of Solomon Islander siblings, Rosa and Kiko, who were kidnapped from their island home to work on a sugar cane plantation in Queensland in the late 1800s.

The stories shared by other South Sea Islanders who shed light on the experiences of their ancestors helped Ms Batalibasi during the film’s production.

“It was a lot about hardships and how people came over and a lot about the loss of culture and how hard it was and a lot about how people died as well.

Many of them died of sickness and actually one thing that I did hear was, many people mentioned that some people just died of heartbreak of just being taken and being in an alien environment and having such harsh conditions.”

Ms Batalibasi said question and answer sessions held after some of the film’s screenings allowed other descendants of Islanders who were blackbirded to share their stories as well.

“Blackbird” is showing at the New Zealand International Film FestivalNZIFF 2016 – the Widescreen previewThe Art of Etiquette – film festivalsThe Pacific beatFilmmakers reaching out over the PacificNZ film hopes to start West Papua conversation

Source: RNZ

Indonesia’s Salim Group linked to ‘secret’ palm oil concessions in West Papua

The conglomerate appears to be concealing its involvement in the heavily forested region through offshore mechanisms.

One of Indonesia’s largest conglomerates, the Salim Group, has likely acquired four palm oil concessions in West Papua using a complex network of shared directorships and offshore companies, new research suggests.

Online watchdog awas MIFEE reported in May it had uncovered  evidence  that the four plantations — PT Rimbun Sawit Papua, PT Subur Karunia Raya, PT Bintuni Agro Prima Perkasa and PT Menara Wasior — were under the Salim Group’s control after discovering directorship and shareholding links that are not declared in the Salim Group’s stock exchange filings.

The organisation said the use of shell companies and offshore mechanisms appeared to be an attempt to distance the Salim Group from association with contentious projects and maintain a veneer of responsibility while quietly flouting its own sustainability guidelines, which include a ban on converting ecologically important High Conservation Value areas.

Deeds for the four concessionaires obtained by awas MIFEE show the firms all share addresses associated with the Salim Group, while many of their directors have previously worked for the conglomerate, which was founded by the late Liem Sioe Liong, also known as Sudono Salim, a prominent beneficiary of General Suharto’s decades-long New Order regime.

Despite the links with the Salim Group, the four companies have not been registered as subsidiaries of Indofood Agri Resources (IndoAgri), the company’s agribusiness division and a listed company on the Singapore Stock Exchange, or indeed any other publicly traded Salim Group firm, the research shows.

The Salim Group appears to have reacted to this challenge by picking and choosing which of its plantation assets [it integrates] into its publicly listed businesses, and carefully shielding the more problematic concessions behind layers of shell companies and offshore firms.

online environment watchdog awas MIFEE 

IndoAgri is the third-largest private producer of crude palm oil and while other major producers, such as Wilmar and Sinar Mas, have cancelled expansion plans in heavily forested Papua, no such pledges have been made by the Salim Group.

“The Salim Group appears to have reacted to this challenge by picking and choosing which of its plantation assets [it integrates] into its publicly listed businesses, and carefully shielding the more problematic concessions behind layers of shell companies and offshore firms,” the organisation reports.

Selwyn Moran of awas MIFEE said it was only in the last five years that Papua had become a frontier region for palm oil expansion, endangering vulnerable ecosystems, many of which had not yet been surveyed by ecologists.

“There are also serious concerns for the indigenous people of Papua. In most, if not all existing palm oil plantations, local indigenous communities living nearby have complained that the plantations have brought them no benefit,” he said, “and instead they have lost the forest they depended on for their subsistence — the sago palms which are their staple food, the animals they hunt, and other forest products which they sell.”

Despite being less exposed to international supply chains than its competitors, IndoAgri has attempted to placate critics of its practices by joining the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and publishing regular sustainability reports, which awas MIFEE said was evidence of “greenwashing.”

But the evidence suggests the conglomerate continues to invest in plantations in the Papua region, Moran said.

Satellite images taken in February of the Rimbun Sawit Papua concession in Fakfak district show roads have been constructed in much of the southwest of the plot, while a recruitment firm has been hired to source some 1,200 migrant workers from Java. Apparent shell companies — PT Palmandiri Plantation and PT Sawit Timur Nusantara — registered to known Salim Group addresses in Jakarta bought a majority stake in the company in 2011.

“Apart from the direct habitat loss, an influx of people to the area as workers would also put stress on the surrounding forest, as more people would go hunting wildlife such as cassowaries, song birds and forest marsupials like cuscus,” said Moran.

