4 Leveraging Vanua: Metaphysics, Nature …
73
Fiji’s aspirations to develop and build resilience. These rely on international aid
and a recently established (2017) National Green Bond to finance its endeavours to
face climate change and which have been commended for their efforts to achieve a
sustainable financial base (Anantharajah 2019). The links to the overriding economic
rationalist discourse are here obvious.
A more complex example of the disconnection to vanua within The Policy is the
dominance of the themes of ‘resilient development’ as the pathway to follow in planning and responding to climate change. The Policy furthers Fiji’s commitments in
relation to achieving inclusive socio-economic development, on the premise that such
development cannot happen without addressing climate change concerns. Outlining
a “woven approach” to climate change and resilient development, the policy recognises the importance of the connections between the many factors that contribute
to climate change, adaptation and resilience. The Policy therefore acknowledges
Fiji’s need to strengthen its actions to achieve climate change goals, but also the
importance of promoting ways geared towards transformation of multiple sectors
(e.g. transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2030). Yet, The Policy defines
resilience as “the ability to cope with shocks and disturbance with minimal disruption and successfully return to a stable state” (Republic of Fiji 2018, p. 17). In other
words, resilience is the ability of Fiji, its people and ecosystems to ‘bounce-back’
after climate shocks and disturbances. This definition arguably adheres to the most
common vocabulary used in policy instruments on resilience and climate (Davidson
et al. 2016). It is grounded on the premises of development and economic growth
emanating from dominant ideas in the technocratic worldview perspective that antagonises humans and Nature. This definition, however, has been widely criticised for
its instrumentalism regarding how to act and respond in order to create resilience
(Cretney 2014). By articulating policy in terms of the capacity of socio-ecological
systems to ‘bounce-back’, policy and actions are focused on the social factors that
might contribute to returning functionality to particular (and probably damaged) institutions and structures (Cote and Nightingale 2012). This does not take into account
how responding to climate change is enmeshed within broader categories such as
the environment, economics, spirituality and religion at the local level. Nor does it
adequately account for how some climatic changes, such as rising sea levels, may
impact on ancestral lands and spirits worlds in ways which prevent these communities
to return to a ‘stable state’. Moreover, such instrumentalist approach to policy may
be trading political expediency for effectiveness by challenging long-term values
related to vanua and by restructuring the environment and society to accommodate
new, external definitions of what is desirable or appropriate adaptation (Cote and
Nightingale 2012; Cretney 2014). To the degree these adaptation mechanisms do
not mesh with local interests, belief-systems, or community needs they will remain
ineffective.
Fiji’s Climate Change Bill, proposed in 2019 (hereafter The Bill), is the Fiji
Government’s most recent legislative proposal articulating its intentions related to
73
Fiji’s aspirations to develop and build resilience. These rely on international aid
and a recently established (2017) National Green Bond to finance its endeavours to
face climate change and which have been commended for their efforts to achieve a
sustainable financial base (Anantharajah 2019). The links to the overriding economic
rationalist discourse are here obvious.
A more complex example of the disconnection to vanua within The Policy is the
dominance of the themes of ‘resilient development’ as the pathway to follow in planning and responding to climate change. The Policy furthers Fiji’s commitments in
relation to achieving inclusive socio-economic development, on the premise that such
development cannot happen without addressing climate change concerns. Outlining
a “woven approach” to climate change and resilient development, the policy recognises the importance of the connections between the many factors that contribute
to climate change, adaptation and resilience. The Policy therefore acknowledges
Fiji’s need to strengthen its actions to achieve climate change goals, but also the
importance of promoting ways geared towards transformation of multiple sectors
(e.g. transitioning to 100% renewable electricity by 2030). Yet, The Policy defines
resilience as “the ability to cope with shocks and disturbance with minimal disruption and successfully return to a stable state” (Republic of Fiji 2018, p. 17). In other
words, resilience is the ability of Fiji, its people and ecosystems to ‘bounce-back’
after climate shocks and disturbances. This definition arguably adheres to the most
common vocabulary used in policy instruments on resilience and climate (Davidson
et al. 2016). It is grounded on the premises of development and economic growth
emanating from dominant ideas in the technocratic worldview perspective that antagonises humans and Nature. This definition, however, has been widely criticised for
its instrumentalism regarding how to act and respond in order to create resilience
(Cretney 2014). By articulating policy in terms of the capacity of socio-ecological
systems to ‘bounce-back’, policy and actions are focused on the social factors that
might contribute to returning functionality to particular (and probably damaged) institutions and structures (Cote and Nightingale 2012). This does not take into account
how responding to climate change is enmeshed within broader categories such as
the environment, economics, spirituality and religion at the local level. Nor does it
adequately account for how some climatic changes, such as rising sea levels, may
impact on ancestral lands and spirits worlds in ways which prevent these communities
to return to a ‘stable state’. Moreover, such instrumentalist approach to policy may
be trading political expediency for effectiveness by challenging long-term values
related to vanua and by restructuring the environment and society to accommodate
new, external definitions of what is desirable or appropriate adaptation (Cote and
Nightingale 2012; Cretney 2014). To the degree these adaptation mechanisms do
not mesh with local interests, belief-systems, or community needs they will remain
ineffective.
Fiji’s Climate Change Bill, proposed in 2019 (hereafter The Bill), is the Fiji
Government’s most recent legislative proposal articulating its intentions related to