Recycling in Johannesburg has become compulsory as of last year due to persisting landfill issues. However, the new separation at the source initiative is threatening the livelihoods of thousands of informal waste pickers, whose contribution has gone unrecognised.
Listen to John Maytham’s discussion below on the impact this is having on the income of waste pickers.
As the Caribbean hurricane season rolls around, memories of last year’s devastation stir throughout the region. Living with recovery is a harsh reality in Antigua and Barbuda, the British Virgin Islands and Dominica in particular. The costs of hurricanes Irma and Maria are estimated to be in the range of between 7 and 15 billion US dollars. Every Caribbean person felt the events of September 2017, because we all have memories of a storm over the past 30 years that has touched our lives. From hurricane Gilbert in 1988 onwards, living with category 4 and 5 storms has become a new normal.
What we talk about less is the way that those storms impact us differently. There is undoubtedly a strong sense of coming together and pride in people’s stoic ability to deal with devastation. This narrative of community resilience raises several questions though. While we all might be at risk, are some not at greater risk than others? While we all have to clean up afterwards, are some not called on to clean up more than others? While we all have something to gain from effective climate advocacy, might some not have more to gain than others?
These are questions that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had not engaged with until relatively recently. When it was established in 1992 it was the only one of the conventions agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio that did not explicitly make reference to gender. The Conferences of the Parties (COP) that have convened annually since 1995 to take commitments further have attempted to retrieve this situation – albeit incrementally. The establishment of a Gender Action Plan at COP 23 in Berlin last year sent an encouraging signal but since then there’s been less agreement about how this space might be used.
‘There is undoubtedly a strong sense of coming together and pride in people’s stoic ability to deal with devastation.’
The Commonwealth Foundation’s current strategic plan places greater emphasis than before on mainstreaming gender equality in our mission to advance participatory governance. In practice this means identifying the ways that gender intersects with societal disadvantage. In global climate change discussions, small states and the Caribbean in particular can be marginalised. Gender equality considerations doubly so.
#CWclimate @commonwealthorg @cpdcngo @CYEN246 @CYEN1 @PCIMediaImpact Group 5! Breakout session 1 @ the exploratory discussion on the intersection btwn gender and Climate Change in the Caribbean pic.twitter.com/GFcgU8ci5b
— JET (@jamentrust) June 4, 2018
Discussion on links between gender equality and climate change brought to life by civil society in the Caribbean #CWclimate @commonwealthorg pic.twitter.com/pFGGXrHYn5
— Vijay Krishnarayan (@vkrishnarayan) June 4, 2018
Having taken soundings from civil society organisations and others in the region we convened an exploratory Caribbean discussion on the intersection between gender and climate. This set out to understand what the region’s needs might be and determine how we might add value to civil society’s policy advocacy in this area. In partnership with the UNDP Global Environment Facility’s Small Grants Programme in Barbados, we invited more than 40 civil society colleagues from each Commonwealth Caribbean country to focus on the issue.
The group that convened had many strengths – not least its diversity. There were established civil society advocates like Sandra Ferguson from Grenada’s Agency for Rural Transformation and Renwick Rose from the Winward Islands Farmers Association in St Vincent and the Grenadines as well as emerging leaders like Cordelia Shal from the Toledo Maya Women’s Council in Belize. There were colleagues from the environment movement like Suzanne Stanley from the Jamaica Environment Trust and those who were not like Chelsee Merchant and Bernard Warner from the Association of Persons with Disabilities in Antigua and Barbuda. The Foundation’s own focus on creativity as a catalyst for social change saw cultural practitioners like Kendel Hippolyte and Oonya Kempadoo also participating.
The three days of discussion were expertly facilitated by Janice Cumberbatch of the University of the West Indies’ (UWI) Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies in Barbados. It benefited from an introduction to gender by Kimberly Carr Tobias from UWI’s Institute for Gender and Development Studies in Jamaica. Dizzanne Billy of Climate Trackers in Trinidad and Tobago relayed key messages via social media throughout: ‘Gender is not just about men and women, it’s about correcting the power imbalance’; ‘Gender power dynamics determine who has what rights and what access to resources to deal with the impacts of climate change’ she tweeted.
