TL: WHAT CAN PACIFIC PEOPLES DO ABOUT THE NUCLEAR THREAT? SO: Greenpeace South Pacific Campaign (GP) [with NZ Church group] DT: not dated [orginal written 1982, later updated] Keywords: nuclear weapons south pacific disarmament greenpeace reports gp religions new zealand christianity quotes forests oceans toxics pesticides digests / "What can we do about it?", or "There's nothing we can do about that sort of thing"... Many of us in the Pacific probably feel this way about French bomb testing, Japanese and US waste dumping, China's missile tests, and US Navy tactics. But it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference. It is more likely if individuals unite in groups. Through a community approach, the possibilities for sound decision making and mutual encouragement are far greater. You may wonder - what good does it do to write a letter, to make a statement or to participate in a demonstration? It is important to see that speaking out is a valuable form of action, especially if it convinces political leaders that their people are calling for them to do something to bring about change. Here are just a few examples of what people have done and are doing: Calling for a Nuclear Free Pacific The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty On Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1985, at a South Pacific Forum meeting in the Cook Islands, eight of the 13 members signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZT). Signatories to the Treaty included Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Aotearoa (New Zealand)(NZ), Niue, Tuvalu and Western Samoa. Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru later also signed the treaty. The Solomon Islands became the ninth signatory at the 1987 Pacific Forum. Tonga and Vanuatu have not signed, the former considering it too strong, the latter not strong enough. Vanuatu declared itself nuclear free in 1982. The Treaty made legal a former Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) signed by Aotearoa (New Zealand), Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, Fiji, Western Samoa, Niue, Nauru, Kiribati and the Solomon and Cook Islands. This agreed not to acquire or possess nuclear weapons, and "to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories". The SPNFZT, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, is the culmination of a series of regional nuclear free zone proposals and initiatives dating back to the early 1960s, when the Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australian Labour parties first proposed the idea of a Southern Hemisphere Nuclear Free Zone. This idea received UN backing in 1975, and was strongly promoted by regional peace movements, labour movements, the Pacific Conference of Churches, the Pacific Women's Conference and the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Network. The Treaty and Protocols were drafted and opened for signatures at the 1985 meeting. The SPNFZT came into force on December 11, 1986, and was deposited with the United Nations. It emphasises the banning of nuclear weapons testing anywhere in the zone, and is a clear statement of regional disapproval of the French testing programme at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls. The Treaty also challenges the philosophy of nuclear deterrence. The preamble to the Treaty states that the parties are "gravely concerned about the continuing nuclear arms race". It adds that nuclear weapons should be eliminated because of the "terror they hold for mankind and the threat which they pose to life on earth." Although limited, the Treaty can be seen as a first step in formalizing a regional stand against nuclearization of the Pacific. The ultimate objective for the South Pacific must be a comprehensive nuclear free zone. Within such a zone, the testing of missiles, the transit of nuclear weapons, their presence in ports and airfields, the maintenance of nuclear command, control and communications facilities, joint exercises with nuclear armed forces, the export and processing of nuclear fuels, and the storage of nuclear waste and its disposal on land would be prohibited. Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement The NFIP movement was born out of the Nuclear Free Pacific conferences in 1975 and 1978(see the Bible, Church and Nuclear Debate Section). The 3rd NFP conference in Hawaii in 1980 recognised the inter-relationships of indigenous self-determina- tion and nuclear issues and bought them under one umbrella. A networking centre and steering committee to oversee its oper- ations were established and newletter published in order to share resources,information and strategies throughout the region. The 1983 conference in Vanuatu adopted a Peoples Charter for the NFIP which declared a comprehensive Pacific Nuclear Free Zone and called for the withdrawl of colonial powers and the with- drawal of defence links with nuclear powers. Conferences every three years are held(Philippines,1987, Aotearoa,1990) to strengthen the network, report back on campaigns and actions, pass resolutions, and prioritise and assess future campaigns. Pacific campaign to disarm the seas (PCDS) PCDS was initiated during a 1983 conference in Vanuatu, bringing together activists concerned with nuclear warship visits, the presence of military bases which support naval intervention, and the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles in the Pacific. Saipan groups in action A group of women in Saipan organised a demonstration when Japanese scientists were visiting their region to explain Japan's radioactive waste dumping programme. Others circularised petitions and accumulated thousands of signatures. Hawaiian Activist sentenced An Hawaiian anti-nuclear activist, Jim Albertini, was sentenced to three years in prison in July 1984 for a symbolic and peaceful swimming protest against a US Navy nuclear-capable warship, the USS Ouellet. The warship arrived in Hilo, Hawaii just days after the Hawaii City Council voted to make the US Military exempt from the County's Nuclear Free ordinance. This ordinance was the first established by law in the US. Albertini was released after one year's imprisonment. Tahitian Hunger Strike Thirty-three Tahitians from the Tavini Huiraatira (Polynesian Liberation Front) began a hunger strike on the steps of the cathedral in Papeete on July 2, 1989, the anniversary of the first French atomic test conducted in the Pacific in 1966. The six-day hunger strike ended on July 7 when the Territorial Government President agreed to the hunger strikers' demand to convene a special session of the Territorial Assembly to debate French nuclear testing and its effects upon the Maohi society. PACEX 1986 cancelled Intense pressure from trade unions, churches, and peace and environment groups resulted in the cancellation of the Pacific Area Defence Equipment Exhibition (PACEX) in 1986. This exhibition would have included military equipment and systems which were nuclear capable, offensive rather than defensive, designed for control of civilian crowds or used for torture. As a result of the opposition, the show was first transferred from Sydney to Darwin, where there were fears of possible black bans by trade unions. When the Northern Territory Government withdrew its support, the whole show was cancelled. Nuclear waste petition A "Petition Campaign Against Waste Dumping" collected 55,967 signatures from over 70 countries. This was presented to the Japanese government on March 1 1985 by delegates from the Northern Marianas Islands. Mariana women to LDC Jacoba Seman and Maria Pangelinan , members of the Northern Marianas Citizens' Committee Against Nuclear Waste Dumping went on a speaking tour of Britain before attending the LDC (London Dumping Convention) in September 1985. They were protesting against Japanese plans to dump nuclear waste in the Marianas trench. The Convention agreed to suspend ocean waste dumping indefinitely until it can be proved harmless. The women's participation highlighted the human cost of dumping. Although they didn't have a vote, their presence clearly affected the outcome. During the convention, 200 women from all over the world gathered outside to protest. Australia's bicentennial naval review, 1988 When 42 naval warships arrived in Sydney for a naval salute, including nuclear-armed vessels from Britain and the USA, protests were held by the New Zealand and Australian Peace Squadrons. An estimated 700 demonstrators participated in a variety of craft ranging from tugs, ferries and yachts down to kayaks and surfboards, making it the biggest demonstration of its kind in Australia. Radiation and missile symbols were attached to the US warship, which was fitted to carry tomahawk cruise missiles. Greenpeacers boarded the British warship and stood on the flight deck revealing T-shirts with the message: "Nuclear Weapons on Board". ABS TV reported that the Naval Review had been an "utter disaster" for the Navy, as protests around Australia showed popular opposition to visits by nuclear warships. Later, in Melbourne, the nuclear-certified warships HMS Ark Royal and FRA Fort Grange had to cancel many "goodwill events" because of a seamens's ban on providing tugs for nuclear warships, making it impossible for the British ships to dock. Belau women In March 1988, 50 of Belau's matriarchs for the second time legally challenged a constitutional amendment to lower the 75% vote needed to override the nuclear-free provision in Belau's constitution. This would have allowed nuclear substances into Belauan territory (paving the way for a deal allowing Belau formal independence in return for aid dollars and US military access). After three weeks the Belauan women had won their case. The Supreme Court ruled the Constitutional amendment to be null and void. Japanese housewives In April 1988, a protest group led by two Japanese housewives placed an advertisement in the Washington Post requesting the U.S. Congress not to approve the new US/Japan Nuclear Agreement. This new agreement facilitates the process of nuclear fuel transportation and reprocessing. