No French flattery
p. 35 · Read in the full issue
LAST month France sent a message to a regional environmental meet ing congratulating the island na tions for their role in international negotiations to limit Greenhouse gas emmissions.
At the same meeting scientists confirmed predictions that the changes in climate and sea level associated with the Greenhouse Effect threaten the very future of as many as five island states.
More of that, and the island nation’s action plan to prevent Greenhouse damage, later.
France’s message was not just idle flattery.
The Pacific island nations have widely been seen as leading the world in nego tiations for an international climate conven
tion which would bind countries to reduce their emmissions of Greenhouse gases before the global warming they cause becomes a runaway process beyond the control of humankind.
The negotiations are no easy task.
The worst Greenhouse offenders are the powerful developed countries whose industrial structure and way of life relies on the burning of fossil fuels. It is these fossil fuels which produce most of the world’s carbon dioxide and other Greenhouse gases.
The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of more than 300 of the world’s top climate scientists, has conclude that cuts of more than 60 per cent are needed just to stabilise current concentrations of carbondioxide in the atmosphere.
Under the talented leadership of Vanuatu’s ambassador to the United nations, Robert Van Lierop, the 36-member Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has kept up the pressure for significant cuts in carbondioxide and other
Greenhouse gases.
In the negotiations Pacific islander’s traditional experience with consensus building has played a crucial part.
Over an afternoon of debate one Pacific voice after another, giving a similar but still slightly different point of view, accumulates to a point at which it is accepted by all 152
negotiating states.
Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands have all made 'egular contributions.
The secret of the islands’ success has ben a combination of ilhances with like minded nations, effective and flexible legotiating tactics, and being well briefed on the technical ispects of both the science and the law.
The convention is supposed to be ready for signature by the vorld’s head’s of government attending the United Nation’s conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Jrazil, next month.
Although the final result is not yet secure, James Cameron, Jirector of the International Environment Law Centre in .xmdon, is optimistic that the last few sticking points can be •vercomc.
Mr Cameron says the South Pacific contribution has been very important”.
“Not only have they (the South Pacific nations) acted as the onscience of the entire negotiating group, and to some extent •tilled some of the negotiating positions towards them, but ome of the countries which are inhibited, perhaps by existing nergy policies or strong energy lobbies, feel happy that the iland countries have taken what might be described as the ight view,” Cameron said.
Australia
“They have been the ones that have been most constructive in creating an ideal convention.”
While early success is limiting Greenhouse gas emmissions through the convention would help prevent Greenhouse damage in the South Pacific there is no chance that reductions will reach the 60 per cent necessary to halt the Greenhouse process.
As a result the island nations are taking steps to protect themselves through a multi faceted climate change action plan to be implemented with assistance from SPREP (the South Pacific Regional Environment Program).
Its was the development of this action plan which brought eight island nations as well as Australia, New Zealand, France,
New Caledonia and the United States together for last month’s environment meeting in Noumea.
Scientists told the meeting that the Pacific islands might be in store for some dramatic changes.
These include increased frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions such as cyclones, storm surges and droughts, saltwater contamination of groundwater (important for human consumption and agriculture), loss of farm land, damage to villages, roads and other infrastructure and loss of
bio-diversity.
While many of theses problems may not emerge for decades, some are already noticable (even if in most cases they are the result of other causes).
Delegates were keen to draw up a plan which would begin to protect the islands now rather than waiting umil after a disaster to respond.
The climate change action plan aims to:
• Bring together all aspects of coastal planning and environmental assessment and regulation under one pro gramme (known as coastal zone management) which would ensure that vulnerable areas and their adjacent shorelines and marine habitat gel priority attention; • improve the region’s ability to predict and respond to extreme weather and sea level events by greatly increasing the range of information available on oceanic, atmospheric and environmental conditions; • improve and protect fresh water supplies. • minimise Greenhouse problems for agriculture by detailed assessment of vulnerable areas and encouraging projects such as the development of salt and drought resistant strains of common crops; • assess the likely impact of Greenhouse changes (such as Hooding and cyclones) on infrastructure such m coastal roads, airports, telecommunications, wharves and garbage dumps and prepare a response strategy; • establish the impact of warmer seas and changed patterns of currents on marine resources, in particular on economically important fish slocks; • investigate issues associated with resettlement of vulnerable populations including any land tenure or compensation questions likely to present diflicullies.
The climate change action plan will go to governments for their approval later this year. If progress with the first action plan, drawn up in the Marshall Islands three years ago, is anything to judge by it will lead to some important steps forward.