In the Kebar Valley, about 100 kilometers west of Manokwari city, Bintuni Agro Prima Perkasa was granted a permit for 19,369 hectares in September 2014 after it was bought out in July of that year by PT Cahaya Agro Pratama, which also has a significant stake in Rimbun Sawit Papua, while several of its directors have links to other Salim Group enterprises.

North of Bintuni town, Subur Karunia Raya holds a permit to develop 38,700 hectares of what was once state forest land, where work was reportedly started late last year. A Salim Group-linked company holds almost all of the shares, the remainder being owned by its director, Rapman Hutabarat, who is also on the board of Rimbun Sawit Papua. Several other directors and commissioners hold positions at other Salim Group-linked firms.

Of the four plantations, the 28,280-hectare concession held by Menara Wasior is to date the most noteworthy for the outspoken opposition of the local Mairasi and Miere tribes of Teluk Wondama district. The memory of a bloody 2001 assault on the local communities by security forces working for two logging companies has left many traumatised and, along with ongoing confrontations with loggers, has contributed to widespread opposition to the plans. The firm, as with the others, is registered to the same address as a company that has numerous Salim Group-linked directors on its board.

Edi Suryanto, a Salim Group representative, referred questions to Muhammad Waras, sustainability manager for PT Salim Ivomas Pratama, the Salim Group’s palm oil arm. At the time of writing Waras had not responded to requests for comment.

Jago Wadley, senior forest campaigner at the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), said the links presented in awas MIFEE’s research had highlighted the “fundamental risks” to the sustainability policies of Salim Group customers such as Wilmar and Golden Agri Resources, which have pledged to eliminate deforestation and rights abuses from their supply chains.

“Companies that violate the policies of their customers risk losing their customers. EIA urges progressive palm oil buyers to send a clear message to palm oil barons that they will no longer tolerate mass deforestation and land grabbing where such practices undermine their own corporate reputations and customer base,” he said.

Moran of awas MIFEE said the Salim Group’s apparent interests in West Papua were not uncommon.

“Across Indonesia, palm oil companies have been guilty of bulldosing community lands just as they have flattened biodiverse forests. People, biodiversity, and the global climate are often the victims. Papua is no different. Responsible buyers are seeking to distance their supply chains from such outcomes, while some of the palm oil barons that supply them seek to continue business-as-usual expansion.”

Except for Menara Wasior, the Salim Group-linked concessions have all obtained permission to develop the land from the forestry ministry, which has promised to audit existing licenses in the wake of last year’s fire and haze crisis, after which President Joko Widodo declared a moratorium on new palm oil permits.

“If the government does review permits for plantations which have not yet started planting, it must also conduct a full review of active plantations,” said Moran.

“It should recognise that the way permits have been allocated in recent years, characterized by a lack of transparency, frequent irregularities, inadequate social and environmental impact assessments and a failure to allow local indigenous communities to freely decide the future of their ancestral land, have meant that several existing plantations are subject to ongoing disputes which are continuing to seriously affect those local communities.”

This story was published with permission from Mongabay.com

Source: https://www.eco-business.com/

Five Pacific islands lost to rising seas as climate change hits

Six more islands have large swaths of land, and villages, washed into sea as coastline of Solomon Islands eroded and overwhelmed

Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion, a discovery thought to be the first scientific confirmation of the impact of climate change on coastlines in the Pacific, according to Australian researchers.

The submerged islands were part of the Solomon Islands, an archipelago that over the last two decades has seen annual sea levels rise as much as 10mm (0.4in), according to research published in the May issue of the online journal Environmental Research Letters.

The missing islands, ranging in size from 1 to 5 hectares (2.5-12.4 acres) were not inhabited by humans.

But six other islands had large swaths of land washed into the sea and on two of those, entire villages were destroyed and people forced to relocate, the researchers found.

One was Nuatambu island, home to 25 families, which has lost 11 houses and half its inhabitable area since 2011, the research said.

The study is the first that scientifically “confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people,” the researchers wrote in a separate commentary on an academic website.

The scientists used aerial and satellite images dating back to 1947 of 33 islands, as well as traditional knowledge and radiocarbon dating of trees for their findings.

The Solomon Islands, a nation made up of hundreds of islands and with a population of about 640,000, lies about 1,000 miles north-east of Australia.

The study raises questions about the role of government in relocation planning, said a Solomon Islands official.

Map of Nuatambu Island.

 

“This ultimately calls for support from development partners and international financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund,” Melchior Mataki, head of the Solomon Islands’ National Disaster Council, was quoted as saying in the commentary.

The Green Climate Fund, part of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was founded to help countries deal with climate change.