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH AND THE NUCLEAR DEBATE Ever since the people of Bikini were moved off their island in 1946 to make way for the US testing programme, Pacific church people have been directly affected and concerned about the nuclear presence in the Pacific. Lack of awareness of the dangers and the extent of testing and radioactive waste dumping, however, resulted in a 20 year "quiet period" that now seems quite amazing. During this time, there was a noticeable lack of sharp criticism. Apart from the Marshallese who spoke on their own behalf, only a few faithful critics regularly raised questions and voiced warnings. From early stirrings to firm opposition In 1967 the Young Women's Christian Association and the Student Christian Movement in Suva initiated ATOM (Against Testing On Moruroa). In 1969, a large march and rally in Suva was organised by churches, trade unions, the Pacific Theological College and University of the South Pacific students. It was addressed by well-known local figures, including church leaders. Opposition continued to mount. In 1974 the Pacific Conference of Churches Executive Committee passed resolutions opposing nuclear testing and the testing of missiles, and declared itself in favour of a nuclear-free zone in the Pacific. In 1975 the first Nuclear-Free Pacific Conference was held in Suva. It was organised by a core group of YWCA and ATOM leaders and involved a broad range of participants including church people. Church opposition was reaffirmed in 1976, when the Third General Assembly of the Pacific Conference of Churches held in Port Moresby passed a strong resolution in favour of a nuclear-f- ree Pacific. Since that time this position has been regularly reaffirmed by Pacific churches and church groups. A special submission was prepared by the Pacific Conference of Churches for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, held between May 23 and June 28 1978. This outlined the history of the churches' opposition to nuclear presence in the Pacific and called for strong declarations and programmes of action. A second Nuclear-Free Conference was held in 1978 in Ponape, jointly sponsored by the Pacific Conference of Churches and the Pacific People's Action Front. This meeting also dealt with independence issues, as it was recognised that free and indepen- dent nations would never permit their lands, their people or their descendants to be endangered by nuclear contamination. The observance of a regular annual Nuclear-Free Pacific week was established. In May 1983, the World Council of Churches sent a delegation to the Marshall Islands to express the concern of the church and to assess the human cost of the US testing programme and military presence there. On July 30 in the same year, the World Council of Churches assembly, and via television, the whole world, was touched by the presentation of the Pacific Island delegation. The Assembly passed a resolution calling for the churches of the world to strengthen their support for the Christians and the churches of the Pacific in their struggles for political and economic independence and for a nuclear-free Pacific. In 1986, the Pacific Conference of Churches at its Fifth General Assembly strongly condemned current and planned programmes for the testing, selling, deploying or transiting of nuclear arms, dumping wastes in the Pacific, the relocation of people and their alienation from their homes, land and property. In June 1988, the Pacific Conference of Churches and five World Council of Churches delegates appealed to the South Pacific Forum Heads of Government asking for solidarity with the people of Pacific churches in their demand that France stop its nuclear testing in their region. "We want to inform you of our protest against any nuclear waste dumping in our Pacific Ocean and any proposal to incinerate toxic wastes in our Pacific countries... We dare to suggest that you consider not accepting any economic aid from France or any country that may dump nuclear wastes in the Pacific, as a sign of our solidarity." The church leaders also sent a message to the King of Tonga expressing deep concern at a proposal that toxic wastes be imported and incinerated in Tonga. Educational efforts of the churches concerning nuclear issues continue to be significant. Information has been circulated, resources (such as this book) have been prepared, and both church and non-church groups have been encouraged in their responses against the nuclear threat. The nuclear debate and Biblical themes Basic Biblical themes of stewardship, justice, peacemaking and hope are all raised by the nuclear issue. (All Bible references are from the Good News Bible). Stewardship We are accountable for our use and abuse of the earth, the ocean, and the whole universe. The Pacific was created a clean, peaceful, and life-giving place. We are accountable to God, to each other and to future generations for the many expressions of God-given life around us. Christians believe that to be fully human we must be responsible stewards. "Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small." So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them, and said "Have many children, so that your descendants will live over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge..." Genesis, 1:26-28a Also see Psalm 8:3-8, Luke 12:48b, Luke 16:10-12, I Peter 4:10. God created human beings in an intimate, integral relationship with nature. True progress is that which strengthens this relationship and does not weaken it (reflect upon Acts 17:24-31): "God, who made the world and everything in it, is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in man-made temples. Nor does he need anything that we can supply by working for him, since it is he himself who gives life and breath and everything else to everyone." Acts 17:24-25 "Yet God is actually not far from any one of us. As someone has said, "in him we live and move and exist."" Acts 17:27 Using advanced technology greatly increases the consequences of human actions in both space and time. It is more likely to affect wider areas of the earth, and more future generations. For example, one person driving a bulldozer can dramatically transform a hillside in a few hours, doing what would take hundreds of people working with traditional tools a period of many weeks or even months. Such work might be beneficial, but is likely to result in erosion and the pollution of waterways. We live in a limited world. It is limited in its capacity to bear exploitation. And we human beings are also limited. While we are made in God's image, we are limited in our cleverness. It is possible for us to seriously hurt the world in which we live, and we cannot hurt our world without hurting ourselves. The depend- ence of Pacific communities upon the sea makes this especially clear. Choices involving the use of advanced technology, therefore, carry an awesome responsibility. These choices must not be made exclusively by a small group of experts. Responsibility must be broadly shared. When faith in God, the Creator, and in the Kingdom of God is replaced by faith in human ability to solve all problems by technical means, humanity has fallen into the sin of idolatry. Thus the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean takes on spiritual overtones; the question of stewardship takes on different terms of reference if it is based on faith in human ability rather than on accountability to God. Justice A careful, critical reading of the Bible calls on us to deal with oppressive economic and power relationships. The Exodus story reveals God as one who especially loves and cares for the poor. God delivers the poor of Israel out of their poverty and oppression (Exodus 3:7-10). That liberation became the basis for their life as a nation, centred on just relation- ships. (See Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 19:9-10, 13-15. 25:35-38; Deuteronomy 24:17-22). The biblical witness shows that the capacity of the earth to sustain life in the peace and justice of "Shalom" is intimately linked with the protection of justice in the social order. "Shalom" is a Hebrew word which is close to the word peace in meaning. It represents a rich concept in which peace is intimate- ly tied to justice and right relationships - between people and God, between people, between people and their community, and between people and the earth. To take the major share of the world's resources and use them to make weapons for mass murder, when many people's daily survival needs are not even being met, is wrong. It is Sin. The God of the Bible is against this. Jesus, the Lord of human history is against this. No amount of rhetoric from the superpowers, from either side, can escape the wrongness of this. The prophets announced God's judgment because justice had been perverted, and the rights of the poor denied. They proclaimed the hope of a future kingdom where peace, righteousness and justice would abound in a new, redeemed society. (Isaiah 9:6-7, 61:1-2; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Ezekiel 34:17-24). The testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific (or anywhere), the dumping of radioactive wastes, the risks of having nuclear-powered ships pass through Pacific waters, as well as the fear and anxiety caused by the nuclear arms race, all represent injustice - unjust relationships between nations, between regions, between generations. "Some of you are not satisfied with eating the best grass; you even trample down what you don't eat! You drink the clear water and muddy what you don't drink! My other sheep have to eat the grass you trample down and drink the water you muddy. So now, I, the Sovereign Lord, tell you that I will judge between you strong sheep and the weak sheep." Ezekiel 34:18-20 The nuclear arms race and the development of nuclear energy represents a frightening centralisation of power, and a power that is clearly not benevolent. It greatly reduces the scope for democratic involvement in energy choices. This is a serious question of justice. A careful analysis of the patterns of power would force us to ask: whose interests are being protected with nuclear arms? Who are the main consumers of the electrical energy generated through nuclear power? What kinds of governments are making decisions in favour of nuclear power plants and why? The very nature of the process for marketing nuclear reactors and building nuclear power stations in developing coutries raises questions of justice in relation to access to technology and access to capital. This is an especially serious problem for developing countries, but affects rich countries as well. How nuclear reactors are financed is a fascinating study in itself, with all the stories of profitmaking and corruption, inadequate standards, and hasty choices made at the expense of future generations. There is a tendency for advocates of nuclear power to say that the question is too complicated for ordinary people to under- stand, so we must let those "who really know" tell us what to do. Unfortunately the experts cannot always be trusted to be objective because their status and jobs are at stake. Peacemaking Both the prophets Isaiah and Micah speak of a time when "Nations will beat their swords into ploughshares." Such a time will come only when the causes of war and militarism have been removed. This is an enormous task, and to make this happen great numbers of ordinary people around the world must work at peacemaking. How can Pacific people, with their rich traditions of human values help to challenge humankind to take risks for peace? How may we contribute to global dialogue leading towards new and positive peace dynamics, and towards a reduction of the fear and distrust which has the world locked into the terrible armament and energy race? (See Psalm 46, Galatians 5:14-15, Matthew 26:52, II Corinthians 5:17-19). "For the whole Law