He gave a speech affirming the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) over the past 15 years and also called for commitments and cooperation in the adopting and implementation of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“We should take it as a new starting point to work out a course of equitable, open, all-round and innovation-driven development in the interest of common development of all countries,” he said.

President Xi’s call for the international community to focus on implementation was clear and uncompromising.

He said: “The post-2015 development agenda is a high standard list of deliverables that carries with it our solemn commitment. It is often said that the worth of any plan is in its implementation. I therefore call on the international community to redouble their collective efforts for the joint implementation of the post-2015 development agenda in the interest of cooperation.”

Toward the end of his speech, President Xi stated that China is ready to work with “relevant parties to move forward” the implementation of the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative.

President Xi reiterated that China has basically realized the MDGs by lifting 439 million people out of poverty and making remarkable progress in areas of education, health and women’s welfare.

“China’s development has not only improved the well-being of the 1.3 billion-plus Chinese people, but also given a strong boost to the global cause of development,” President Xi said.

Since his speech at the United Nations, President Xi has gone on an official visit of the United Kingdom, not only engaging in trade and investment talks with the British government but also warmly welcomed by the pomp and ceremony of British royalty.

The media heralded President Xi as the most significant and most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping.

The Belt and Road initiative

China has released a vision for peaceful cooperative development based on a two thousand year old trade route known as the Silk Road in which there were social and cultural exchanges linking the major civilizations of Asia, Europe, and Africa.

But what is different about the Belt and Road initiative and activities from that of the creation of another regional trade block with China as leader?

In early October, the Chinese Communist Party hosted in Beijing over 60 political party leaders and representatives from the Asia-Africa-European region, accompanied also by a media forum of journalists and media practitioners from the region.

The summit was called the Asian Political Parties’ Special Conference on the Silk Road. The theme of the summit was the Silk Road trade and development co-operation concept.

The Belt and Road initiative proposed in Beijing 2015 was endorsed and adopted by the political leaders of the countries that met and consulted together in Beijing.

The Silk Road was a trade route that linked China and its immediate neighbors with the countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It is China’s pro-active attempt to build a Eurasian economic belt, and extend the Silk Road to the rest of the world, over land and sea.

But ‘Belt and Road’ is not just a proposal for cooperative economic partnership and development. China is already engaged in building infrastructure, creating a ‘Belt and Road’ fund and investment bank, creating many development projects, and more importantly establishing a consensus among the countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe, that Belt and Road is the pathway to the future.

With over 60 countries with political parties endorsing and adopting the Belt and Road Beijing initiative, the maritime ‘road’ that links to the Pacific islands is very much a part of this massive global plan for economic and social cooperative development.

The Belt and Road initiative is not confined to economic cooperative development but extends also to the social and cultural exchanges that would advance peace in a new world order.

Speaking in support of China’s efforts, Yong Rui, famed host of CCTV’s English Dialogue Program remarked in Beijing: “China is not just a major economic power. It is also a major civilization.”

The point is, economic development does not happen in a vacuum, but also allows parties to work together for the common good of their respective societies in every area of development ranging from sports and entertainment, cultural exchanges, as well as the advancing of common values that are part of social development.

Trade in the past two millennia was in silk, spices, porcelain, paper, noodles, and other things. But the Chinese have taken this concept and framed it into the Belt and Road initiative which will link not only the former regions of the Silk Road but all the countries of the world through the 21st century Maritime Silk Road linkages.

And even though the Chinese economy has slowed down from double-digit figures to a stable 6.5% growth, it is still the fastest growing economy, and is just behind the United States as the second largest economy in the world.

The Chinese still speak optimistically about this slowdown as a “cooling off” period to allow its economy to consolidate.

The Chinese insist that the Belt and Road initiative is not just another Chinese project but rather a peaceful cooperative development effort with other countries, working at a ‘win-win’ outcome.

As for what the Pacific region offers, we bring into the Belt and Road vision and partnership the world’s largest ocean, the world’s biggest tuna stocks, multi-billion dollar reserves of oil, gas and sea-bed minerals. And that is before we start to speak of tourism in one of the most beautiful and relaxing destinations in the world.

China and its larger development partners are also very aware of the fact there is marine wealth in the Pacific as well as something that money cannot buy – the relatively peaceful co-existence and relationships that are ever present in the Pacific region.

Each Pacific island nation will need to determine what and how to participate in the partnership, but there is also the need for collective dialogue and cooperation with China.

There is a lot that could be done to achieve a favorable outcome and due to the geopolitical power shifts taking place in our world today, our future may end up being defined by our partnership with China.