Ad hoc relocation has occurred on the islands, the study said. Several Nuatambu islanders moved to a neighbouring, higher volcanic island, the study said. Other people were forced to move from the island of Nararo.

Sirilo Sutaroti, 94, is among those who had to relocate from Nararo. He told researchers: “The sea has started to come inland, it forced us to move up to the hilltop and rebuild our village there away from the sea.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/ 

Sea levels set to ‘rise far more rapidly than expected’

New research factors in collapsing Antarctic ice sheet that could double the sea-level rise to two metres by 2100 if emissions are not cut

Antarctica’s snowfall was expected to keep the ice sheet in balance but it is less stable than previously thought.
Antarctica’s snowfall was expected to keep the ice sheet in balance but it is less stable than previously thought. Photograph: Steve Mandel / Barcroft Media

Sea levels could rise far more rapidly than expected in coming decades, according to new research that reveals Antarctica’s vast ice cap is less stable than previously thought.

The UN’s climate science body had predicted up to a metre of sea level rise this century – but it did not anticipate any significant contribution from Antarctica, where increasing snowfall was expected to keep the ice sheet in balance.

According a study, published in the journal Nature, collapsing Antarctic ice sheets are expected to double sea-level rise to two metres by 2100, if carbon emissions are not cut.

Previously, only the passive melting of Antarctic ice by warmer air and seawater was considered but the new work added active processes, such as the disintegration of huge ice cliffs.

“This [doubling] could spell disaster for many low-lying cities,” said Prof Robert DeConto, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the work. He said that if global warming was not halted, the rate of sea-level rise would change from millimetres per year to centimetres a year. “At that point it becomes about retreat [from cities], not engineering of defences.”

As well as rising seas, climate change is also causing storms to become fiercer, forming a highly destructive combination for low-lying cities like New York, Mumbai and Guangzhou. Many coastal cities are growing fast as populations rise and analysis by World Bank and OECD staff has shown that global flood damage could cost them $1tn a year by 2050 unless action is taken.

The cities most at risk in richer nations include Miami, Boston and Nagoya, while cities in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Ivory Coast are among those most in danger in less wealthy countries.

The new research follows other recent studies warning of the possibility of ice sheet collapse in Antarctica and suggesting huge sea-level rises. But the new work suggests that major rises are possible within the lifetimes of today’s children, not over centuries.

“The bad news is that in the business-as-usual, high-emissions scenario, we end up with very, very high estimates of the contribution of Antarctica to sea-level rise” by 2100, DeConto told the Guardian. But he said that if emissions were quickly slashed to zero, the rise in sea level from Antarctic ice could be reduced to almost nothing.

“This is the good news,” he said. “It is not too late and that is wonderful. But we can’t say we are 100% out of the woods.” Even if emissions are slashed, DeConto said, there remains a 10% chance that sea level will rise significantly.

Prof David Vaughan, at the British Antarctic Survey and not part of the research team, said: “The new model includes for the first time a projection of how in future, the Antarctic ice sheet may to lose ice through processes that today we only see occurring in Greenland.

“I have no doubt that on a century to millennia timescale, warming will make these processes significant in Antarctica and drive a very significant Antarctic contribution to sea level rise. The big question for me is, how soon could this all begin. I’m not sure, but these guys are definitely asking the right questions.”

Active physical processes are well-known ways of breaking up ice sheets but had not been included in complex 3D models of the Antarctic ice sheet before. The processes include water from melting on the surface of the ice sheet to flow down into crevasses and widen them further. “Meltwater can have a really deleterious effect,” said DeConto. “It’s an attack on the ice sheet from above as well as below.”

Today, he said, summer temperatures approach or just exceed freezing point around Antarctica: “It would not take much warming to see a pretty dramatic increase [in surface melting] and it would happen very quickly.”

The new models also included the loss of floating ice shelves from the coast of Antarctica, which currently hold back the ice on land. The break-up of ice shelves can also leave huge ice cliffs 1,000m high towering over the ocean, which then collapse under their own weight, pushing up sea level even further.

The scientists calibrated their model against geological records of events 125,000 years ago and 3m years ago, when the temperature was similar to today but sea level was much higher.

Sea-level rise is also driven by the expansion of water as it gets warmer and in January scientists suggested this factor had been significantly underestimated, adding further weight to concerns about future rises.

Recent temperatures have been shattering records and on Monday, it was announced that the Arctic ice cap had been reduced to its smallest winter areasince records began in 1979, although the melting of this already floating sea ice does not push up ocean levels.

Cyclone Winston Wreaks Havoc on Fiji

It was one of the South Pacific’s fiercest storms on record.