is summed up in one commandment: 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself'. But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another." Galatians 5:14-15 "When anyone is joined to Christ, he is a new being; the old is gone, the new has come. All this is done by God, who through Christ changed us from enemies into his friends and gave us the task of making others his friends also. Our message is that God was making all mankind his friends through Christ." II Corinthians 5:17-19a Peacemaking is not an "optional" role for Christians. It is a central, integral part of Christian discipleship. Peacemaking is not a passive role. It is no longer enough to simply refrain from using violence. We must find active, practical ways of playing this role. In one of Jesus' more famous sayings (Matthew 5:38-44) he rejects the old law of an "eye for an eye" and introduces a radical new law, "love your enemies". The new law describes a way of action. Active peacemaking may cause us to change our ideas about what is truly the good life; it will mean praying regularly and fervently for peace and speaking out for peace; struggling with issues which affect peace, participating in peacemaking groups, supporting political candidates who work for peace. You might ask: Is this relevant for people living in the small countries of the Pacific? It is extremely relevant. If a war were to begin, it would come as a war against all human beings. And in some profound way, the Pacific people are in the middle. They can have significant things to say about peace, and they might be heard as well as any people can be heard. Peacekeeping is not something that can be left to others, especially those with power. The leaders of the world's greatest military powers cannot be expected to want to create a world in which their military power will play a diminished role. Peacekeeping is essentially a spiritual struggle in relation to social, political, economic, technical and other realities. It means dealing with attitudes, anxieties, and with the lust for things and power. It means dealing with frustration and despair. Peace starts within our own selves. Pacific people must ask themselves: Upon what powers are we depending for our security? "Those who go to Egypt for help are doomed! They are relying on Egypt's vast military strength - horses, chariots and soldiers. But they do not rely on the Lord, the holy God of Israel, or ask him for help. He knows what he is doing! He sends disaster. He carries out his threats to punish evil men and those who protect them. The Egyptians are not gods - they are only human. Their horses are not supernatural. When the Lord acts, the strong nation will crumble, and the weak nation it helped will fall. Both of them will be destroyed." Isaiah 31:1-3 As nations place their trust in more and more arms and as small countries place their trust in large countries that have arms, people shift their faith and trust in God to an idolatrous faith in arms. Are we not guilty of this, too? In chapter six of Ephesians, St. Paul says we are engaged in warfare with "wicked spiritual forces". "For we are not fighting against human beings but against the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world, the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age." Ephesians 6:12 To call the arms race "demonic" is strangely but powerfully true. In both a world and local sense, the powers of institutions, technologies, habits and assumptions have taken control over us and have brought us to the edge of destruction. Even the politicians, generals, bureaucrats and corporate executives of the most powerful countries are not finally in control, but are under the control of powers beyond themselves. These powers (our institutions, our technologies, our money and property, our habits and even our crusades) possess us like demons because we give them our faith and loyalty! When St. Paul speaks about "Christ disarming" the powers, in Ephesians chapter six, he means: Their lie is exposed. They are shown for what they are The illusion of their power is uncovered We stand free of their rewards and punishments. Peacemaking is a costly role. Peacemakers are commonly charged with being hopelessly out of touch with reality. Since true peace is intimately tied to justice, peacemakers must resist injustice, a costly thing to do. Peacemakers are asked to share in Christ's suffering for the world. But this role may be taken in the confidence that "in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28). The way should be very clear. There is no theology, no doctrine in the history of the church or other major religions that could ever justify nuclear war. By any traditional standard of church teaching on violence and war, nuclear war is outlawed. There is no real theological debate on this issue. The churches are generally guilty of a terrible silence and accommodation. The truth about nuclear weapons must be proclaimed boldly! If Christians have lost their role as peacemakers, it is because they have forgotten who they are and because they themselves have fallen victims to the lies and the fears perpetuated by the "powers", "the false gods". Hope The nuclear question will not be overcome by an appeal to fear. Its own basis is fear. More fear will not finally prevail against it. Nuclear violence will be overcome by hope. This does not mean a false optimism which overlooks true danger. Christian hope must understand danger. But it also knows that the victory of Christ is stronger than the nuclear powers. Christ's life planted within us and among us is stronger than the forces around us. Christian hope manifests itself in tireless activity for peace and justice. It feeds on the conviction that God's love has the capacity to overcome all prejudices and unite all peoples. So we may celebrate hope (Philippians 2:5-11). And it is a hope given not only to Christians, but to the whole world (John 10:16; Ephesians 3:14-19). GLOBAL WARMING - THE PACIFIC FRONT LINE Low-lying and weather-vulnerable Pacific islands will be the first to suffer from the climate changes and global warming caused by the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect results from the build-up of certain gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere. As the heat from the sun is radiated into the atmosphere, it hits the layer of greenhouse gases. These gases allow sunlight and heat in but prevent them from escaping. Increasing quantities of greenhouse gases are building a heat-retaining blanket around the planet that is causing the earth's temperature to rise. The gases are mainly the result of burning fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas), deforestation, some agricultural practices and various industrial activities.(see table for breakdown) Industrialisation has pumped millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global temperatures will be higher by the year 2030 than they have been in the last 100,000 years. Scientists predict that this temperature increase will result in a significant sea level rise, brought about by the expansion of sea water as it warms up, and by the melting of the ice around the Poles. The effect of this on Pacific Islands would be catastrophic. Firstly, there would be extensive flooding of low-lying Pacific islands. Whole island populations may be forced to leave their homes. Coral reefs are a natural barrier against sea flooding, but if the sea level rises faster than the coral can regenerate, then this natural protection will not last. On many islands, salt water would flood the aquifers, threatening fresh water supplies. There would also be an increase in severe weather patterns such as storms and cyclones, meaning further coastal erosion and changes to important coastal ecosystems such as mangroves. A United Nations-commissioned body called the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in November 1988 to study the greenhouse effect. Three working groups were set up: science, impacts and responses. In an IPCC report completed in August 1990, scientists warned of the seriousness of the problem and emphasised the need for immediate action. The results of this report were discussed at the Second World Conference held in Geneva in late 1990. A representation from the Pacific Islands spoke out strongly about how industrialised countries were slow to act in the wake of such clear signals from the scientists. Pacific Island countries will be among the first to feel the impact of climate change, despite the fact that they have contributed very little to the problem. Moreover, the islands' economies are probably less able to finance the technologies necessary to reduce their own gas emission, or to protect themselves against the impact of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect has started and can not be reversed. However, it can be slowed down by a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The US Environmental Agency and the IPCC scientists both argue that stabilising the atmosphere's greenhouse gas content will require cuts of global carbon dioxide emissions of 60%-80%. Failure to attempt such a goal is to gamble with the environmental security of future generations not only in the Pacific but throughout the world. The solutions are obvious, but enacting them will require shifts in human behaviour and lifestyle that have no precedent in human history. This is the challenge for the remainder of the century. RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION Imagine a tropical rainforest with massive flowering trees so high that you feel like a miniature visitor in a land of giants; a forest of thousands of kinds of flowering plants, and where there are hundreds of frogs, buttterflys and bird species unique to the small area they inhabit. This is a sample of the tropical forest world of the South Pacific. The Pacific islands support over 42 million hectares of tropical and sub-tropical forest and are renowned for their high numbers of endemic plants and animals and their diversity. The mixing of tropical flora and southern flora plus the isolation of islands, separated for millions of years by thousands of miles of ocean, provided ideal conditions for the development of unique and diverse species of plants and animals on each island or group of islands. In Papua New Guinea there are 9000 species of flowering plants, 90% of which are found nowhere elsewhere. In the Solomons Islands, 44% of the bird species are unique. Kanaky is remarkable for its diversity of very primative flowering plants and southern conifers. Half of Fiji's plant species are endemic and its forests are the only place where the most primitive flowering plant family in the world is found. Tropical rainforests cover only seven percent of the world's surface but are home to over half of the world's plant and animal species. Over half of the tropical forests which once covered the earth have already been destroyed. At current rates of destruction, there will be no undisturbed