Colleagues also made the connection between governance and effective action on climate change. Some called for transparency in the institutions vested with responsibility for addressing the issue. Others cited what they called ‘transactional governance’ (governance based on incentives and disincentives) as a barrier to broader engagement with the development challenges facing the region. The need for new language to communicate the issues of climate change and gender to a wider audience was called for – not least by the writers that were present.
The meeting closed concluding that while there were opportunities for training and workshops there were not enough spaces for civic voices to gather and consider the big issues facing the region. It was agreed that this gathering had enabled colleagues to learn from each other and so improve their understanding of the issues. While there was value in having civil society talking to each other it was also recognised that there was a need for engagement with policy makers to shape a regional agenda. The Commonwealth Foundation took this message to CARICOM colleagues in Georgetown afterwards and it was warmly received. There’s an emerging area of work for the Foundation here, which could resonate across the Commonwealth.
Vijay Krishnarayan is Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.
Informal waste pickers in South Africa have been committed to improving the environment as well as their livelihoods. Waste pickers make an income by combing through waste and selling recyclables from cardboard and plastic bottles to metal, providing a useful service for thier communities.
Fin 24 reports that ‘now they are fighting, not only for recognition, but also for assistance to end their dependence on a series of “middlemen” companies that buy salvaged material to sell on to large corporations.’
Read Fin 24’s report on the waste pickers’ struggle for recognition here.
The South African Broadcasting Corporation’s segment documents the impact of privatisation of recycling on the waste picker community in South Africa and provides an illuminating discussion on how the waste picker community are treated in society.
Adverse effects of climate change in South Asia threaten the livelihoods of individuals. Sustainable and green solutions are needed to mitigate disasters in the region with the help of those at the grassroots.
Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA), in cooperation with 149 local partners Janathakshan in Sri Lanka and Poorvanchal Gramin Vikas Sansathan (PGVS) in India, is supporting the domestication of the international climate change plans so they tangibly benefit local communities in Sri Lanka and India.
The project is focusing its intervention on four development sectors: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Education, Nutrition and Health across India and Sri Lanka in the regions of Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha in India and the provinces of Western, Eastern and North Western Sri Lanka. CANSA is undertaking a careful analysis of government plans at the sub-national level to determine the extent in which climate resilient action is included, before building the capacity of local government and civil society organisations to access funds, collaborating to design and implement recommendations and gather and disseminate good practices to promote replication by other states and provinces.
By the end of the project sub-national level governments in target states and provinces will have developed plans and interventions that can better contribute to localising international commitments to fight climate change.
Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA), in cooperation with 149 local partners Janathakshan in Sri Lanka and Poorvanchal Gramin Vikas Sansathan (PGVS) in India, is supporting the domestication of the international climate change plans so they tangibly benefit local communities in Sri Lanka and India. It works towards linking policy, research and action based work in the region to address the adverse effects of climate change on the region. The network has been working with its members to convert international decisions into actions at national and sub-national level. As the only network on climate change in the region, CANSA has been working to promote the voices of CSOs from South Asia in regional and global forums, including at the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Janathakshan seeks to promote sustainable and green solutions in development to Sri Lanka and beyond. Its main areas of focus include sustainable energy, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The organisation works at grassroots level on policy advocacy around climate change issues. It has been following up and engaging in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change processes.
PGVS has been working in India since 1987 on development and humanitarian response. Its main areas of work are disaster preparedness and risk reduction and emergency action in disaster situations. PGVS seeks to mobilise local communities to engage critical thinking and action for developmental issues.
The Tonga Strategic Development Framework 2015-2025 is an overarching framework to ensure Tonga’s development. Civil society plays a key role in its implementation but a more engaged interaction with government is required.
The Civil Society Forum of Tonga (CSFT) is collaborating with government and the private sector to monitor the implementation of the Tonga Strategic Development Framework, ensuring civil society actors are better informed, better coordinated and better able to engage with government in a structured and productive way. With an emphasis on the priority areas of climate change and local governance, the CSFT is mapping alignment between the priorities of civil society and government, and undertaking a comparative analysis to ensure the Tonga Strategic Development Framework aligns with commitments made in international treaties. By building the capacity of CSOs in data collection, research and monitoring and evaluation techniques, CSFT is ensuring civil society can make a credible contribution in helping government to implement the Tonga Strategic Development Framework to its full potential.
