Sydney Environment Institute online panel: Te Mana o te Moana: Pacific Report Launch in Partnership with Greenpeace

On Dec 3, a panel of researchers and activists launched ‘Te Mana o te Moana: the State of the Climate in the Pacific 2020′ – a Greenpeace Australia Pacific report on the impact of climate change on Pacific Island Countries.

‘Te Mana o te Moana: the State of the Climate in the Pacific 2020′ is Greenpeace’s landmark report exploring how climate change has impacted Pacific Island Countries; who is responsible; and what is needed to ensure that the people of the Pacific emerge stronger from the climate crisis.

WHEN: 3 December, 5.30pm-7pm AEST

At this online event, the experts behind the report provided the latest analysis of how the world is progressing on the aims of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and hear the stories of Pacific island people on the front lines of the fight for their communities and the planet. While the top 15 emitters produce over 70% of all global annual emissions, the 14 Pacific Island Countries who have ratified the UNFCCC produce just 0.14%. Despite this, the top 15 emitters’ commitments under the Paris Agreement remain grossly insufficient: the report finds that countries responsible for 65% of all global annual emissions have combined emission reduction targets that would lock in over 2 degrees of heating, while their current policies would lead to a catastrophic 2.1-3.9 degrees of heating.

The islands of the Pacific are some of the most vulnerable areas on earth to the impacts of climate change, and have already suffered serious harm from rising sea levels, intensifying cyclones, and the degradation of the fisheries and fresh water resources they need to live. Despite this, the Pacific story is one of resilience amid crisis. The solutions are being found in both age-old traditions and modern technology, and give cause for hope if we act in time.

Speakers

Auimatagi Joseph Moeono-Kolio is from Falefa and Malie, Samoa and is Greenpeace’s Head of Pacific. He has been a passionate advocate for climate action and a proponent of indigenous knowledge and cultures of the Pacific as conduits for understanding the causes and solutions to the climate crisis. A sought-after speaker, he has worked with Pacific governments since 2018 in global climate negotiations and was appointed by Pope Francis as an auditor (advisor) in 2018. He has since worked with the Vatican to highlight the position of Pacific countries and advocate for more robust commitments to the Paris Agreement. He was also an adviser to the New Zealand Government’s interim climate committee, the precursor to the Climate Commission. Joe is also a member of the Pacific Climate Warriors, having co-founded its Wellington branch in 2018 and has continued to build coalitions between governments and civil society to drive climate campaigns in the Pacific and internationally.

Genevieve Jivais from Suva, Fiji, a youth advocate for stronger action on the climate crisis. She is the coordinator for the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), the Pacific regional node of CAN International. She has graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History and Politics, and has completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Diplomacy and International Affairs from the University of the South Pacific. She is also a member of 350 Fiji and the Pacific Climate Warriors, and has participated in Peace Boat’s Ocean and Climate Youth Ambassador Program.

Dr Nikola Casule is Greenpeace’s Head of Research and Investigations, having joined Greenpeace as a Climate and Energy Campaigner in early 2014. He has been instrumental in successful campaigns on the Renewable Energy Target, protecting the Great Barrier Reef, Adani, stopping drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight, and pushing the Commonwealth Bank to commit to ruling out new lending to coal mines. He previously worked as a university lecturer and researcher in the United Kingdom and Australia and has taught at the University of Oxford, Sydney University and the ANU. He holds a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford and a BA (Honours I) degree from Macquarie University.

David Ritter is the CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Prior to joining Greenpeace, David worked for ten years as a lawyer and academic. His most recent book is The Coal Truth: The Fight to Stop Adani, Defeat the Big Polluters and Reclaim our Democracy. In addition to his work at Greenpeace, David holds honorary appointments at Sydney University and the University of Western Australia. He lives in Sydney with his wife and two daughters.

Susan Park (Chair) is Professor of Global Governance at the University of Sydney. She focuses on how state and non-state actors use formal and informal influence to make the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) greener and more accountable. She is a Senior Research Fellow of the ESG, an affiliated Faculty member of the Munk School’s Environmental Governance Lab at the University of Toronto, an External Associate of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at Warwick University, and a research affiliate of the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney. Susan is the Research Lead on The Global Shift to Renewables and Environmental Disasters and Just Governance.