tropical rainforests left in 30 years apart from a few specially protected areas. Why protect the rainforest? Rainforests play a vital role in stablising and regulating the earth's climate on a local and global level. On a local level rainforests regulate the hydrologic cycle by creating and absorbing rainfall; destroying them disrupts the cycle alters rainfall patterns, causing more extreme climatic conditions like droughts and floods. When a forest is logged, the old root network can no longer work as the sponge for runoff and as glue to hold the soil together. When the rainfall comes, the bare soil does not have the ability to store and release the water gradually. Instead the rainfall runs off in a destructive manner causing soil erosion and floods. This in turn often leads to silting of rivers and killing off-shore reefs. This happened after logging on the islands of Kolmbangara and Makira in the Solomons where large sections of the fringing reefs were damaged by silt washed from the land, seriouly depleting the normally abundant marine life on the reefs. On a global level rainforests play a crucial role in regulating the earth's climate. Growing trees perform a very valuable function. They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into food for themselves by a process called photosyn- thesis. During this process oxygen is released. The burning of forest to clear land releases the stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The burning of temperate and tropical forests accounts for about 20% of the global human output of CO2. Not only is the amount of CO2 increased, but each felled tree reduces the amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed from the atmosphere. CO2 is a main greenhouse gas thus the destruction of tropical forest is contributing greatly to the greenhouse effect. Genetic Erosion Tropical forests are home to over two and a half million species, and contain a multitude of potentially useful genetic designs vital to future progress in agriculture, medicine and industry. Already, one quarter of all medicine bought in chemist shops comes from rainforests. Seventy percent of the 3000 plants identified by the US National Cancer Institute as having anti-cancer properties come from rainforests. Yet between one and 50 species of potentially priceless medicinal plants become extinct per day, due to rainforest clearance. Why are the forests being felled? In most Pacific nations, land remains in the tradi- tional ownership of the Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian people. Decisions about the fate of the forests are generally made by local people and their village leaders. In most cases, the forests are the islanders' wealth, supplying food, housing and medicinal products. More recently, forests have become a source of badly needed cash income. Protecting the forest is often too costly for a village. For the developing economies of the Pacific, logging is seen as an important revenue earner. The export of whole logs has been used as emergency economic relief in more than one Pacific nation. The five countries in the Pacific which still have relatively large tracts of undisturbed tropical forest are Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Samoa. Papua New Guinea About 80%(34 million hectares) of rainforest in the South Pacific is situated here, where 75% of its land remains in tropical forest. 2.3% of the forests are formally proteted. Existing reserves include Wildlife Management Areas where landowners continue to use forest products form their land but protect the forest form clearance. The forests are now being destroyed or damaged at an estimated rate of 20,000 hectares a year through the rapid escalation of export logging. A 1989 offical government inquiry revealed an industry which had expanded without control, and where there was people and the country as a whole, short changed. In 1989 PNG participated in the Tropical Forests Action Plan(a global country-by -country review of tropical forestry admins- tered by FAO and the World Bank) Subsequently PNG has prepared its own National Forest Action Plan in which it announced its intentions to establish a moratorium on the issuing of new timber licences and to create World Heritage Areas and other protection categories for over 15% to 20% of its forests. Defending Papua New Guinea's Forests The Gogol-Naru people of PNG have seen the Japanese lumber company Jant Pty. Ltd, a subsidary of Honshu paper Corp, clearcut more than 170,000 acres of their tropical rainforest in teh last sixten years. In exchange, the people were promised better roads and social services. The benefits never came and logging had destroyed the Gogol-Naru's land; wiping out scared tribal grounds, compacting soil and polluting rivers with fuel and sediment. Jant turns the rainforests into woodchips, which are processed into packaging material and cardboard. Under the timber contract, royalties to Gogol-Naru came to some $50 to $100 paid to each family clan every four years. At the same time, Jant avoids paying taxes to the PNG government through a system called "transfer-pricing", which allows it to deny that it makes any money in PNG while maing huge profits overseas. In October, 1990 the landowners demanded compensation for the destruction of their lands, but they were ignored until they shut down the logging operations by blockading roads. The blockade bought Jant to the negotiating table, but the company once again broke its promises. Further blockades were organised in January 1991 with the Gogol_Naru demanding that the Jant contract be reviewed by the government and that an environmental impact assessment be carried out. The Solomon Islands 80% of the Solomons Islands is still forested, with a total natural forest area of about 2.2 million hectares. In the last ten years logging has rapidily accelerated. In 1989 the Ministry of Forests estimated that within 15 years all the accessible forests will have been logged. Logging is the Solom- on's largest foreign exchange earner and for the poorer parts of the country logging is the only way to earn revenue. One small national park exists, but almost all the trees within it have been felled by settlers. Vanuatu Seventy-five percent of the country's forest cover is intact, although there is fast-expanding land clearance for agriculture, and some small-scale log exporting. Vanuatu has taken the initiative to establish protected areas on customary land. An Australian aid programme has sponsored a proposal to set up a reserve of about three thousand hectares of forest on Erromango Island. Fiji In 1985 it was estimated that 38% of Fiji was still covered in forest. 1/3 of this is classified as protected (forests situated on steep land) and another 1/3 classified as non-commercial. The remaining third is commericial forest and of this 60% is under logging concessions. On Vanua Levu one of the main islands, at least 50% of the forests have already been logged and 90% is destined for logging. In the tighter economic circumstances following the recent coups, Fiji broke an existing ban on exporting logs(as opposed to timber). One of its principal export timbers is the Fijian kauri which is mainly exported to New Zealand. Like most Pacific countries it has been slow to adopt sustain- ability in its forestry management. The Native Lands Trust Board which adminsters all native owned land has strong conservation interests and is supportive of forest reserves. In 1990, in a precedent setting move it established a mechanism to allow landowners to be compensated for the protection of forests on their land. The bulk of the merchantable forest in Fiji has been signed away to timber companies on long-term concessions. Several protected areas have been established but these are by no means rrepresentative of the divesity present in Fiji's forests and there is an urgent need (as is true through-out the Pacific ) to establish a representative protected forest system. Samoa In 1978, the Ole Pupup'e National Park was established on `Upola, one of the main islands in Western Samoa. Other than this, little lowland forest now remains on Upolu. On the larger island of Savai'i - once heavily forested - a large sawmill has logged most of the merchantable forest. The logging of Samoa's indigenous forests has been assisted by a New Zealand aid forest scheme. A unique solution for forest preservation was achieved in 1988, in the Samaon village of Falealupo. In 1988 an American ethnoboligist arrived in the Western Samaon villge of Falealupo to find logging had began in the surronding forest, one of the last areas of lowland forest in Samoa and famous for is large population of the increasingly threatened flying fox. Because the government had condemned the local children's school and demanded the village buy another. The Falealupo chiefs faced an agonising choice; cut the forests or forego their childrens education. So the village chiefs reluc- tantly signed a licensing agreenment what allowed the local logging company to cut the trees until the debt of $55,000 was paid off. The ethnobolgist paid that month's bill to the bank and guaranteed payments for the next six months. He then quickly convinced an international conservation organsation to take over the payments. The donors signed a unique document relinquishing all rights to the rainforest, co-signed by the chiefs who in return promised to preserve the land for 50 years. The covenant provides for the limited use of the rainforest by local people, thus preserving their right to collect plants for medicinal purposes and select certain woods for cultural purposes.The event sowed the seeds for a tourist attraction Fal opened three new guest fale for the tourists to visit the rainforest and flying foxes. If the Pacific nations look to their nearest neighbours they can see some of the worst results of rapid, uncontolled deforest- ation. For example, forty years ago, the Philippines were covered in primary rainforest. Today, deforestation has caused devastat- ing soil erosion and subsequent poverty. SOLUTIONS Solutions must be found by working with landowners and coming up with practical answers, which acknowledge the aspirations and the distinct cultures of Pacific people as well as protecting the valuable forests. Protected forest areas, for the benefit of the nation, are important to preserve biodiversity and cultural usefulness but they must be established with the consent of customary authority. If the environment is to be protected then decisions must be made by the village elders not by the government. People wil care for the environment only if they can see the direct benefits, only if they have the responsiblity to manage it and the rights to its products. Continued logging must be on a sustainable basis. This means logging at a rate and manner so the soil is not damaged and that the forest can recover and continue to bring wealth for many generations to come. For example in the Solomons and PNG the villagers won and use small