By the end of the project, it is expected that institutionalised engagement between civil society and government will have been established to promote improved implementation of the Tonga Strategic Development Framework and the sustainable development of Tonga. CSOs will be better informed on issues of climate change and local governance; better equipped to play a monitoring role alongside government in the implementation of national priorities and better able to access and interact with government processes through the structured engagement framework. There will also be a clear process established for CSOs to provide constructive feedback to improve processes of engagement and policy dialogue.
The Civil Society Forum of Tonga (CSFT), established in 2000, is a national umbrella organisation of CSOs in Tonga. It represents civil society organisations and coordinates their activities in Tonga, playing a key role in building their capacity. It also serves as the National Liaison Unit for the Pacific Island Association of NGOs. The forum enjoys the recognition of government as the main coordination body for CSOs. As a result of this recognition, CSFT is able to represent civil society in political spaces on national committees appointed by government.
Papua New Guinea has several pieces of vital legislation around the use and management of natural resources, but customary landowners often lack awareness or a clear understanding of the legislation and polices that protect their rights.
The Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR) is engaging government agencies to deliver changes to legislation and policies that govern the use and management of natural resources, including the Land Act (1996), the Environment Act (2000) and the Climate Change Management Act (2015), so that they better reflect customary land owner’s rights. This involves raising awareness among community based organisations (CBOs), conducting a detailed review and analysis of existing policies and legislation, and working with government agencies directly to present and propose changes to the First Legislative Counsel and advocate with Parliamentarians for these changes to be adopted.
By the end of the project, it is expected that some pieces of legislation will be revised to more strongly reflect support for customary land rights.
Photo Credit: Flickr CC Stefan Krasowski
The Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights is an environmental and conservation NGOnot for profit public interest firm that promotes sustainable management of natural resources in Papua New Guinea. The objectives of the organisation are to carry out policy research on national development issues and management of the environment and to use the research findings to advocate for change of policies and relevant legislation. Their activities include legal advice and assistance to communities, policy research, advocacy, as well as education and awareness programs on environmental issues, development, land and resource rights of customary landowners.
Four months ago, WIEGO’s project with the Commonwealth Foundation Waste integration South Africa (WISA) took an unplanned turn as Johannesburg’s waste-pickers were faced with a major challenge to their livelihood.
The city’s official waste management service provider, Pikitup, signed contracts with private recycling companies to expand Pikitup’s Separation at Source programme. Separation at Source diverts recyclable waste away from landfills and encourages residents to separate their waste at home. In this way, according to Pikitup, recyclables remain clean and can be resold more easily. Effectively, however, this would exclude waste-pickers from the recycling service they have provided for decades at no cost to the city and negatively affect the income that they earn from selling recyclable material.
WIEGO has been working with the waste-pickers of Johannesburg who collect, sort, separate and recycle the City’s waste from the main landfills as well as from the street sides. There are 6,000 to 10,000 people in Johannesburg who depend on waste-picking work. Unemployment in South Africa has reached a record 27.7 percent, so excluding wastepickers will create additional hardship. By giving recycling contracts to private companies, the city is opting for a private system, when a less costly, more socially responsible and environmentally–friendly solid waste management programme, including waste-pickers, is possible.
Listen to a radio interview with waste picker representatives, Eva Mokoena and Steven Leeuw from Johannesburg about the impact of this troubling development.
Aware of the potential introduction of the Separation at Source programme, WIEGO and waste-pickers have been asking Pikitup and the City to disclose and discuss the contracts since September last year, but to no avail. As a result, an Interim Johannesburg Reclaimers Committee (IJRC) was set up and in July waste pickers from seven regions of the City marched to protest outside Pikitup’s offices. Eva Mokoena from the IJRC presented a Memorandum of Demands to the Managing Director of Pikitup on behalf of the Committee. See a video of the protest on Facebook.
As a result of the campaign, Pikitup put a halt to signing any new contracts and acknowledged wastepickers as principle stakeholders in Johannesburg’s waste economy. Pikitup says that it is requiring the companies to include reclaimers, but it is leaving it up to companies that have no experience in integrating them to figure out how to do this and have not consulted with wastepickers on how they should be included. However, dialogue has now been opened up between Pikitup, the City of Joburg and the wastepickers, which is very much welcomed.
