The plight of Kiribati

(Pronounced “Keer-i-bhas”)

The effects of climate change may be felt in the increased occurrence of extreme weather events and patterns. The damage and scale of these events varies, and it is still a contested point whether increased CO² emissions is the cause of climate change at all. But what if, rather than being faced with an increased chance of drought or higher temperatures, there is a credible  likelihood that your whole country might be swamped by the sea within 60 years? This is a real concern for Kiribati President Anote Tong, who, not for the first time, spoke of the impending crisis facing the 100,000 residents of Kiribati at the recent 42^nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), 6^th – 9^th September 2011, hosted by the New Zealand Government at Waiheke Island.

Pacific leaders pose for the traditional “silly shirts” photo, as part of the 42^nd PIF, 6^th – 9^th September 2011, Waiheke Island, New Zealand.

Kiribati is an island nation in the very middle of the Pacific Ocean (straddling both the equator and the international dateline) and is made up of a series of 32 atolls, and one raised coral island. These islands have an area of only 811 square kilometres, but are spread over 3.5 million square kilometres. The average altitude of Kiribati is about 2-3 metres with the highest point being only 81 metres above sea level. Whilst there are an estimated 100,000 permanent residents, there is a net migration rate of -2.85 per 1000 people, mostly due to the limited economic prospects on the islands. However, the greatest threat for the population seems to be the environmental degradation from a growing population and limited carrying capacity of the islands, and its impending vulnerability to climate change.

Kiribati

The middle of the Pacific Ocean

The PIF Communiqué 2011 included a resolution acknowledging the effects of climate change:

“CLIMATE CHANGE

15. Leaders reaffirmed that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific. They welcomed the historic visit of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Pacific to see firsthand the degree of vulnerability of the people of the Pacific to the adverse impacts of climate change and sea level rise, as exemplified by the case of Kiribati. They also welcomed the presentation by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and support for regional efforts and strong international action to address the impacts of climate change.”

However, President Tong went further than this when, in his speech to fellow leaders, he outlined a radical plan to combat the effects of climate change on his country. He proposes that his people shall, within 60 years, be living on a series of “floating islands”, entirely man-made, at a cost of USD$2billion. Here is an artist's conception of what they might look like:

The Jetsons meets Swiss Family Robinson

Pretty bizarre? That was my first reaction. As too for the many people who commented on a story in the UK Guardian newspaper last week (you can read them for yourselves here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/artificial-island-pacific-sea-levels#start-of-comments ). 

But then I thought some more about this “solution” that President Tong has so boldly proposed. Is he a little deluded, a bit too optimistic that such a science fiction-esque project can be completed? He admitted himself that his own people might struggle to live on such islands. Has President Tong been sucked into a goal trap? Whereby he provides a solution for his people that does not require them to abandon their island living? Or has he been forced into a corner by the rest of the world, who's ability to ignore the plight of Kiribati has meant that any attempt at a more integrated environmental management approach would be closer to impossible than his dream of floating islands.

For one, climate change is an acknowledged “wicked problem” (see my first blog for an explanation of this) that has no easy solution. How then can a small country, covering such a vast area, yet so insignificant on a global scale, begin to hope to address such a complex problem – and one to which they barely contribute. Whilst the risk of sea level rise to small Pacific Island nations has been well acknowledged, there seems to be very little being done to help those who cannot easily help themselves. This raises the issue of environmental refugees, and where the line between migration and forced exile should be drawn. Rumour did exist that New Zealand actually had an agreement with Tuvalu to receive climate change refugees. However, this is unfortunately not true (see http://mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/Pacific/NZ-Tuvalu-immigration.php). So, whilst New Zealand generally supports its smaller Pacific neighbours, even we do not have a specific agreement to provide a safe haven for refugees/migrants from those nations most affected by climate change. The New Zealand government instead includes an allocated number of migration entitlements for these countries each year, more as part of an economic assistance package than anything else.

It has been raised that the “donation” of a spare island by another Pacific nation could well solve Kiribati's problems. Fiji perhaps? Vanuatu? But would these nations really be prepared to give up some space for Kiribati? And is it likely that, if they did, it would be particularly productive or economically sustaining land? Not really, given that all other Pacific nations have their own environmental, economic and social issues to deal with, mostly on very limited space themselves.

Therefore, with such elementary options unavailable to Kiribati, is the floating island suggestion really such a “solution-minded” outcome for President Tong to reach? It seems that, where an integrated environmental approach might have provided a better resolution for Kiribati, such an approach is much too far out of his reach.