portable sawmills, Wokabouts. Because four men can carry the mill to log and then carry the planks out, the Wokabouts theoretically require no roads or heavy machinery, which is usually the most damaging part of logging in the tropics. This eco-timber fetches preminum prices up to 10 times the price offered by timber companies. The mills are relatively inexpensive, so with a sound logging management plan the mill can be a viable alternative to large-scale industrial logging. Other solutions must be developed to generate development and cash income for Pacific Islands. Direct compensation is needed or an arrangement such as the one in Falealupo. Other solutions involve developing local initiatives to replace income from logging, such as growing giant clams to environmental tourism and butterfly farming. International collectors pay more than $10 each for some species of butterfly that are relatively common in the islands. Conservation of forests is something that the developing Pacific economies cannot afford on their own. Assistance from richer nations will be essential to ensure wise management and protec- tion of forests. The future Papua New Guinean gardeners look upon the fallow secondary forest as a "garden mother", which will refertilise the soil for later use. Small island communities in the Pacific can only solve their resource problems by looking within the boundaries of their own shores. Unlike some of the wealthy western nations, they can't just go to another country when their own resources run out and they need more. Traditional Pacific wisdom knows that the promotion of continuing material growth above all else is inappropriate and not sustainable in the longer term. Sustainable use of resources like rainforests will provide the productive base and wealth for future generations. CHEMICAL WEAPON INCINERATION - a new threat to the Pacific Johnston Atoll- Kalama Island Johnston Atoll in a US territory of four small islands 800 miles southwest of Hawaii. The largest island is around a mile long and used to be a atmospheric nuclear test site (1958-62) and bird sanctuary. US chemical weapons such as mustard gas and various nerve agents were first moved to Johnston Atoll in 1971 from Okinawa in Japan to be stored in metal drums in underground bunkers. These metal containers slowly rusted and corroded from the heat and salt water and started to become unsafe. In 1982 the US Army decided to burn the chemicals as a way to destroy them. Then in 1985 the US government passed a law to burn the weapons by 1997 and make new chemical weapons to replace them. The system chosen to burn the chemicals is called the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS). It is made up of four high temperature incinerators that burn the chemicals and is the forerunner of another eight incinerators to be built on the US mainland where the majority of the US stockpile is stored. As the JACADS plan to burn the chemicals became known opposition spread through-out the Pacific including The Pacific Council of Churches, the Hawaiian State Legislature, the Cook Islands, American Samoa, Aotearoa (NZ), the speaker of the House of the Marshall Islands and many environmental groups. This opposition was focussed on the fact that the incinerators would harm the environment and that Johnston Atoll would become a permanent disposal site for hazardous waste. Since the 1983 decision to incinerate the scientific evidence against this method as a means of safe disposal had grown. One way the plan is being opposed is through an international agreement called the London Dumping Convention (LDC) which agreed in 1989 to build a worldwide ban on ocean incineration before 1994. But the US Army argues that because there is a US law to burn the chemicals by 1997 and an agreement signed with the Soviet Union in 1990 on chemical weapon disarmament they have to proceed with the burning. In 1990 then US President Ronald Reagan agreed to remove all American chemical weapons from Germany to Johnston Atoll before the end of the year. The Federated States of Micronesia objected to this and argued that moving the chemicals through the Pacific was a violation of the Basel Convention which restricts the movement of hazardous wastes. The chemicals arrived at Johnston Atoll later in 1990 and are due to be burned after 1994 because of repeated breakdowns and problems with the equipment. Until then, they are ready to be used to defend the US; in effect being redeployed in the Pacific. While the Pacific was voicing its opposition, the communities living around the eight proposed US incinerator sites were also appealing against the incinerators using the slogan "not in my backyard." The Pacific feared with the Johnston Atoll inciner- ators already operating, the US government would transfer the US mainland stockpiles to the Johnston Atoll as well. Pressure to halt the incineration increased at the South Pacific Forum in 1990 where Pacific nations voiced their opposition once again and called for assurances that the JACADS plant would be shut down as soon as the chemicals weapons from Germany were disposed of. People in the Pacific were angered by the lack of US consultation and what they saw as the Pacific region once again being used as a dumping round for other people's pollution. The US responded by removing old World War 2 chemical weapons from the Solomom Islands to Johnston Atoll. Following the Forum a summit was held between the South Pacific heads of Government and US President Bush in Hawaii where Mr Bush gave his word that JACADS would be shut down once the first chemicals were disposed of. Alternatives The controversy over Johnston Atoll has re-opened the question of how to dispose of hazardous wastes. We can not afford to dispose of hazardous waste at the cost of the environment. While an effort to disarm is welcomed by all people it is important that one set of problems is not exchanged for another. If more research and funding were provided, alternatives to incineration could be further developed for "safer" disposal of chemical weapons. Current alternatives in the research stage include breaking down the chemical agents using microorganisms such as fungi, using photochemical, electrochemical means or already existing neutralisation technologies adopted by the US army. Until such time as a safer disposal is developed weapons should be stockpiled in above-ground, monitored and retrievable storage facilites. There is however, no guarantee that these alternatives will be "safe". It is therefore critically important that a "precau- tionary approach" is adopted when dealing with waste. If we do not know how to dispose of it without a cost to the environment then we should not produce it. THE TRADE IN WASTES Countries like the USA and Japan produce a lot of household and commercial waste. With tougher laws now restricting the disposal of these wastes in the industrailised countries some companies are trying to export it to developing countries where there are fewer laws against dumping. After the recent discovery of several illegal waste export schemes in Africa, waste companies now look at the South Pacific as a new place to dump millions of tons of solid and hazardous waste. The main way they do this is to ship the waste to developing countries like American and Western Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, or the Philippines. Usually the company is paid to remove the waste from the US or Japan. Then they go to a South Pacific nation and offer money to them if the waste can be dumped on their Island. Some Pacific nations are forced to make a choice between poison or poverty. Unfortunately, the cash payments are often large enough to tempt South Pacific nations to consider mortgaging their long-term public and environmental health in exchange for much needed currency in the short term. The Marshall Islands Two American companies called Admiralty Pacific and the Micronesian Marine Development Corp are proposing to dump waste in the Marshall Islands, claiming that there will be NO environ- mental problems as a result. One plan was to dump billions of used tyres in various Marshall Island lagoons. The tyres would be used to make artificial reefs, which the company claims would last for at least 500 years without causing pollution. But the environmental organisation Greenpeace disagrees and says that the use of old tyres as artificial reefs stopped 15 years ago because of they soon break up and drift away. The same company had proposed to dump 17 million tonnes of garbage landfill on Ebeye, Kwajalein and other atolls. The Pacific region In 1988 the US company Global Thesis tried and failed to export US wastes to Papua New Guinea and the Solomons. Global Thesis now claims to have a deal with Papua New Guinea to construct an incinerator for hazardous wastes. However, Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Lome Convention which prohibits the import of foreign waste. There is also a proposal for Tonga to take old tyres from the USA and burn them to produce electricity which environmental groups are opposed to because of the toxic metals and chemicals that would be produced as a by-product. In December 1989, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa all signed the Lome Convention, which bans imports from affluent countries which have disposal problems. Until all Pacific nations are part of Lome, the Pacific will continue to be viewed as the affluent nations' waste dump. PESTICIDES The development of new chemicals which kill pests and weeds created the hope of a new age of agriculture and a world without hunger. Despite a tenfold increase in pesticide use, crop loss due to insect damage has doubled over the last four decades along with greater use of resources, rising costs and increased environmental pollution and human health hazards. The countries of the South Pacific region suffer from these shattered hopes. The dangerous effects In the industrialised world, contamination of surface and ground water, rainwater and soil by pesticides has become a major con- cern. In the Pacific, no-one knows how large the problem is because very little scientific information is available. Efforts are being made to monitor and analyse pesticide contamination, but resources are limited. The effects of pesticides runoff and leaching on fragile coral reefs are also largely unknown. Pesticides have a disruptive effect on the ecological balance of an area. Spraying pesticides on a field not only kills the pests or weeds, but a lot of other plants, insects and animals that maintain the ecology of the area. The effects on other animals can also be serious destruction of fish and coral as a result of pesticide run-off and spills, and death of birds from drinking contaminated lagoon water. In some areas, pesticides are even used for fishing, indiscrimi- nately killing many fish and destroying surrounding corals. Pesticides can take 20 years or longer to break down in the environment; sometimes they deteriorate into more toxic