For waste pickers, the four key pillars of integration are: recognition as workers providing public and environmental services for which they should be paid; inclusion in the current and future solid waste management system; consultation on all decisions affecting their livelihoods; and, all of the above to begin with the registration of all waste pickers in a centralised database to ensure that the integration process is well planned, fair, transparent and able to be properly monitored.
Negotiations to develop a framework of how the integration process will be implemented have been underway for the past three months.
See the WIEGO site for further information.
Vanessa Pillay is the WIEGO Organisation and Representation Programme Officer, Johannesburg
The nature of news is such that as we try to fathom the devastation wrought by Irma and Maria, the loss of life and livelihoods caused by the recent flooding in South Asia seem dim and distant. The scale of the damage is hard to grasp: 41 million affected by floods in Bangladesh, India and Nepal; a third of Bangladesh under water; £230 million to repair Barbuda alone; and 90% of Dominica’s buildings damaged. All of this on top of the immeasurable trauma and loss of life.
Will these facts move the international community beyond the standard reactions and urgings to adapt to new climate realities? The Commonwealth and like-minded institutions could play an important role in identifying the need for responses that take their lead from the people most directly affected – most of whom would argue that they have not been listened to so far. The President of Kiribati brought the plight of his Pacific island state to the attention of the UN General Assembly in 2004. He had to wait another three years before there was anything like a global consensus on the nature of the problem.
Aware that established international ways and means were not getting the message across, cultural activists in the Caribbean used song, poetry and performance as part of the 1.5 to Stay Alive campaign in support of the region’s position at COP21 in Paris two years ago. This called for a legally binding agreement, applicable to all, and ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions stop at levels that limit the global average temperature increase to well below 1.5° Celsius by 2100.
‘Whether they are Presidents or Poets those unheard voices tell us that change is needed.’
Whether they are Presidents or Poets those unheard voices tell us that change is needed. This means getting at the root causes of storms and floods, the likes of which we’ve never seen. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” has been a rallying cry for the Global South since 1992 and if the argument in favour of calling to account those doing the most damage needed further support it can surely be found in the events of the last month.
People affected tell of the need for space in global discussions on climate change that takes account of local realities. This means real engagement and involvement in the details of making a global agreement stick. They point to the need for joined up and collaborative approaches to natural resource management that work across national borders as well as locally in the interests of people whose livelihoods depend on those very resources, which include rivers, forests, mangroves and reefs.
Those voices are calling for more ambitious climate targets and joined up thinking on economic and development policies. Fundamentally, they have identified inequality between nations and within nations as a major barrier to addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. The humanitarian crises that follow the passage of these storms are a damning indictment on the lack of agency and urgency in addressing the challenge.
‘Senior officials arguing the case for small states in climate change discussions are strengthened by the advocacy undertaken by their counterparts from civil society.’
Of the many startling vignettes revealed by the recent storms, the testimony from Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit as he recalled his experience of taking cover under a mattress as the roof of his house was torn off by Hurricane Maria was powerful. In that moment there was no distinction made between government and non-governmental. This binary divide prevents us from building the coalitions and alliances needed to make marginalised voices heard. The political leaders and senior officials arguing the case for small states in climate change discussions are strengthened by the advocacy undertaken by their counterparts from civil society.
The Commonwealth and other institutions that are committed to global equity can play a role in helping to convey a sense of urgency and by bringing seemingly disparate governments, politicians, officials, organisations and individuals together. The demand is there and manifests itself in the powerful solidarity between sister member states. To see Antigua and Barbuda reach out to Dominica with an offer of support in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria was humbling.
The platform that the Commonwealth provides for its 30 small states is well documented and has achieved real impact. There is more to do. The floods in South Asia and the drought in Southern Africa tell us that climate change is not solely a small state issue and the Commonwealth provides a platform to identify common cause and foster collaboration across its membership. The Commonwealth Foundation is prepared to play its part – in the first instance by supporting dialogue between affected civil society and their colleagues in government to develop a common agenda.
