74
F. Gelves-Gómez and S. Brincat
climate change. Though in draft form, it shows a greater—though still limited—
acknowledgement of themes more consistent with vanua. The Bill provides a regulatory framework to support the planning, development and implementation of longterm climate polices and actions to protect Fiji’s people and their territories in view
of the climate change emergency. The Bill is embedded in the context of international obligations set by the Paris Agreement. Divided into seventeen (17) parts, The
Bill is wide ranging in its implications but also in its aspirations. From establishing
legislative guides for research, defining commitments and obligations for climate
change mitigation, to formulating mechanisms for engagement and financing that
will support climate change governance mechanisms and arrangements, The Bill
impacts all sectors of Fiji. The Bill is comprehensive, and its overall intent is to establish ways in which Fiji can mitigate its own climate change impacts, while promoting
responses, adaptation, and resilience to climate change. The Bill lays the foundations
for a future act that will shape institutional and governance arrangements which will
permit Fiji’s institutional response to climate change through national legislation.
Perhaps most importantly, the ‘Principles’ make direct reference for the recognition of the iTaukei (and the Rotumans) including “their respective ownership”
of iTaukei lands and Rotuman “lands, their unique culture, customs, traditions and
language” (Article 5(i)). It refers to traditional knowledge, and iTaukei needs in terms
of mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, Article 81 recognises traditional knowledge
of the iTaukei and Rotumans and the multi-cultural and multi-faith composition of the
Fijian population. This recognition is more hortatory than real, however, as it makes
no mention of the traditional land ownership forms (outlined above) that would seem
fundamental for implementing this type of policy at the local level. The iTaukei Land
Trust Board and Act (1940) and Register of leases is referred to and must give consent
in terms of strategies related to REDD+ programmes and sequestration rights but this
is not outlined in greater detail. The institutional and governance structures that the
act aims to create (identified in Article 4(d)) should be consistent with vanua and land
systems. Part 4, on ‘Governance’, is a real missed opportunity because rather than
affirming local traditions, it adopts a hierarchical approach of Ministerial powers,
with a Head of the Climate Change and International Cooperation Division, and
Inspectors rather than an emphasis on local, bottom-up mechanisms of consultation. The National Climate Change Coordination Committee makes no mention of
interactions with local communities other than a vague power to make “consultative
groups as required” (13(j)), which seem again the prerogative of the head rather than
emanating from the community. This leads to many questions around the objective
of climate resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity in respect to Fiji’s environment
and ecosystems (Article 4(m)) if they are not tethered to the conditions or needs of
local communities. For example, The Bill aims to provide “for the relocation and
rights of at-risk communities” but these rights are not determined clearly and the
surrounding text of the act seems more concerned with relocation than wider notions
of human rights (especially of the collective community). The language of its principles (Article 5) are all made in the terminology of international instruments on
climate change and not in terms of vanua that could be a complementary, shared
narrative. For example, principles of intergenerational equity (Article 5(c)) could
F. Gelves-Gómez and S. Brincat
climate change. Though in draft form, it shows a greater—though still limited—
acknowledgement of themes more consistent with vanua. The Bill provides a regulatory framework to support the planning, development and implementation of longterm climate polices and actions to protect Fiji’s people and their territories in view
of the climate change emergency. The Bill is embedded in the context of international obligations set by the Paris Agreement. Divided into seventeen (17) parts, The
Bill is wide ranging in its implications but also in its aspirations. From establishing
legislative guides for research, defining commitments and obligations for climate
change mitigation, to formulating mechanisms for engagement and financing that
will support climate change governance mechanisms and arrangements, The Bill
impacts all sectors of Fiji. The Bill is comprehensive, and its overall intent is to establish ways in which Fiji can mitigate its own climate change impacts, while promoting
responses, adaptation, and resilience to climate change. The Bill lays the foundations
for a future act that will shape institutional and governance arrangements which will
permit Fiji’s institutional response to climate change through national legislation.
Perhaps most importantly, the ‘Principles’ make direct reference for the recognition of the iTaukei (and the Rotumans) including “their respective ownership”
of iTaukei lands and Rotuman “lands, their unique culture, customs, traditions and
language” (Article 5(i)). It refers to traditional knowledge, and iTaukei needs in terms
of mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, Article 81 recognises traditional knowledge
of the iTaukei and Rotumans and the multi-cultural and multi-faith composition of the
Fijian population. This recognition is more hortatory than real, however, as it makes
no mention of the traditional land ownership forms (outlined above) that would seem
fundamental for implementing this type of policy at the local level. The iTaukei Land
Trust Board and Act (1940) and Register of leases is referred to and must give consent
in terms of strategies related to REDD+ programmes and sequestration rights but this
is not outlined in greater detail. The institutional and governance structures that the
act aims to create (identified in Article 4(d)) should be consistent with vanua and land
systems. Part 4, on ‘Governance’, is a real missed opportunity because rather than
affirming local traditions, it adopts a hierarchical approach of Ministerial powers,
with a Head of the Climate Change and International Cooperation Division, and
Inspectors rather than an emphasis on local, bottom-up mechanisms of consultation. The National Climate Change Coordination Committee makes no mention of
interactions with local communities other than a vague power to make “consultative
groups as required” (13(j)), which seem again the prerogative of the head rather than
emanating from the community. This leads to many questions around the objective
of climate resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity in respect to Fiji’s environment
and ecosystems (Article 4(m)) if they are not tethered to the conditions or needs of
local communities. For example, The Bill aims to provide “for the relocation and
rights of at-risk communities” but these rights are not determined clearly and the
surrounding text of the act seems more concerned with relocation than wider notions
of human rights (especially of the collective community). The language of its principles (Article 5) are all made in the terminology of international instruments on
climate change and not in terms of vanua that could be a complementary, shared
narrative. For example, principles of intergenerational equity (Article 5(c)) could