Caption: “Build friendship”: a Chinese naval ship displays a friendly banner during a port call in Port Vila, Vanuatu 2010. Photo by Ben Bohane/wakaphotos.com

Three years in the making, the new goals set an ambitious agenda to apply to every country over the next 15 years. Now the hard part – implementing the 17 goals and 169 targets in 193 countries.

The new agenda moves us on from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expire at the end of the year, and which were essentially a tool to focus aid delivery. This time, every country will have to apply the new goals to their own national context. Funding the new agenda will be a mix of domestic resource allocation and new development partnerships.

For small countries it will mean prioritising, without cherry picking, goals. What that means in reality is unclear as we are all charting new territory when it comes to implementing this agenda. What we do know, and the new agenda recognises, is that development is a continuing spectrum – not something that can be achieved by merely copying the practices of others. And history tells us that imposed solutions rarely get traction – no matter how well intentioned or how deep the evidence base may be. So the fact that the new agenda is founded on country stewardship is to be celebrated.

Unlike the eight MDGs, which were conceived behind closed doors, the new agenda is the product of exhaustive intergovernmental negotiations, which included extensive consultations with civil society and business groups. Given the competing national and issue-based interests, it is unsurprising then that the list of new goals is vastly expanded from their predecessors. There were many vibrant debates among UN member states and across civil society about what should and should not be included. Not all ideological differences were settled, and perhaps for the first time the agenda was not dictated by a small group of powerful nations. In fact in some cases, it was a small group of small countries that held sway.

The Pacific bloc in the United Nations (the Pacific Small Island Developing States – PSIDS) championed a goal on oceans, and as part of the Alliance of Small Island States (which was chaired by Nauru throughout the 2014 Open Working Group) led the call for a goal to tackle climate change. For our countries, perhaps more aptly referred to as large ocean states, these two goals are essential elements of sustainable development.

Our regional neighbour, Timor-Leste, defied ardent opposition to be the primary proponent for a goal on peace, justice and strong institutions. Drawing on the reality of building a nation state from scratch, Timor-Leste’s recent experience of peace-building and state-building has demonstrated that without sustained peace there can be no sustainable development. Without capable and accountable institutions we cannot make the leap from goal setting to managing our economies to deliver the services and build the infrastructure our people need. Goal 16 on peaceful, inclusive societies is now widely viewed as being the ‘powerhouse from which all other action will flow’ and underpins the success of the whole agenda. Perhaps not surprising given the state of the world, most recently exemplified by the massive displacement and migration of people from Syria.

Our governments will be the primary custodians of this new agenda, but they cannot operate in isolation of national, regional and international partners. If we are serious about being the first generation to eradicate extreme poverty and the last to suffer the scourge of climate change, then we must hold our leaders to their national and international commitments to properly resource the implementation of this agenda. We will have to track our progress, and share our learning at home and abroad. More than ever, we need an active civil society to be actively engaged in renewed national conversations that will chart our own development pathways.

To start these conversations in the Pacific, PiPP has teamed up with RMIT University to launch a short survey that will tell you about the goals and what they seek to achieve, and give you the chance to rate the relevance of the goals and how your country is fairing against the targets. We aim to continue this survey (both online and offline) over the coming years and to periodically extract information in public reports to national governments and regional organisations. The aim is to get a broad understanding of the goals and how best to prioritise actions in our region, and to provide feedback to our policymakers and implementers on our progress.

We should be very proud of the achievements of our representatives in New York. The contributions from the PSIDS and Timor-Leste were instrumental in ensuring the transformative nature of this agenda. Not only for the inclusion of the goals on peace and institutions, oceans and climate change, but by ushering in a new era of global engagement. By showing that no matter how small and under resourced, small island countries can shape the international agenda.

Now all of us at home need to take the lead and actively shape the means of implementation. Otherwise the hard fought gains will be lost, and it will be back to business as usual – leaving others to determine our fate for us.

The SPC-EU project states on its website that it is ‘helping Pacific Island countries to improve the governance and management of their deep-sea minerals resources in accordance with international law, with particular attention to the protection of the marine environment and securing equitable financial arrangements for Pacific island countries and their people.’

The goal is laudable. The question is, can a donor that represents countries with mining interests protect and advocate for the rights of Pacific islands? It sounds like a serious conflict of interest, much as the PACER (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations) negotiations are, with Australian funding providing training to Forum island officials, paying for island officials to attend PACER negotiations, and financing an Office of the Chief Trade Advisor. All of this creates its own industry, a legion of trade officials who have a vested interest in promoting trade negotiations, whether or not they are, in fact, in the interests of the different island nations.

Face the facts: Deep-sea mining potentially offers a serious economic opportunity for the islands, but one that by its nature is not sustainable for the long-term and comes with possibly serious environmental consequences. In addition, experience with onshore mining is limited to a few Melanesian countries, while deep-sea mining experience and legislation is embryonic, at best.