chemi- cals. In one instance in 1984, 44 cattle died after being after being sprayed with diazinon. It was found that the diazinon had decomposed into other breakdown products one of which is 14,000 times more toxic than the original diazinon. Residues from some of the most persistent of all chemicals, such as DDT, have been found in oysters and clams in the Port Moresby area of Papua New Guinea. Human Health Effects The World Health Organisation estimates that 700,000 to one million people around the world are severely affected by pesticides each year, and that 14,000 to 20,000 die as a result of pesticide exposure. In the Pacific the true extent of pesticide poisoning is unknown: illness due to pesticide exposure is difficult to diagnose and is often not recognised by the victim or the doctor. Long-term exposure to pesticides can cause human diseases such as cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, liver and kidney diseases, reproductive problems and mutations. There are also acute effects due to short-term exposure of highly toxic compounds. For example, paraquat can cause damage to the skin, eyes, and all major organs, severe vomiting, and respiratory failure resulting in death. Rural communities are most at risk. Pesticides can usually be purchased by anyone who wants them, whether they have adequate knowledge of their safe use and storage, or have the proper equipment and protective clothing. Language differences often make instruction labels useless. Other members of rural commu- nites suffer form drinking and bathing in contaminated water, from spray drift and from storing food and water in old pesticide containers. Chemical dependency Pesticide use in the South Pacific has increased with the spread of development aid to the region(the number of pesticides available quadrupled between 1971 and 1986) Efforts to develop agriculture often mean importing agricultural systems and chemicals geared toward short-term productivity and export, rather than sustainability and food self-sufficiency. This process is dramatically altering traditional farming methods and is creating a chemically dependent agriculture. Subsistence crops have been replaced by large single crop farms or plantations that are more easily overrun by pests. These farms and plantations are often established on small islands that have fragile ecosystems which are vulnerable to inbalance and damage from indiscriminate use of pesticides. New, high-yield crops require large amounts of fertiliser and pesticides to achieve their high yields. Some of these crop have lost their natural defences against insects, and must be repeatedly sprayed with pesticides. Traditionally, a variety of insects would act as predator and prey and usually keep popula- tions in check in any particular area. But pesticides upset this natural balance, destroying beneficial insects along with the target pest. Insects which are normally harmless can become serious pests when their natural insect enemies are eliminated. Pest resistance Another consequence of pesticide use is pest resistance. Insects may hatch several generations in one growing season, so insects that have developed resistance to pesticides increase in number very rapidly as the pesticide survivors mate and pass on their resistant gene. Their offspring are even more immune to the chemicals. By the end of 1986, around 500 insect species were reported to be resistant to one or even all five major pesticide groups. Worldwide these "superbugs" have caused unprecedented crop losses and have left farmers even more dependent on newer, more dangerous chemicals. A clear example can be seen with the use of Orthene which was used to control the diamond-back moth on coabbages and radishes in Fiji in the mid-70s. By 1978 the moth had developed such resistance that normal applications of Orthene had no effect. The farmers' answer was to increase the dose rate or increase the frequency of spraying. Costs to farmers skyrocketed while crop yield decreased. A new chemical was then introduced which was effective intially but within a few years insects began develop- ing resistance as well. Banned at home - sold in the Pacific Since the 1960s, industrialised countries have banned or are strictly regulating more and more of the most dangerous pesti- cides. However, these countries often still allow pesticide manufacturers to export these same chemicals to developing nations - countries which do not have laws to control this trade. A 1988 report by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) indicated that more than 40 pesticides that have been banned or severely restricted in the US and more than 90 that have been banned or severly restricted in one or more EEC country are available in the South Pacific. More than half of the pesticides imported to the Pacific region come from manufacturers in Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand). Among the largest of these exporters are ICI, Rhone Poulenc, Dupont, Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. In addition to marketing pesticides that are banned or severely restricted in industrialised nations, multinational chemical companies as well as smaller producers, sometimes manufacture and market chemicals for export that have never been registered in the country of origin or any other country. These pesticides are not subject to even the most limited testing requirements, and therefore their health and environmental toxicity is not known. The 1988 SPREP report indicated that more than 150 pesticides not registered in Australia or Aotearoa (New Zealand) can be exported to Pacific nations from these countries. Of these 150, some are registered in other countries such as the US and France. Manufacturing and formulating pesticides results in the discharge of toxic waste products into the air, water and soils. Increas- ingly, international companies are locating their factories to countries where costs are lower and environmental and safety regulations are fewer, or not enforced. There are several formulation plants in Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Lack of control Only half the countries and territories in the Pacific have legislation concerning the importation and registration of pesticides. Few have regulations to control use of pesticides. Most do not have a national authority to co-ordinate and administer pesticide-related matters, nor do they have the necessary technical expertise to evaluate chemicals for registra- tion, or the means to enforce regulations that do exist. Currently, efforts are underway in several Pacific nations to pass laws which would regulate pesticides. SPREP has several projects to and develop strategies to better cope with the pesticide problem. One way to regulate the imports of banned or controlled chemicals is the principle of "prior informed consent (PIC)". This requires that restricted products not be exported unless the importing country has been informed of the reasons for any regulatory action in the country of origin, and has given consent to the shipment of the controlled product. Alternatives to pesticides There are plenty of alternatives to pesticides. Understanding the farm as a cooperative complex of soil, microorganisms, crops, insects, animals and humans, and utilising this natural ecology to the best advantage rather than attempting to take short cuts, is the key to these alternatives. Farmers in every part of the world have shown that it is possible to significantly reduce pesticide use, while at the same time maintaining or increasing crop yields and profits. Introducing and conserving beneficial insects, rotating crops from year to year to prevent the recurrence of the same pests, selecting plants for their resistance to insects, timing the planting of crops to avoid attacks by pests, or simply planting certain crops in their appropriate climate, are all non-chemical methods that can reduce the loss of food to pests. In addition, the vulnerability of single -crop farms or plan- tations can be avoided by alternating different plants, or diversifying the species within the same type of crop. Many of these techniques are integral parts of the subsistence agriculture that still predominates in the Pacific. These traditional farming systems have been effective for hundreds of years and much can be learned from them. When supplemented with other agricultural techniques, traditional systems can become excellent models for increased agricultural production and sustainable agricultural development. Already a number of sucessful biological pest control programmes have been operating in Fiji, Hawaii and PNG by introducing natural enemies, pred- ators, parasites or diseases to control crop pests. CORAL REEFS Coral reefs are among the richest and most spectacular environ- ments found anywhere on this planet. Often called the "rainforests of the sea" coral reefs are fantastically coloured and shaped, and are home to a rich diversity of life. For thousands of years coral reefs have served as "supermarkets" for Paicific peoples, providing food, ornamentation, adn building materials. Today, commercial fisheries and marine tourism rely on coral reefs as an important source of revenue. They are also of enormous importance in protecting the coastline, preventing erosion and creating sheltered harbours. Yet today in the these beautiful, highly diverse and productive ecosystems are in trouble. Worldwide reefs are threatened by pollution, soil runoff, overfishing, marine tourism and potentially, global warming change. What are Coral Reefs? The warm sunlight and clear well-circulated water of the South Pacific help promote the growth of corals. These are formed by polyps - animals that collectively deposit calcium carbonate to build colonies. A reef is a population of stony corals which continues to build on products of its own making. However, not all reefs are constructed solely of corals. Reefs fall into two main categories: shelf reefs, which form on the continental shelf of large land masses, and oceanic reefs which develop in deeper waters, often in association with oceanic islands. Some peoples of the Pacific live on coral atolls, which are circular reefs around a central lagoon. Main Human Impacts on Coral Reefs. Many reef-building corals have slow growth rates, which may be slowed further by sources of natural stress such as storms, disease and sea level changes. Although reefs are well adapted to recover from these disturbances, recovery rates can vary from a few years to several decades. There is now increasing evidence that a reef's recovery rate may slow significantly as a result of human impact and that this damage is more likely to be long lasting than temporary. One of the most widespread threats to coral reefs in the Pacific is the soil run-off through forest clearance, mining, land clearance for agriculture, industry and tourism. The soil is carried to the sea by nearby rivers and deposited on coral reefs. Damage to mangroves, which act as sediment traps, allows even more