Social Impact Assessment Guidelines: The Devil is in The Implementation - Sydney Environment Institute

Opinion, originally published on the Sydney Environment Institute blog, 13 November 2020, with Rebecca Lawrence and Gemma Viney:

In 2019, we saw the Rocky Hill Coal Mine dismissed on the grounds that the proposed mine would have significant adverse social impacts for the people of Gloucester. This was a historic decision and demonstrated to local communities around NSW that social impacts matter, and that their concerns deserved to be taken seriously. The social impacts of major developments have recently come again to the fore of Australia’s news cycle with the Narrabri Gas Project being approved by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC)’s in October 2020. Rather than further develop good social impact assessment practice, the process was deeply flawed. The recent Narrabri decision has highlighted the work that still needs to be done to ensure that social impacts are dealt with robustly and independently.

“Already marginalised and disadvantaged groups – such as regional communities and Indigenous peoples – should not bear the burden of negative impacts, while other non-Indigenous peoples elsewhere reap the benefits.”

Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are supposed to tell us what social impacts matter when it comes to proposed developments, how they will be managed, or indeed, if they can be managed at all. At the heart of SIA is the idea that government planning authorities should be making informed decisions about developments, and that the public good should be protected. In particular, already marginalised and disadvantaged groups – such as regional communities and Indigenous peoples – should not bear the burden of negative impacts, while other non-Indigenous peoples elsewhere reap the benefits. Crucially, the precautionary principle should also apply to SIA: assessments must ensure there is reasonable certainty about the expected impact predictions. The Rocky Hill case confirmed this view: in the absence of sufficient information about the impacts on Aboriginal people, the proponent’s SIA was deemed insufficient.

Following the recommendation of the IPC, the Commonwealth Government is soon due to make its much-awaited decision on the controversial Narrabri gas project. In the meantime, the NSW Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE) has released an updated Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guideline for all state significant projects. While the Narrabri Gas Project was not officially covered by the original 2017 DPIE SIA Guideline, and the Commonwealth won’t be obliged to apply the new 2020 SIA Guideline in its assessment of the project either, the question needs to be asked, what will change for similar projects once the new 2020 SIA Guideline comes into force?

Continuing with the example of the Narrabri Gas Project: at the national level, over 98% of submissions opposed the project and at the local level, 63% of submissions opposed it, yet the IPC approved it regardless. So, what role does public opinion play in decision making in New South Wales? How does the public submission process inform decision making? Or does it confirm criticisms that public submissions processes, like consultation processes more generally, play a performative role: they give the appearance of giving a space to community and public opinion, at the same time giving very little weight to it. Without clarity on this issue, the perceived lack of meaningful engagement risks leaving communities feeling disenfranchised and disregarded by development proponents and planning authorities. Of course, if Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are done poorly, they too risk running into the same problem.

The NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s new SIA Guideline now applies to all State Significant Projects (and not just resource projects). This means that the number of social impact assessments coming across DPIE’s desk are going to increase significantly, and the benchmark for the way these SIAs should be undertaken is now formalised to a higher standard. For example, the proposed 2020 Guideline states that engagement with Aboriginal people “should recognise and respect their rights and be culturally appropriate. In practice, this means: […]ensuring free, prior, and informed consent” Guideline, pg. 31).

This recognition of Indigenous rights is commendable and in line with developments in international law, such as the UN Declaration. It is certainly an admirable policy goal and one we, as an advanced industrialised nation, should be able to achieve. But the reality is that many an SIA has been done to “tick the box”: they, like public submissions processes, become a way of performing “community consultation” but without giving any real attention to the social impacts that actually matter. Again, the Rocky Hill case highlights this problem. In cases where Indigenous communities have opposed projects, consultations are performed, but their opposition is often ultimately ignored. In the case of the Narrabri project, DPIE did not seek, or receive, the consent of the Gomeroi people, who opposed the project. This is despite free, prior and informed consent being a policy of both the proponent, Santos, and DPIEs own 2017 SIA Guideline.

DPIE has released a solid updated 2020 SIA Guideline, but a key challenge we face is how to implement it to ensure that proponents, Government authorities and SIA experts are able to ensure that SIAs are undertaken at the high standard outlined in the Guideline.

To discuss these issues and more SEI hosted a panel on the 19th of November discussing ‘The Future of Social Impact Assessment in NSW’ with leading SIA experts Rebecca Lawrence, Fiona Miller, Richard Parsons and Alison Ziller, chaired by me. During the rich discussion, we examined the implications of DPIE’s SIA Guideline, and some of the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead.