logo
History in making as World Court to advise on climate

History in making as World Court to advise on climate

Perth Now22-07-2025
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem.
It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students.
While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases.
Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands.
The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits.
Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea.
Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income.
Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt.
It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create.
Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account.
She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
"The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP.
Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed.
Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause.
From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court.
Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again.
Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts.
A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act.
"There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP.
"They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm."
The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil.
Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions.
"Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says.
University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched.
"Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP.
Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement.
Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard.
"Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UN climate boss warns of 'mega-droughts' in dire climate forecast for Australia
UN climate boss warns of 'mega-droughts' in dire climate forecast for Australia

News.com.au

time10 hours ago

  • News.com.au

UN climate boss warns of 'mega-droughts' in dire climate forecast for Australia

Australians have been warned that fruit and vegetables may become a 'once-a-year treat' if the country fails to drastically lift its clean energy ambitions. In a stark message delivered in Sydney on Monday, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said Australia faced a future of 'mega-droughts', plummeting living standards and eye-watering economic losses if it does not go much further on emissions cuts. 'Mega-droughts (will make) fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat. In total, the country could face a $6.8 trillion GDP loss by 2050,' Mr Stiell said during an address hosted by the Smart Energy Council, per The Australian. His speech landed during a critical moment in Australia's climate debate, with the Albanese government preparing to reveal its updated 2035 emissions target and push to co-host the next UN climate summit, COP31, alongside Pacific nations. But as momentum builds internationally, domestic political opposition is also ramping up, chiefly led by Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, who introduced a Private Member's bill this week to repeal Australia's net-zero commitment. Mr Stiell, who meets with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen in Canberra today, said setting an ambitious target wasn't just about the environment, but rather economic survival. 'Australia has a strong economy and among the highest living standards in the world. If you want to keep them, doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer,' he warned. 'Living standards could drop by over $7000 per person per year. And rising seas, resource pressures, and extreme weather would destabilise Australia's neighbourhood – from Pacific Island nations to Southeast Asia – threatening your security.' Australia's current pledge is to cut emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. The Climate Change Authority (CCA) is reportedly weighing up whether to recommend a more aggressive target of 65 to 75 per cent by 2035. That advice is due by the end of this month. Mr Stiell claimed that anything less would fall short. 'Bog standard is beneath you,' he said. 'The question is: how far are you willing to go?' That decision must be made by September, when Australia is due to submit its updated Nationally Determined Contributions to the UN. It will come amid a wave of climate diplomacy for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is expected to use a series of major international forums to press Australia's case to host COP31. Mr Stiell's warning was not just directed at the Albanese Government. It also served as a harsh jab at the growing campaign by Coalition backbenchers and conservative commentators arguing Australia's energy transition will hurt the economy and disadvantage regional communities. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce on Monday accused inner-city Australians of pushing policies that harm the disadvantaged, saying: 'Are you prepared to hurt the poor?' Mr Joyce's 'Repeal Net Zero' bill, backed by several Coalition rebels, proposes scrapping Australia's carbon-neutral target by 2050, a goal in line with most other developed nations. 'There's absolutely no reason that Mascot Airport can't work 24/7,' he told reporters. 'But we understand that people don't want planes flying over themselves in the middle of the night … but we don't want transmission lines over our head either. We don't want wind towers either, so there's got to be a form of quid pro quo.' His argument suggests city-dwellers are demanding action on climate change without shouldering its costs, leaving regional communities to deal with some sort of flow-on infrastructure burden. 'You don't feel virtuous if you're hurting people,' Mr Joyce said. While the bill is unlikely to pass without support from Liberal moderates, Mr Joyce's position is influential within the Nationals and perhaps reflects a growing pushback on climate policy from prominent sections of the Coalition. Joining him outside Parliament House were fellow Nationals Michael McCormack and Liberal MP Garth Hamilton, the only member of the senior Coalition partner to back the bill publicly. Mr Stiell responded to the political noise over the past fortnight with a message of economic pragmatism and global responsibility. 'I think Australians get it. From cabinet rooms to boardrooms, from farms to factories to kitchen tables, you know unchecked climate change is an economic wrecking ball,' he said. 'You know half-measures will destroy property and infrastructure, hammer households, bankrupt regions, and punch holes in public budgets. And you know that real action opens the door to real leadership – and big rewards for this ambitious, capable country.' He warned Australians against short-term thinking and urged them to embrace a rapid energy transition. 'The change is working,' he said. 'Now consider the alternative: missing the opportunity and letting the world overheat. Go for what's smart by going big. Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game – and stand the test of time. Go for it.'