sediment to reach the reef. Sediment in effect suffocates the reef by lowering the light level of the water, which slows down th rates of coral buildup. The problem of run-off is often compounded by the uncontrolled discharge of virtually untreated sewage, pesticides, and other pollutants into coastal waters. These accelerate the growth of algae, which smother the coral and deplete oxygen. Over-fishing and destructive fishing methods can reduce the productivity and diversity of coral reefs. They are responsible for reducing the abundance of reef fishes, and disrupting spawning and feeding grounds. In heavily-populated islands, catch rates of shallow-water reef fish have fallen drastically due to heavy exploitation. Although prohibited in most Pacific nations, the practice of blast fishing, commonly referred to as "dynamit- ing", and the use of fish poisons or other chemicals, are destroying reefs. They not only inflict heavy damage to the reef itself, they are indiscriminate and wasteful methods of catching fish. Toxic substances, such as bleach, cyanide and pesticides, are sometimes used to kill or stun fish - these pollute the marine environment and threaten marine life. The increasing growth of tourism in Pacific island countries in recent years has been accompanied by construction of many new hotels, airports, roads and ports over or near reefs. These activities have damaged reefs through siltation, sewage, and toxic pollution. Mining reefs for building materials such as road fill causes extensive physical damage. Ships dropping anchor can destroy hundred-year old coral in a matter of seconds. The extraction of coral from reefs by commercial coral operations for sale to souvenir - collecting tourists is also becoming an increasing problem. The effects of nuclear weapons' testing and other military activities on low-lying coral atolls and ciguatera poisoning have been covered elsewhere. However, the subtle biochemical and genetic changes to coral reefs and marine life as a result of exposure to radiation has not yet been investigated fully. The phenomenon of coral bleaching is caused by rises in sea temperature. The possibility that sea temperature rises are linked to global warming has lead some marine biologists to suggest that coral bleaching may prove to be one of the earliest global warning signals of climate change by an ecosystem. When faced with prolonged stress from warming waters, a coral expels the algae living within its tissues. The coral tissue loses its natural colour and appears chalky white, but most importantly, the coral does not receive its regular supply of nutrients and oxygen from the algae. The coral stops reproducing and feeding itself and if not relieved of stress,dies. Coral bleaching has been reported in American Samoa and French Polynesia. In 1991 in some reefs around Tahiti 85% of the corals have been bleached. Rising sea level is another damaging effect of global warming. Studies indicate that a one metre rise in sea level enough to submerge many Pacific atolls entirely - could occur in the next century. It is doubtful that reef growth could keep up with this rise. However, it is clear that if reefs "drown", low-lying atolls will be severely affected. No one programme can reverse the current trend of widespread reef degradation, but actions can be taken on local and international levels to help halt further degradation and promote the recovery of devastated areas. Reafforestation of rainforests and mangroves can substantially reduce soil run-off. Waterless sewage treatment practices can replace direct discharge into coastal waters. Coastal zone management programmes are now being developed in many Pacific nations, to be placed in the control of local coastal communities. More direct attempts at reef management could involve the establishment of protected marine areas. These areas could serve to strengthen traditional resource management techniques and intergrate them with western management tech- niques. Tourists and divers need to understand the reef ecosystem, and hotels, tourist bureaus and airlines can provide education through guide books and travel brochures. Low-lying atolls should be designated as specially protected areas in order to prevent toxic materials being either tested or stored on land areas that are subject to typhoons and tsunamis. Activities such as nuclear weapons testing and the disposal of radioactive or hazardous wastes are incompatible with the protection of coral atolls, and should be banned. Fortunately, many threats to coral reefs are preventable, but coral reef protection must start now. DRIFTNETS A driftnet is an enormous plastic net used in the open ocean to catch fish. A single driftnet vessel can set up to 64 kilometres of driftnet, each section of net is two kilometres long. Every night, literally thousands of innocent species like dolphins, sea turtles, sea birds, and whales get entangled in the nets and drown. The net is so sheer that it cannot be seen by diving birds or easily detected by dolphin sonar. Marine creatures, in search of food and lured by fish and squid already caught in the net, swim or dive into the plastic web where they become entangled and drown. This is why driftnets are known as "walls of death". Drift-net fisheries are taking a dangerous toll on marine resources in the Pacific Ocean. The large driftnet fleets of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of marine mamals and sea birds annually. Driftnets are also dangerously depleting fisheries resources, including salmon species of North American origin and tuna species that the fragile economies of the Pacific island nations depend on for survival. 32,000 km of net is set each night in the North Pacific. Driftnetting is an extremely wasteful technology. As much as 40 percent of the catch in the South Pacific tuna fisheries fell out of the net while it was being hauled back into the boat. Many of these lost fish eventually die from their injuries. Lost and abandoned driftnets (called "ghost nets"), combined with discarded trawl nets, other fishing gear, plastics and other debris floating in the sea, entangle and kill thousands of whales and dolphins, seals, seabirds, turtles and fish each year. Over 1000 kilometres of net is estimated to have been left floating, abandoned, in the North Pacific each year. At current fishing rates, by the year 2000, there will be enough ghost net in the Pacific to stretch one-third the way around the world. Scientists are extremely concerned that tens of thousands of marine mammals, including endangered species of whales, seals and turtles are dying in driftnet fisheries around the world. The migratory paths of humpback, sperm and right whales in both hemispheres of the Pacific run directly through the driftnet fishing zones. Many of their young are undoubtedly entangled and drown. Opposing the walls of death During the seven-year battle against driftnet fishing in the North Pacific, environmentalists and fishing groups have achieved some major successes. In 1988 the Japanese salmon driftnet fleet was expelled from US territorial waters off Alaska. In a separate victory Canada was forced to suspend its experimental driftnet fishery for squid. South Pacific states, realising the threat to their economies and have opposed driftnetting with considerable force. In 1989 the South Pacific Forum countries adopted a Convention(known as the Wellington Convention) banning driftnet fishing in over eight million square kilometers of ocean surronding Australia, New Zealand, and many Pacific island states. The convention also prohibits vessels carrying driftnet gear within their 200 -mile EEZ and prohibits transhipments of driftnet-caught tuna. No driftnet vessel is welcome in any South Pacific port for maintenance, refuelling or supplies. Ironically Japan bans driftnetting by its own flagged vessels inside the Japanese 200 - mile Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) because of coastal fishermen's concerns that driftnets will deplete their catch. As a result of intense diplomatic pressure Japan, Taiwan and South Korea agreed to reduce their fishing efforts in the South Pacific. South Korea stopped in 1989, followed by Japan in 1990. All countries have agreed to to comply with the terms of a United States driftnets resolution that calls for a cessation of driftnetting in the South Pacific by July 1991. All three continue however to driftnet in the North Pacific. We may not know the real impact that driftnet fleets are having on marine ecosystems until it is too late. The North Pacific salmon driftnet fishery is the only one regulated by an interna- tional fisheries convention. The remaining fisheries for squid, tuna and billfish in the North Pacific, remain totally unregu- lated. Furthermore, driftnet operations are spreading like wildfire to other oceans around the world. If ocean wildlife is to be preserved and fish stocks kept at sustainable levels to feed future generations, this practice of stripmining the seas must be banned globally. SEA TURTLES Sea turtles are air-breathing reptiles and are found throughout the world in tropical and subtropical oceans. They are well suited for life in the sea, being able to dive for long periods, swim powerfully and survive without fresh water. Their size, shell and bony skull protect them against most natural predators in the water. Generally, the only time they leave their protec- tive ocean home is when the female crawls ashore to nest. Some sea turtles return to the same nesting site several times in a season. It is estimated that only one in every thousand turtles survives to adulthood, as many eggs and hatchlings are lost to predators. Individuals that do survive are long-lived - to 50 years or older. Sea turtles have existed for over 10 million years, but only seven species remain today. All except one are found in the Pacific region. Commercial exploitation has resulted in the depletion and decline of sea turtle populations all over the world. The meat, especially from the green turtle, is a favoured food of many coastal peoples. Turtle flippers are used for leather products such as wallets and shoes. Sea turtle oil is also used for skin lotions and cosmetics. Turtle shell, mainly from the hawksbill turtle, is made into jewellery. Some shells are also ground up for cattle feed. Nests are raided for eggs which are eaten locally or exported. Hatchlings are caught and moulded in plastic to be used as paper weights. Pacific people have been using turtles for subsistence purposes for hundreds of years. In recent times however, the motive of some hunting has become commercial rather than traditional. Turtle shells fetch high prices in export markets. