Last December, I wrote a brief analysis on the first version of the Climate Change Bill.
Almost a year later we the people are being invited to present further thoughts on this second iteration.
Albeit online and in the English language only, which grossly limits active participation on a law that has wide reaching consequences for us all.
With COP26 now being pushed back to 2021, virtual climate dialogues from November 23 to December 4 will fill in the gap this year.
The Bill suddenly resurrected after radio silence all year long and it appeared it could be passed in Parliament before the end of 2020 as stated by the Minister for Economy during his press conference.
Thankfully, now appears as if more time will be taken as the Bill is not currently slated for the next sitting of Parliament.
Where is the 1.5 target?
Once again the rallying point that a large ocean State like Fiji should lead the charge on, remains elusive. This second draft of the Bill continues to ignore reference to the 1.5 degree denying codification of this target, despite Article 2 of the Paris Agreement instructing government’s “to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”
Old versus new
What are the differences between the first version of the Bill and the second? In a nutshell, here are a few of the salient differences:
- Section 3 has dropped the previous clause giving the minister latitude to “make regulations to authorise participation in schemes adopted to regulate emissions from international aviation or international shipping”. This is odd given that the IMO and ICAO (where Fiji is member state), has, and continues to negotiate on curbing international shipping and aviation carbon emissions. Our Pacific neighbours Tuvalu, the Solomon Island and the Marshall Islands have been instrumental in advocating for decarbonisation at the IMO.
- The Bill in section 4 promises to provide for the development, implementation and review a national oceans policy, even though that oceans policy is a year late and is still being developed, having undergone a public consultation of a draft only weeks ago. q Section 5 which encompasses the principles of the draft law, has a new sub-section (f) that states, “climate change, and actions to address climate change, may have adverse effects on the workforce and people’s livelihoods, and Fiji will take steps to avoid or mitigate any such loss of income or livelihoods, and promote a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with Fiji’s development priorities”. What is this “just transition of the workforce’”? What does it mean? Have the relevant stakeholders been consulted? q Also in section 5, sub-section (g) retains the problematic reference to “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities in light of Fiji’s national circumstances”, that is more aligned to the arguments of developed and industrialised nations at the climate change negotiations.
- Section 5 has another new addition in sub-section (j) that says, “when taking action to address climate change Fiji will have regard to impacts on competitive neutrality”. What on God’s green earth does that mean?
- In section 11, the previously powerfully pitched Head of the climate change and international cooperation division, is now downgraded to a director of climate change role, with a reduced mandate that looks like it has been offloaded directly to the minister instead (s32). Likewise, the Cabinet committee on Climate and Disaster Risk that was provided for as an integral coordination platfrom and cabinet leadership in the old section 14, has been scrapped. The Minister for Economy cannot manage climate change as per all the provisions in this Bill without the support and buy in of the cabinet, unless
of course that was intentional. However, the question that looms large is: How serious is the Minister for Economy about climate change? Will this Bill only usher in bells and whistles? - Section 65 details a list of rights and freedoms as per the Constitution that climate change threatens. Curiously, the right
to life – for which climate change as a security threat poses a major risk – is not included? - The old Bill in section 93 had a 10-year moratorium on deep sea mining. This moratorium no longer exists in the new Bill. Do we really care about our oceans, or are we just mouthing off empty platitudes for global optics?
Climate insecurity
The Prime Minister recently proclaimed climate change as the number one national security threat. With the Bill making a
pointed reference to the Boe Declaration on Regional Security, it bears noting that the framing of climate change around unseen, unheard and unplanned for climate threats means major responsibility by our law enforcement and military arms to tread cautiously. Law enforcement and military capacities around the globe are also ensuring that their activities and carbon boot-prints are being scaled back. For Fiji, carbon guzzling bushmasters carrying trophies, or on random jaunts on public
roads are not examples of prudent carbon emissions. Will our law enforcement and military arms also be required to submit GHG inventories for assessment? This Bill seems to suggests so where the national budget and the new national carbon budget process is concerned.
Counting the cost of carbon
The old Bill in the interpretation section had defined a “verified carbon unit” as an emission reduction unit issued under the
verifi ed carbon standard. In the new Bill that definition is no longer there. Part 10 replaces the old “emissions reductions
projects” with an extensive coverage on“carbon sequestration property rights”. The new Bill defi es a carbon sequestration
property as the exclusive and distinct legal right to carbon sequestration and carbon stocks, that shall be in the form of a lease
that attaches to the land until its term is concluded or renewed. It would be very interesting to understand how many freehold and native landowners understand the full depth and breadth of what is being proposed here. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is still held in abeyance at the global level, so it makes no sense to make reference to it in the Bill, until we know fully what we are agreeing to. The maxim of negotiators that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” would hold us in good stead here.
Private sector disclosures
Part 15 of the new Bill covers ‘Private SectorTransition and Engagement’. There is now a private sector advisory committee
that the Minister may establish, but no such specific complementary forum for NGOs or Trade Unions. The Bill compels the private sector, or directors or other officers of companies to consider and evaluate climate change risks and opportunities to the extent they are foreseeable and intersect with the interests of the company. Similarly the FNPF, the Reserve Bank and managed investment schemes need to file disclosures on climate change risks and opportunities, in addition to other details as listed out in Part 15.
Are we ready?
With the onset of our cyclone season and predictions for the Pacific region already highlighted by meteorologists, perhaps there needs to be a transitory period to phase in and trial key elements of the Bill slowly, pending further consultations and adjustments. The worse thing that could happen is to railroad the new law in overnight with many uncertainties remaining (remember the plastic bag tax and 50 microns debacle?), while tackling extreme weather events and COVID-19, at the same time. It is to the advantage of the sponsors of this Bill’s if they consult more, consult extensively, and meaningfully share the vision of this Bill’s intention while embracing alternative thinking.
- Seini Nabou is the National Federation Party’s vice-president. The views expressed are the author’s and are not necessarily the views of this newspaper.