Next year’s Commonwealth Summit, hosted by the United Kingdom takes place under the theme “Towards a Common Future” and it will feature discussions on sustainability and climate change. In addition to taking stock of the outcomes of COP23 in Bonn this November, the Summit will provide a moment to forge and consolidate a community for advocacy – one that brings together big and small, government and non-government, north and south. It’s a good opportunity to articulate “non-binary” positions that draw on the common concerns of diverse partners. As the Summit’s theme suggests, climate change responses call for social justice as much as disaster relief. It also acknowledges that there is work to do in order to achieve this.
Image credit: Flickr CC Cayobo
ABOVE: Butaritari, Kiribati – Islands in the Pacific are particularly venerable to the effects of climate change. Photo Credit: KevGuy4101
What does ‘climate justice’ mean for Pacific Islanders? This was one of the main questions the Foundation aimed to understand with colleagues in Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand earlier this year. Because of climate change’s cross-cutting impact on people, society and livelihoods, our small delegation met with a range of actors: leaders of civil society organisations, writers and other creative practitioners as well as staff of government agencies and academics working on climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) programmes.
The immediacy of the impact of climate change to Pacific Islanders was clear after my first few meetings. It is happening right now – yesterday. Coastal communities in Fiji have already been relocated due to sea-level rise, with many more communities on the list. Many of the legal ramifications related to relocation such as title and ownership rights, and compensation have yet to be worked out. Some of the existing information on land ownership is ambiguous and if title deed goes way back, perhaps doesn’t exist.
The situation of Kiribati is particularly dire. Kiribati occupies a total territory of 370km, but of that, 2% is land – low lying coral atolls; the rest is sea – its EEZ or Exclusive Economic Zone. Kiribati’s main economic industry is its tuna fishery. At current emissions rates and sea level rise, Kiribati predicts that many of its islands will be under sea by 2080 and they would be uninhabitable well before then. The Kiribati President has already sanctioned the purchase of land on Fiji to relocate the entire Kiribati population of 100,000+ people. If this happens, it would be the end of a sovereign state due to climate change. Another dilemma facing the nation of Kiribati is how to secure continued access to its tuna fishery for the economic and social development of its people. However, because the Law of the Sea states that the EEZ is determined by distance from land it is unclear what will happen to its EEZ if the land is underwater.[1]
“The immediacy of the impact of climate change to Pacific Islanders was clear after my first few meetings. It is happening right now – yesterday.”
For people whose link to the land is closely tied to their livelihood and identity, relocation could have far deeper ramifications. Fijian writer, Mary Rokonodravu, shared her concerns with me on the lack of attention given to the social and cultural implications of relocation. She referred to the historic case of the displaced people of Banaban from whom we could learn many critical lessons on the complexities and pitfalls of relocation. Back in 1945 when the island of Banaba was mined of its phosphate resources by the British Pacific Phosphate Company, the Banabans were forcibly relocated to the island of Rabi over 3000 km away. The provision for their re-settlement and adjustment to an entirely new environment and lifestyle was inadequete, leading to high levels of poverty.[2]
The response from the international community towards the impacts of climate change on Pacific islands has been to put vast amounts of financial support into the Pacific Islands for adaptation and risk reduction. Most of the bilateral and multilateral donors have funded large scale projects. This has created a highly complex landscape of agencies, donors and projects spending significant amounts of money, particularly at the regional level – so much so that those working in the sector seem fatigued by the complexity of the landscape. While there is immense capacity for the technical aspects of implementing CCA and DRR in the regional hub-countries, there is equally enormous and growing demand. The Green Climate Fund, which will bring millions in funding, will bring additional challenges for delivery.
The dominant narrative of climate change has therefore become climate change adaptation and risk reduction. Civil society, for the most part, has also had to frame its participation in the climate change response within the narrative of adaptation. However, none of the funding available from the main climate change adaptation funding pots is available to civil society. According to Krishneil Narayan, Coordinator of the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), currently no civil society organisation from the Pacific, arguably the region most impacted by climate change, is involved in the Global Climate Fund Board – or as observers, where decisions and assessments are made on what will be funded nationally. So even where Pacific civil society could help influence the adaptation agenda and to determine how funds might be spent for the potential benefit of vulnerable communities, they are excluded from the decision-making table. Pacific civil society seems confined to the ‘consultation’ box for adaptation programmes and CSOs viewed as deliverers for climate change awareness projects.
