Connect with us

Published

on

SUVA, FIJI, Tuesday 19 May 2026 – Pacific civil society groups are calling for transparency and inclusion in regional deep-sea mining talks, as environmental stewardship concerns and poor economic prospects accompany the corporate push.

This cautionary call comes on the first day of the International Seabed Authority (ISA)’s Pacific Small Island Developing States regional workshop, the so-called ‘Deep Seabed Sustainable Blue Growth Initiative’ in Suva, Fiji.

The Pacific Regional Non-Government Organisations (PRNGO) Alliance, including Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC), Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS), Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), Greenpeace Australia Pacific (GPAP), and over 20 Pacific civil society organisations, questioned the agenda of the “blue growth” forum, arguing that the workshop emphasises sponsoring States, but only includes observer engagement with other Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS).

The collective stressed the importance of ensuring that the workshop does not unintentionally privilege or amplify only the perspectives of sponsoring States in a manner that could be perceived as legitimising or advancing deep-sea mining pathways in the Pacific.

Mr Joey Tau, Chair of the PRNGO Alliance, said: “We are extremely concerned that the current agenda is inappropriate to the Pacific context; as it stands, it clearly centres states that have an interest in deep-sea mining, with relations and benefits to the mining industry. Such regional workshops must ensure equal visibility and space for non-sponsoring States, particularly those advocating for precautionary approaches and environmental safeguards.

“We also challenge the ISA in its mandate to encourage policy discussions on effective protection of the marine environment and not just on the economics, exploration and exploitation.”

Ms Vani Catanasiga, Executive Director of the FCOSS, said: “The ISA came in to conduct a workshop, but they excluded civil society organisations. Why has that been allowed? The ISA is excluding a body of knowledge that is needed for concrete conversations that also takes into consideration the well-being of the Pacific people. This was not well thought through – this forum should have at least emphasised the importance of a civil society perspective. As we are aware, deep-sea mining will have transboundary harm; this is why it is important to have civil society in the room during these conversations.”

Reverend James Bhagwan, General-Secretary of PCC, said: “For Pacific peoples, there is nothing sustainable about deep-sea mining when it violates our cultural and spiritual connection to the ocean. The ocean is not an empty space. It is not simply a resource. It is our common home, our provider, our ancestor, our climate regulator, and part of God’s creation. In the Pacific, we have long said: the ocean is us, and we are the ocean. To mine the ocean is to wound the life-system that holds our peoples, our islands and future generations together.”

Ms Laisa Nainoka, Oceans Campaigner at PANG, said: “There is no such thing as sustainable deep-sea mining. Harm does not become harmless just because we rebrand it. It is fundamentally destructive, with far-reaching impacts on the ocean, marine life, and the communities that depend on them for survival. These impacts are not confined to the high seas or the exclusive economic zones of sponsoring states, it is felt across the entire ocean.”

Mr Rae Bainteiti, Political Coordinator at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Calling the destruction of our ocean floor ‘sustainable blue growth’ is deceptive, biased, and wrong – it is bluewashing the biggest modern threat to the Pacific. Deep-sea mining is a risky investment that will cost the Pacific the most and benefit us the least. The average Pacific Island State would only receive mere thousands of dollars through the ISA benefit-sharing regime as it stands, while international mining companies rake in billions. There is no Pacific ‘blue growth’ in a mined ocean. True blue growth should mean investing in healthy oceans, sustainable livelihoods, climate resilience, and protecting marine ecosystems, not opening the door to another extractive industry.”

Pacific civil society organisations have consistently emphasised that, rather than framing deep-sea mining as an opportunity for “blue growth,” the ISA should prioritise its environmental protection obligations.

At the forum this week, PRNGO is calling for the ISA to:

  • Actively include civil society and community perspectives in workshops;
  • Prevent pro-mining bias in deep-sea mining governance by shifting focus away from heavily invested Sponsoring States toward meaningful engagement with PSIDS;
  • Give equal weight to dialogue about protecting nature, including the role of independent science, the application of the precautionary approach, and the consideration of cumulative mining impacts.

To date, 40 countries have called for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, including seven Pacific nations.

– ENDS –

Pacific civil society cautions ISA of ‘bluewashing’ deep-sea mining

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.

      What timeline options were delegates debating?

      Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).

      Countries failed to reach a re