Cyclone Winston Wreaks Havoc on Fiji
Image Credit: NOAA

Cyclone Winston, which made a direct hit on the Fijian island of Koro over the weekend, was the first Category 5 cyclone to make landfall on Fijian territory in recorded history. The latest reported numbers indicate that 42 people have died as a result of the storm, with aid agencies warning that more may die in the storm’s aftermath as the small country rushes to reach communities on remote islands.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a U.S. agency, the storm’s winds were estimated to have reached 185 mph. Tom Di Liberto, a meteorologist with NOAA’s climate prediction center, wrote that it  “was one of the strongest storms ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.”

With the storm over, the recovery has begun but the task is monumental. The Fijian government declared a month-long state of emergency and put out calls for assistance. The storm did not make a direct hit on the country’s capital, Suva, but wreaked havoc on Koro and many of the country’s other islands. There are more than 330 Fijian islands, about a third of which are inhabited.

Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama gave a national address Wednesday in which he said, “Almost no part of our nation has been left unscarred.” Per the Sydney Morning Herald, Bainimarama focused attention on immediate concerns: food, water, and shelter.Cyclone Winston flattened homes, caused extensive coastal flooding and knocked out utility and communication systems. The storm also irreparably damaged sugarcane crops.

Radio New Zealand reports that New Zealand, Australia, and France have sent relief flights and the United States, China, India, and the EU have all offered financial assistance. The New Zealand Navy is dispatching the HMNZS Canterbury, a multi-role vessel,  and the HMNZS Wellington, an offshore patrol vessel, loaded with supplies to assist in recovery efforts.

Numerous aid agencies and international organizations have pledged help for Fiji. The Asian Development Bank committed to $2 million in emergency assistance. The Red Cross says it had mobilized more than 300 staff and volunteers in the islands and is releasing emergency funds to the Fiji Red Cross.

Days after the storm aid still seems sluggish for some, as Kim Baker Wilson makes clear in a report for Radio New Zealand from Rakiraki, a district on the northern edge of the island of Fiji’s main island of Vitu Levu. An estimated 1,000 homes were destroyed in Rakiraki.

And more is needed. Ewan Perrin, the newly-appointed permanent secretary for Communication and Information Technology, said that Fiji would “definitely need more international assistance.” From his comments reported by Radio New Zealand, Perrin said Fiji had “everything that we need at this stage” but that more assistance would be needed in the medium to long term.

Fiji’s economy is built on sugar and tourism, both of which are likely to take a massive hit in the storm’s wake.

Last year, Cyclone Pam made a direct hit on Vanuatu, devastating the country. In the months after the storm, Vanuatu’s political system nearly imploded with a quarter of the parliament jailed on corruption charges.

Pacific island nations–like Fiji–have led the charge on climate change globally, sounding the warning siren because their communities will be among the first affected by rising sea levels and worsening storms. Ahead of the Paris climate change talks last year, Bainimarama warned,“Unless the world acts decisively in the coming weeks to begin addressing the greatest challenge of our age, then the Pacific, as we know it, is doomed.”

Green growth, activism & Pacific regionalism – in conversation with Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi

Tess Newton Cain, Feiloakitau Kaho Tevi

To reboot Pacific Conversations, Tess recently met with Fei Tevi over coffee in Port Vila. You can hear a podcast of their conversation here and read a transcript here. For the highlights of what they discussed, read on…

I started by asking Fei to fill us in on his background and participation to date in development in the Pacific. Fei is now based in Vanuatu as a result of his wife Eleni’s position at the Melanesian Spearhead Group. He is working as a consultant to the governments of Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, assisting them in developing sustainable development policies and brings with him a wealth of experience in diplomacy, international relations and civil society activism and advocacy.

I am trained in diplomacy and international relations. I worked for the churches for a number of years, over a decade, both in Geneva, Switzerland and also here in the Pacific … prior to that, I was with the Pacific Concerns Resource Center, which is the secretariat to the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement. Very formative years, ’96 to 2000.

During 2015, Fei participated in the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) in Suva and was also in Port Moresby for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting. So I was keen to find out what he thought the relative strengths and weaknesses are of those regional groupings. In relation to the Pacific Islands Forum, Fei was quick to acknowledge the leadership input of Dame Meg Taylor and said he was watching with interest to see what the further impacts of that would be. He then told me categorically that he thought the issue of West Papua would be critical for the Pacific Islands Forum in the future:

And so this is what I’m saying. The Forum itself, the issue will be a determining factor how they treat West Papua and how they are able to get the political support around the issue. And it won’t go away.