‘Dog's breakfast': Karl Stefanovic slams US beef deal, David Pocock backs inquiry calls
‘Dog's breakfast': Karl Stefanovic slams US beef deal, David Pocock backs inquiry calls

News.com.au

time16 hours ago

  • News.com.au

‘Dog's breakfast': Karl Stefanovic slams US beef deal, David Pocock backs inquiry calls

A trade deal to accept US beef into Australia has been labelled a dog's breakfast by Karl Stefanovic after the Trade Minister's apparent gaffe claiming Donald Trump personally lobbied for the deal. Trade Minister Don Farrell on Sunday said the US President raised the issue directly with Anthony Albanese in one of the three phone conversations the leaders shared. The Prime Minister said that was incorrect, and on Tuesday Stefanovic put criticism of the beef deal to Labor frontbencher Amanda Rishworth. 'I think he has clarified his comments,' Ms Rishworth said of Senator Farrell. 'We've discussed it on this show, that Donald Trump made public his issues around beef imports and exports. That was not a secret. 'I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Quite frankly, just silly politics on the side. 'What's important here is putting forward our best foot forward, for the national interest, to be prosecuting our case with the US, and that's what our government will keep doing.' Stefanovic suggested the US beef deal had become a shambles and asked senator David Pocock what needed to happen. 'David, do you think there should be an inquiry? I mean, it's starting to look more and more like a dog's breakfast,' Stefanovic said. 'I think there's real questions to answer around the timing of this,' the senator replied. 'And on the bigger issue, who's going to buy American beef? We have some of the best beef in the world here in Australia. I certainly won't be buying US beef. 'I think a lot of Australians will see it on the shelf, if it even gets here, and say 'well, I'm going to support Australia'.' The Coalition has already called for an inquiry into the beef deal, arguing the government has put biosecurity at risk as a bargaining chip for a US tariff exemption. The Coalition wants a Senate inquiry into the government backflip, citing the timing of the decision amid stalled tariff negotiations. Labor has rejected claims of the link to ongoing tariff discussions, saying the decision follows a lengthy review undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which found new tracing protocols eliminated risks posed by beef sourced from Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. However, Nationals Leader David Littleproud said an inquiry was required to give 'assurance' that 'Labor isn't sacrificing our high biosecurity standards'. As of Monday, July 28, Australian businesses were able to apply for import licences to get US fresh beef and beef products. Mr Littleproud has accused Agriculture Minister Julie Collins of ignoring advice regarding oversight by independent scientific experts. 'Minister Collins needs to explain why the advice of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity wasn't considered and why it has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to such an important decision,' Mr Littleproud said in a statement released Tuesday morning. 'Is Labor willing to undermine Australia's high biosecurity, just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump?' In question time on Monday, Mr Littleproud asked Ms Collins if the Inspector-General's recommendations had been implemented. Risk-based assessments were done by department staff on a scientific basis, she said. 'We have not compromised on biosecurity at all in any way, shape or form, and the member opposite would know, of course, we've had to put around $2bn additional into biosecurity since we came to office because of the way they left our biosecurity system,' Ms Collins said. 'The other thing I would say to the member opposite is he would be aware that this decision has been coming for some time. 'The US and Australia traceability systems are equivalent and that the decision has been taken, based on science, around the US system and the Australian traceability system, and all food imported into Australia must be safe and compliant with our food standards. 'This has been done on a scientific basis.'

I was there when Honeysuckle was signed off. What went wrong?
I was there when Honeysuckle was signed off. What went wrong?

The Advertiser

time17 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

I was there when Honeysuckle was signed off. What went wrong?