Why keep reinventing the wheel when we have experience and examples of regional cooperation that works? The best of these are in fisheries. The Forum Fisheries Agency is a good example of a regional body that has provided solid management, monitoring and surveillance for the Pacific tuna fishery that has worked for the interests of the islands. But the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) is probably the body that is the most relevant for deep-sea mining.

Instead of going it alone, with each country establishing its own legislation and negotiating deals with mining companies individually, why not use the PNA formula that shows how rights can be managed and, through a unified effort, maximized for all parties.

What should be happening at the regional level is discussion aimed at establishing regional or sub-regional agreements so that island nations can agree to minimum terms and conditions for deep-sea mining. Drawing on the experience with the Pacific tuna fishery, the region could be working to set minimum terms and conditions that could be enacted through implementing arrangements to ensure national legislation is not undermined and small island economies are not played off against each other and exploited inequitably. This is exactly what PNA is now doing with the tuna industry.

Given that the International Seabed Authority, which was established by the United Nations to regulate these activities and develop a mining code for management and monitoring of deep-sea mining, is already reported to be issuing licenses for the Pacific, the islands need to get a better grip on what is potentially a multi-billion dollar industry, with significant side effects. Do the islands get a decent return and find ways to successfully manage environmental problems?

It seems so obvious that what is needed is a Forum Leaders declaration to address deep-sea mining at the regional level, where agreed-to regional strategies can ensure fair returns for the islands.

The ability of PNA’s eight members to maintain unity in setting minimum prices for fishing days and enforce management measures for the tuna fishery has resulted in the PNA skipjack fishery holding the highest global certification for sustainability through the Marine Stewardship Council, setting a minimum price for access to fish, controlling fishing effort, establishing compulsory satellite-based surveillance, enforcing 100 percent observer coverage of purse seiners, and implementing other requirements. Of even more relevance to deep-sea mining is PNA’s restriction limiting the transshipment of catch to export carrier vessels in designated ports, where species composition and harvest tonnage are checked and verified. This also provides significant additional direct and indirect economic benefits to the island ports. Similar transshipment requirements should apply to deep-sea mining ore carriers so independent inspectors can monitor and verify volumes and types of ores being exported.

This is unlikely to happen in the absence of a regional approach to mining. Instead of continuing down the path of individual islands negotiating their own separate deep-sea mining arrangements with all the poor governance opportunities this presents, what does the Forum region have to lose by convening a meeting with the goal of establishing a regional deep-sea mining agreement? Member countries through PNA have experience in developing successful regional agreements that establish rules and minimum standards for resource management and exploitation — to the great benefit of their members. Let’s use this experience for the benefit of all the islands in the area of deep-sea mining.

With the Forum summit in Papua New Guinea just six weeks away, this is an initiative that needs the leaders attention and action.

Photo caption: The Parties to the Nauru Agreement management of the Pacific skipjack tuna industry has resulted in a five-fold increase in revenue to its eight members since 2010.

I believe this as a citizen of this planet. After all, I am really just a fisherman trying to protect his corner of the Pacific Ocean for his family and his country—no different from what my forebears have done for thousands of years. Our people have always understood that we are stewards of our rich and beautiful natural environment, and that Palau’s past, present and future are inextricably tied to the health of our natural resources, particularly the ocean.

Our traditions and culture date back many generations to when our ancestors first voyaged across the vast Pacific to settle these far-flung islands some 3,000 years ago. The foundation of our culture is respect, not just for one another, but for nature as well. Without respect for our Mother Earth, we would have never survived the journey—and the same holds true today. It is with this value of respect that our local traditional chiefs, without any institutional knowledge of the science we have today, developed conservation practices that have led our people to live in harmony with the environment. This is the heart of our culture, as depicted in the Palauan flag: a full yellow moon against a deep blue ocean. The combination of the moon and the ocean is a metaphor for nature’s balance and harmony.

When resources were under threat, the chiefs declared a “Bul”—what today we refer to as conservation moratorium. Reefs would be deemed off limits during spawning and feeding periods, or when fish stocks had become depleted, so that the ecosystem could replenish itself and marine life would remain abundant and in equilibrium. The customary rules in Palau are simple: think about tomorrow; take what you need from the environment and no more. A decade ago, when Palauans recognized that industrial commercial overfishing and rapid development were threatening the sustainability of our fragile marine ecosystems, we did not hesitate to act. In 2003, through extensive dialogue between government and community stakeholders, we passed the Protected Areas Network (PAN) Act, which set up a framework for a national system of protected areas. This collaborative conservation approach was necessary to ensure that local communities benefit directly from this national legislation.