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) prohibits trade in sea turtle products. However, in spite of this ban, there is still a substantial trade of sea turtle shell, averaging 60 tonnes per year worldwide. The major exporters are Indonesia, Maldives, Cuba, Haiti and Jamaica, but substantial exporters also come from the Pacific, in particular the Solomon Islands and Fiji. Many of the countries now trading in sea turtle shell are parties to CITES, and it appears that much of the shell exported is in contravention of the CITES prohibition. Countries like Japan have refused to abide by the CITES agreement, and several important turtle exporting nations such as the Solomon Islands and Fiji, have yet to become parties to CITES. As well as the threat of direct hunting, sea turtles are endangered by the effect of human activities on their nesting and foraging habitats. The destruction of coral reefs, widespread coastal development, serious beach erosion, construction of breakwaters, and other alterations of beaches, damage nesting habitats or the nests themselves. As well, thousands of turtles drown each year as a result of interactions with fishing fleets. Sea turtles are particularly vulnerable to oil and chemical pollution. Young turtles have been found dead with their throats and jaws obstructed by tar. There is also evidence that toxic chemicals in the oceans may cause mortality and injury, sensory disruption, and reduced reproductive success. The fundamental problem for sea turtle conservation is that most countries do not have the will or resources to adequately protect sea turtles. Many sea turtles species are protected by national legislation, which is often rendered ineffectual because of lack of enforcement. Where legislation is in place, it usually has followed the pattern of traditional fishery protection which attempts to protect younger animals. With turtles, however, the most valuable members of the population for the survival of the species are the breeding adults. Therefore, where laws allow turtles to be killed for cultural reasons, lawmakers must set maximum size limits above which turtles are protected. Environmentalists working within the South Pacific region are making efforts to encourage regional cooperation through SPREP, to increase protection and public awareness of the threats to turtles. On a global level, moves are being made for the further protection of sea turtles through national and international conservation laws, eliminating trade in sea turtle products, calling on governments to prevent the killing of breeding adults, restrict or halt the collection of turtle eggs, cease all international trade in turtle products, and protect turtle habitats, particularly nesting beaches and coral reefs. THANK YOU ! The original plans and guidelines for the first edition (1982) of this book were projected from decisions and advice of the PCC Church and Society Programme Advisory Commit- tee. At the time the members were: Dr. Gabriel Gris Fr. Dermot Hurley Mr. Tevita Kabakoro Mrs. Esiteri Kamikamica The Rev. Sitiveni Ratuvili Mrs. Anaseini Qionibaravi The Book would not have been possible without financial help: ICCO (Interchurch Coordination Committee for Development Projects) of Holland gave generously to cover the preparatory costs and to subsidise printing costs. The Force Ten Project of The Australian Council of Churches and Australia Catholic Relief Contributed towards printing costs. We point out that most of this particular "investment" will be recovered and used in further efforts for a nuclear-free Pacific. We have included credits with photos and some artwork and layout. Also thanks to: Catherine Lenfenstey, who prepared many of the illustrations associated with the technical questions; Paul Melone, graphic artist with the US Peace Corps, who advised and helped us on matters of layout; Timoti Dautei, who gave us outstanding artwork. No royalties or commissions are being paid on this book. Distribution within the Pacific Islands region is subsidised. Any income beyond costs will be for educational activities in support of a nuclear-free Pacific. This updated edition would not have been possible without the help of numerous paid and unpaid Greenpeace workers. These have been: Alice Heather (overall co-ordinator, secretary, fund-raiser) Bunny McDiarmid (Greenpeace Pacific Campaign co-ordinator) The late Elaine Shaw Susi Newborn (Susi assisted in the new environmental chapters and the updating work) Simon Carroll (for much of the updated nuclear information)] Michael Szabo (for editorial help) Annette Lees, Mauira Society (for advice on rainforest section) Also to Ruth Letche who gave support and encouragement throughout the whole project. Selu Verebalau of Lotu Pasifika who suffered the years of waiting for the finished copy. Funding for this update and translations was made available by many church agencies from around the world: Christian World Service (the Aid and Development Division of the National Council of Churches in New Zealand), Christian Aid (a division of the British Council of Churches), Zending en Werlddiakont (Mission and World Service of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands), Bread for the World (Campaign of the Protestant Churches in Germany), and the Australian Council of Churches. Funds were also provided by Greenpeace and the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control (this trust fund was set up by the Aotearoa (New Zealand) government with compensation money from the French government for the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior). No royalties or commissions are being paid on this book. Distribution within the Pacific Islands region is subsidised. Any income beyond costs will be for educational activities in support of a nuclear-free Pacific. DIRECTORY A Directory of some Pacific anti-nuclear, peace, evironmental and development Groups Greenpeace Pacific Campaign, Private Bag, Wellesley Street, Auckland, Aoteraoa (NZ) tel: 64/9/776128 fax: 64/9/3032676 Other offices in the Pacific region are: Greenpeace Australia, Studio 14, 37 Nicholson St, Balmain, NSW 2041, Australia. tel: 61/2/555 7044 fax: 61/2/555 7154 Greenpeace Japan, 5-37-1 Koishikawa no. 703, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112, Japan. tel: 81/3/5684 0559 fax: 81/3/5684 0653 Greepeace Pacific Campaign works on protecting the environment from nuclear and toxic pollution, and to protect marine animals and their habitats. International Physicans for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Auckland Medical School, Private Bag, Auckland, Aotearoa(NZ) Japan Tropical Forest Action Network,501 Shinwa Building 9-17 Sakuragaoka Shibuta-ku,150 Tokyo, Japan. Tel: (03) 770-6308 or 319-0845 La Vaomatua (Samoan for rainforest), P.O. Box 2107, Pago Pago, American Samoa. Le Vaomatua are interested in protecting native forests, reef and marshes as well as the preservation of the Samaona cultural historical sites. They publish a quarterly newsletter, "Rainforest Echoes". Mariua Society, PO Box 756,Nelson,Aotearoa(New Zealand) Mariua is an environmental group with work programmes in New Zealand, Fiji,PNG and the Solomons. Its work concentrates on forestry, mining, protected areas and envrionmental law. Melanesian Solidarity Committee, 12 Mabata Street, Gordons, P.O. Box 5726, Boroko, NCD. PNG. Tel: 25 4289. Fax: 254309. A political action group working on social, justice issues including nuclear and environmental issues. Nuclear Free Pacific Center, 1-3-7 Mukogaka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokoyo, Japan Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition, P.O. Box 1105, 1099 Manila, Phillipines. O Le Siosiomaga Society Inc, P.O. Box 5774 Matautu-uta, Western Samoa. This group provides information on environmental issues such as rainforest protection, waste disposal and coastal protection. Pacific Campaign to Disarm the Seas, Denman Island B.C. Columbia, Canada VORITO. A network of activists opposed to the increasing militarization of the Pacific. They put out a newsletter and have an annual National Day of Action. Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, P.O Box 3148, C.P.O Auckland Aotearoa(New Zealand). Tel: 09 3075362 Fax: 09 777651 The networking centre for The Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement. Provides up todate news and resources on Pacific issues, facilitates speaking tours, provides publications and publishes Action Alerts for urgent NFIP network pro- test/support actions. Pacific Conference of Churches, P. O. Box 208, Suva, Fiji. Tel: 302332 & 311277 Blurb??? Pacific Palau Resource Institute, P.O. Box 1087, Koror Republic of Palau Papua New Guinea Intergral Human Development Trust, P.O. Box 434, University N.C.D., Papua New Guinea. Works for literacy and awareness with people in the rural villages and urban settlements in PNG. Peace Foundation, CPO Box 4110, Auckland. tel:64/9/732379 The foundation focusses on peace education. It has a wealth of resources for hire and sale on nuclear issues, conflict resol- ution, peace education in schools. It puts out a quarterly newsletter. Rainforest Information Centre,P.O. Box 363,Lismore, NSW 2480 Australia. Tel:(066) 218505 or 214339 This group works on forestry issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. They focus on developing alternative, low impact forms of logging. Solomon Islands Development Trust, P. O. Box 147, New China Town, Honiara, Solomon Islands. A rural develpment organisation which works on environmental and development issues. Its programme has a strong emphasis on community education. South Pacific Action Committee on Human Ecology and the Environ- ment (SPACHEE), The University of the South Pacific(USP), P. O. Box 1168, Suva, Fiji. Spachee's main objectives are to improve co- operation and communication between groups involved in environ- mental research, protection and education. It has an environ- mental resource centre and publishes a quarterly newsletter South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (S.P.R.E.P), South Pacific Commission, B.P. D5 Noumea, New Caledonia. Tel: 262000 Fax: 687/263818. SPREP is responsible for implementing an Action Plan for Managing the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific. Its work programme includes coastal water quality monitoring, promoting portected areas, environmental education and training, waste management and pollution control. They have available a wide selection of education resources including slide shows on coral reefs and forests, student exercises and colouring exercises, information posters on mangroves, mining,pesticides, conservation, soil and forests Te At Atu te Natura, BP 44, Bora Bora, French Polynesia Te Reo O te Fana, BP 6002, Faa'a, Tahiti World Wildlife Fund, Pacific Program, GPO Box 528, Sydney 2001, Australia. Support Conservation efforts in the Pacific with an emphasis on the maintainance of biological diversity, the promotion of the sustainable use of resources and traditional resource management knowledge. Youth to Youth in Health, Box 672, Majuro, Marshall Islands. A youth group dealing with health, social and related environmental issues. ???To includde Oxfam CND FOE Corso Confernce of Churches Aotearoa 5205450 Catholic Commission for Justice,Peace and Development tel 784380/360 3061