I witnessed one of the best examples of co-operation between our three levels of government and our two main political parties when the Honeysuckle project was launched in Newcastle in 1992, three years after the earthquake. The initial $100 million fund to support the conversion of disused railway land in the Newcastle CBD was enabled by the Keating ALP government's Better Cities program, which provided two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining amount and management of the development being provided by the NSW Fahey Liberal government. The City of Newcastle, under the leadership of lord mayor John McNaughton, also played a critical role in supporting the changes required locally to make this urban renewal project happen. As the Hunter-based federal senator, I joined a roundtable in Newcastle City Hall when this bipartisan intergovernmental agreement was signed off in 1992. We had high hopes that the conversion of 50 hectares of derelict CBD railway land on the harbour would be a game-changer for the renewal of the city centre. Politicians then stepped back, and NSW bureaucrats took over the Honeysuckle project approvals process. Now, 33 years later, it's crucial to ask: has the Honeysuckle project, which is nearing completion, lived up to our initial high expectations? Regrettably, many of the planned green spaces have not materialised. The potential for the impressive 1988 Bicentennial Newcastle Foreshore greenspace project to extend down the harbour as far as Wickham was lost when apartment and hotel developments were approved on Honeysuckle land, encroaching on the harbour's edge. Near the restored former railway workshops, a very imaginative plan for a small boat harbour inlet was also scrapped. Initially, a mix of commercial and residential buildings was envisioned, but apart from notable exceptions such as NIB and Hunter Water, and a scattering of small businesses, Honeysuckle now predominantly has a concrete canyon of apartment buildings, all about the same height, for its entire length. There is, however, one last chance to offset some of this urban planning disaster. Next to the Interchange, on the western edge of the Honeysuckle land, are two remaining large parcels of undeveloped land west of Cottage Creek. The current plan is to create a 'gateway' to the CBD with even more intensive urban development, including additional apartments. This plan should be scrapped. The last thing Newcastle City needs is an extension of the current concrete canyon along Honeysuckle Drive. A much better gateway to the city would be open parkland, stretching from the Interchange to the harbour foreshore. This would provide an additional green space for the city, where it is needed most. This land is currently a car park by default. However, converted to parkland, it would provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West. I think this new park should be called Henry Lawson Park. It has only one small historic building, the forlorn and partially restored Wickham School of Arts. It was here that a teenage Lawson, who worked nearby, attended adult education classes in the evening in the 1890s - presumably to improve his English! Herald columnist Bradley Perrett called for the creation of a park in the city to rival Sydney's grand Hyde Park (Herald, 20/6). He suggested Lambton Park for extensive modification, and others have suggested Gregson Park, in Hamilton. There were objections published in the Herald to these locations because many families are keen to keep using the park facilities that had been developed and extensively used over many years. However, the proposed park space in Wickham at the end of Honeysuckle Drive is a blank canvas, and Perrett's idea of creating an impressive parkland to rival Sydney's Hyde Park would be well placed there, as a gateway to the CBD between the Interchange and the harbour. An additional lung for Newcastle in its most densely populated area should be the highest priority for the final stage of the Honeysuckle development. I witnessed one of the best examples of co-operation between our three levels of government and our two main political parties when the Honeysuckle project was launched in Newcastle in 1992, three years after the earthquake. The initial $100 million fund to support the conversion of disused railway land in the Newcastle CBD was enabled by the Keating ALP government's Better Cities program, which provided two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining amount and management of the development being provided by the NSW Fahey Liberal government. The City of Newcastle, under the leadership of lord mayor John McNaughton, also played a critical role in supporting the changes required locally to make this urban renewal project happen. As the Hunter-based federal senator, I joined a roundtable in Newcastle City Hall when this bipartisan intergovernmental agreement was signed off in 1992. We had high hopes that the conversion of 50 hectares of derelict CBD railway land on the harbour would be a game-changer for the renewal of the city centre. Politicians then stepped back, and NSW bureaucrats took over the Honeysuckle project approvals process. Now, 33 years later, it's crucial to ask: has the Honeysuckle project, which is nearing completion, lived up to our initial high expectations? Regrettably, many of the planned green spaces have not materialised. The potential for the impressive 