In 2006 I issued a call to the Pacific Region—known as the Micronesia Challenge—to protect at least 30 per cent of their coastal waters and 20 per cent of their terrestrial resources to give biodiversity a safe haven. When we saw that sharks, which are key to a healthy marine ecosystem were being hunted to extinction, we established the first shark sanctuary in the world and were followed by many other nations.

More recently, we have come to understand the devastating impact that large-scale industrial commercial fishing has had on our ocean, and we have responded by proposing the Palau National Marine Sanctuary. With the passage of Sanctuary Law, Palau will effectively end all industrial foreign commercial fishing in 80 per cent of our Exclusive Economic Zone and create a domestic fishing zone in the remainder to meet local and tourism needs. We are doing this to allow our battered fish stocks to recover and to enhance our own ecotourism economy.

The goal of our latest and largest conservation effort is to help restore the balance between humans and nature. It is preserving the best of our environment and helping to restore the rest.

The national policies that we pursue today—the PAN Act, the Micronesia Challenge, the Shark Sanctuary and the Palau National Marine Sanctuary—are simply modern versions of our traditional conservation practices, the “Bul”. The work we do nationally will need to be amplified and augmented by work at the international level to make a difference. The unified nature of the ocean—and the importance of it being healthy, productive and resilient—is a key reason why Palau and the Pacific small island developing states (SIDS) advocated a stand-alone goal on oceans in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals and a robust oceans component to the SAMOA pathway, approved at last years international conference on SIDS.

As a group, the Pacific has called on the international community to recognize the central role of oceans and seas in supporting food, jobs, health, and culture. We have similarly advocated for the means of implementation necessary to ensure that we can achieve our ideals: combating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; halting ocean acidification; addressing marine pollution; ensuring coastal management; supporting the creation of marine protected areas; building the right infrastructure for responsible tourism; ensuring sustainable fisheries; and recognizing special requirements and aspirations of developing states, particularly SIDS, and the least developed among them.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) proved that we can make historic gains by marshalling resources around a common cause and bringing stakeholders—governments, NGOs, the private sector, and local communities—together. Even the most cynical among us must marvel at the millions that were educated, vaccinated, and raised out of poverty as a result of the MDGs. The same success is needed for oceans.

Investment in sustainable ecotourism, domestic fisheries, marine resource management, data collection, monitoring and enforcement and surveillance of our waters can make a generational, transformative impact. These objectives—environmental health, food security, and economic prosperity—are the very essence of our sustainable development and the foundation of the future we want for ourselves and to ensure our children’s future.

This article was first published (March 2015) on OurPlanet, the official website of the United Nations Environment Programme – http://89.31.102.21/ourplanet/

Photo: Ben Bohane / wakaphotos.com. Palau patrol boats are enforcing the ban on commercial fishing in Palau waters.

In the lead up to the Rio+ 20 global conference of heads of state and government on sustainable development, PiPP undertook detailed national assessments for Palau and Vanuatu as part of the study coordinated by the United nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) – Green Economy in a Blue World – Pacific Perspective 2012.

This publication explores the concept of a green economy in the Pacific, including a summary of the opportunities, challenges and constraints. I am confident that it will support the efforts of our development partners and Governments in formulating policies for a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient Pacific.

For Pacific island countries, the green economy is very much a blue economy, which is why the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDs) chose this theme to be conveyed by the Pacific to Rio+20.

The future we want [PDF 0.5MB], the outcome of the Rio+20 Summit, reinforced the global commitment towards balancing the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development through the green economy approach, including enabling policy, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. Green economic policies, coupled with other macro-economic and social policies to promote inclusion, can be used to “incentivize” greater balance in developmental outcomes – particularly in favour of social inclusion, equity, and environmental sustainability. Pacific island developing countries, where in spite of previous efforts and significant resource outlays, vulnerability has increased and the capacity to cope has not. Overall economic performance in the Pacific has been weak; and while there has been some social development, including progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there are still significant gaps, particularly in the areas of poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability. The importance of poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability in the Pacific has received high-level recognition through the conclusion that ‘poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing the world today’ and through the Pacific Islands Forum conclusion that climate change is the single greatest threat in the Pacific and managing the Pacific Ocean is one of the Pacific’s most significant challenges.

The Pacific Ocean provides environmental, economic and social benefits to the global community. Thus there is a need to support the stewardship role of the people of the Pacific through recognizing the unique challenges faced. The preservation of natural resources and ecosystems and environmentally sustainable growth are of critical importance for the Pacific. While the top priorities of the Pacific leaders are addressing the threat of climate change and overcoming the challenge of managing the Pacific Ocean, the need for greater gender equality, strong institutions and sustainable economic performance are also evident in the region.

This publication is offered to support national governments and their development partners in formulating policies for a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient Pacific.