“The narrative of adaptation and risk reduction is ‘crowding out’ the space for questioning the inevitability of climate change.”
Coastal communities at the frontline of climate change impacts undoubtedly need support for adaptation. But where is the discussion of climate justice? Although climate justice is not a static concept and still evolving, a crucial aspect is the discussion of systematic transformation to tackle the root causes of climate change. But within this dominant narrative of adaptation and risk reduction, the inevitability of climate change becomes accepted. The narrative of adaptation and risk reduction is ‘crowding out’ the space for questioning the inevitability of climate change.
In addition, the space for solutions is limited to those with geopolitical and financial power and transformative change becomes obfuscated. In discussing the case of Kiribati, one of the technical staff at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat said something that stuck in my mind. Rather than focus on relocation, support should be on development – so that Kiribati has the prosperity to make innovative solutions and be resilient to the changes ahead. However, within the current framework of climate change adaptation and relocation, those on the frontline become portrayed as always in need of humanitarian relief – needing to be helped rather than as co-creators of the solution.
So, what does climate justice mean for Pacific islanders? I wasn’t convinced that the question of ‘justice’ which challenges and advocates for transformative change of fossil-fuel based, consumption-hungry economies was foremost on the minds of civil society. However, what I did find was that civil society in Tonga were challenging the dominant narrative of adaptation and risk reduction in another way. They were considering the response to climate change not as an adaptation question but as one of resilience and ‘green growth’. Although it is still early days and small scale, for Tongans, green growth means building prosperity for people in Tonga through the sustainable use of their resources.
In November 2016, in a meeting organised by the Civil Society Forum of Tonga (CSFT) and the Oceania office of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Tongan government representatives, civil society and regional organisations identified seven principles of a green growth strategy: (1) development (2) justice (3) dignity (4) earth integrity (5) inclusion (6) governance (7) resilience (8) efficiency (9) inter-generational. Enhancing Tonga’s organic agriculture and the productivity of its fisheries through the protection and management of critical fisheries habitat are some of the first steps to realising their vision. A proposed local governance structure to establish structures and processes for a resilient governance arrangement is also being trialled. The challenge however is ensuring that green growth doesn’t just remain a niche but that it becomes the driver of the national adaptation response.
Studies have already shown that despite the commitments made by industrialised countries at the UNFCCC’s Paris COP21 in December 2015, to do all they can to limit temperature rise to 1.50C, just burning fossil fuels from projects presently in operation will produce emissions that will put the globe well past 20C of warming this century. Fiji is the chair of the next COP23 to be held in Bonn, Germany. Pacific civil society already see this as an opportunity to raise the profile of the climate change struggle in their region[3]. But will the issue get the attention it deserves? Can the stories of relocation and loss in the Pacific Islands help promote a more meaningful conversation from mainstream media in countries of the Global North about transformational change? Or will it reinforce perceptions of humanitarian need and climate change inevitability in current mainstream media discussions?
The Suva Declaration[4] prepared by PICAN and taken forward by the Pacific Islands Development Forum prior to the Paris COP21, is perhaps one of the clearest statements of asks from civil society and Pacific Island governments targeted at industrialised countries. But in addition to the asks, the narrative also needs to change. To do this, civil society needs to build its constituency to shape people’s world view. This is a challenging task across the islands of the Pacific, but it’s something that PICAN has begun – to strengthen its network of civic voices across the frontline countries of Kiribati, Tuvalu and Fiji. Linking with other networks and movements in high CO2 emitting countries, who are putting pressure on their own governments for systemic change, will help to build their power, influence public discourse and change the narrative from a discussion around adaptation to one of systemic change.
[1] For more on this, see: https://www.ted.com/talks/anote_tong_my_country_will_be_underwater_soon_unless_we_work_together
[2] See more: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/14/our-heart-is-on-banaba-stories-from-the-forgotten-people-of-the-pacific/
[3] http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=391260
[4] http://pacificidf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Suva-Climate-Declaration-final_USB.pdf
Discover grant and job opportunities, stories from civil society and updates on our work