In relation to the PIDF, Fei felt that it had achieved a significant success in 2015 by providing a space for Pacific island leaders to caucus around key issues, especially a joint position for the COP 21 talks in Paris, ahead of the Forum meeting in Port Moresby:

But I think PIDF had a role to play in harnessing the collective momentum of the countries, to stand together and say, “Yes, this is what we need.” And not to be pulled apart … We had one meeting after the other, and people saying the same things and coming right through and holding their stance at the Forum, saying “This is what we want, and this is what you get.” Despite all the pressures, despite all the checkbook diplomacy, everything was up to try and get the Pacific island countries to shift and take position. And kudos to them.

And then he provided a very important statement to define the role and place of the PIDF; one that I feel has not been so clearly and explicitly articulated before now:

…we need to have clarity on what PIDF is. It’s a space. Maintaining that space is a very difficult challenge. Everybody wants to cloud that space, Fiji included. Everybody wants to get that space, monopolise that space. As long as we can keep that space as an opportunity for people to come and talk about issues or challenges, talk about opportunities, discuss deals, that will form the character of PIDF. It’s not a CROP agency. It will not deliver on water tanks and water and sanitation programs. It’s not geared towards that.

We then moved on to discuss the concept of ‘green growth’ in the Pacific context, which is an aspect of development with which Fei has been very involved in recent years. I began by asking him how he conceptualises the Pacific concept of green growth, given that it appears to be something that has yet to achieve one accepted definition globally:

In the work that we’ve been doing over the last 3-4 years, in the Pacific, green growth has to do with lifestyles; green growth has to do with a sustainable approach to development. Green growth has to do with—the maturity of the countries to determine where and how they want to address development.

He sees the Pacific conceptualisation of green growth as being one that goes beyond technological interventions. So, next, I asked Fei to give me some sense of what green growth means in a practical sense. How can it or should it influence the way Pacific island countries do business? He took as his starting point the resilience of the communities in Vanuatu further to the impacts of Cyclone Pam last year.

…that for me expresses a set of values that for me green growth encompasses … And that’s part of, I guess, a sense of maturity that we are going through. The recognition that there is something that we can learn and that the future of the region, in terms of green growth, it’s within us. We need to find the tools to identify this and to identify those components of what we can achieve. So that’s one example we can quote. Examples of which time and time again, the resilient nature of these communities has expressed itself with or without help or foreign assistance. So we need to think about that. We need to think how that defines, how that defines growth for us.

Drawing on Fei’s longstanding and extensive involvement with civil society activism in our region, I asked him how he assessed the current capacity within that sector to influence national and regional decision-making about the important issues that we face. He reflected on the changing nature of activism in the region, which he felt had been blunted as a result of becoming ‘institutionalised’ in the 1990s. However, more recently, he had seen resurgence particularly around the issues of self-determination for West Papua and climate change activism:

You have the new environmental activists that are coming through, the young Solwarans, the Young Solwara movement, the Wan Solwara movement, the other groups that have— … PICAN, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. These are all young, new activists that are coming through.

I expressed a concern that a weakness for civil society at present in our region is a lack of access to and influence with governments. Fei was quite clear that governments in the region should do much more to include civil society in relevant discussions and policy formulation:

… I think we cannot point five of our fingers at civil society. I think there’s a lot of responsibility also that governments have to take on in terms of how they deal with civil society… there has to be a revisiting of what civil service means, and being a civil servant. You are a servant of the government, and by government means the people. So you serve the people. It’s not the other way around. The people don’t come in on their knees to come and ask for service. They shouldn’t. Citizens, rightfully, ask and request their assistance, and their service. Then I think there needs to be a give and take in this discussion.

Finally, we discussed the impact of the election of ‘Akilisi Pohiva as prime minister of Tonga and what it means for democracy in that country. He was quick to acknowledge that the early months have proved disappointing in some ways:

I think in the longer run, in the medium to long term, I think there’s a lot of benefit that can accrue from ‘Akilisi and his time, and his government being in place. I think there’s a lot of lessons that can be taken from the first year or so of ‘Akilisi’s government. A lot of questionable decisions.

He then went on to make a very interesting observation in relation to what we can expect from Tonga in terms of regional participation:

There is more good than bad—there’s more strengths than weaknesses that’s coming out of this government. The fact that, you know, Tonga has taken a strong stance on the issue of West Papua is a token of that and you will see, you will see this government taking on regional issues in a much more stronger way than in the past. The first year has been about consolidating and shifting the country at the national level. I think you will see Tonga playing a more influential role in the region in the future.

…something to look forward to, for sure.

Tess Newton Cain is a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre. Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi is a consultant to the governments of Solomon Islands and Vanuatu on sustainable development policies, and has experience in diplomacy, international relations and civil society activism and advocacy.