1988 Bicentennial Newcastle Foreshore greenspace project to extend down the harbour as far as Wickham was lost when apartment and hotel developments were approved on Honeysuckle land, encroaching on the harbour's edge. Near the restored former railway workshops, a very imaginative plan for a small boat harbour inlet was also scrapped. Initially, a mix of commercial and residential buildings was envisioned, but apart from notable exceptions such as NIB and Hunter Water, and a scattering of small businesses, Honeysuckle now predominantly has a concrete canyon of apartment buildings, all about the same height, for its entire length. There is, however, one last chance to offset some of this urban planning disaster. Next to the Interchange, on the western edge of the Honeysuckle land, are two remaining large parcels of undeveloped land west of Cottage Creek. The current plan is to create a 'gateway' to the CBD with even more intensive urban development, including additional apartments. This plan should be scrapped. The last thing Newcastle City needs is an extension of the current concrete canyon along Honeysuckle Drive. A much better gateway to the city would be open parkland, stretching from the Interchange to the harbour foreshore. This would provide an additional green space for the city, where it is needed most. This land is currently a car park by default. However, converted to parkland, it would provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West. I think this new park should be called Henry Lawson Park. It has only one small historic building, the forlorn and partially restored Wickham School of Arts. It was here that a teenage Lawson, who worked nearby, attended adult education classes in the evening in the 1890s - presumably to improve his English! Herald columnist Bradley Perrett called for the creation of a park in the city to rival Sydney's grand Hyde Park (Herald, 20/6). He suggested Lambton Park for extensive modification, and others have suggested Gregson Park, in Hamilton. There were objections published in the Herald to these locations because many families are keen to keep using the park facilities that had been developed and extensively used over many years. However, the proposed park space in Wickham at the end of Honeysuckle Drive is a blank canvas, and Perrett's idea of creating an impressive parkland to rival Sydney's Hyde Park would be well placed there, as a gateway to the CBD between the Interchange and the harbour. An additional lung for Newcastle in its most densely populated area should be the highest priority for the final stage of the Honeysuckle development. I witnessed one of the best examples of co-operation between our three levels of government and our two main political parties when the Honeysuckle project was launched in Newcastle in 1992, three years after the earthquake. The initial $100 million fund to support the conversion of disused railway land in the Newcastle CBD was enabled by the Keating ALP government's Better Cities program, which provided two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining amount and management of the development being provided by the NSW Fahey Liberal government. The City of Newcastle, under the leadership of lord mayor John McNaughton, also played a critical role in supporting the changes required locally to make this urban renewal project happen. As the Hunter-based federal senator, I joined a roundtable in Newcastle City Hall when this bipartisan intergovernmental agreement was signed off in 1992. We had high hopes that the conversion of 50 hectares of derelict CBD railway land on the harbour would be a game-changer for the renewal of the city centre. Politicians then stepped back, and NSW bureaucrats took over the Honeysuckle project approvals process. Now, 33 years later, it's crucial to ask: has the Honeysuckle project, which is nearing completion, lived up to our initial high expectations? Regrettably, many of the planned green spaces have not materialised. The potential for the impressive 1988 Bicentennial Newcastle Foreshore greenspace project to extend down the harbour as far as Wickham was lost when apartment and hotel developments were approved on Honeysuckle land, encroaching on the harbour's edge. Near the restored former railway workshops, a very imaginative plan for a small boat harbour inlet was also scrapped. Initially, a mix of commercial and residential buildings was envisioned, but apart from notable exceptions such as NIB and Hunter Water, and a scattering of small businesses, Honeysuckle now predominantly has a concrete canyon of apartment buildings, all about the same height, for its entire length. There is, however, one last chance to offset some of this urban planning disaster. Next to the Interchange, on the western edge of the Honeysuckle land, are two remaining large parcels of undeveloped land west of Cottage Creek. The current plan is to create a 'gateway' to the CBD with even more intensive urban development, including additional apartments. This plan should be scrapped. The last thing Newcastle City needs is an extension of the current concrete canyon along Honeysuckle Drive. A much better gateway to the city would be open parkland, stretching from the Interchange to the harbour foreshore. This would provide an additional green space for the city, where it is needed most. This land is currently a car park by default. However, converted to parkland, it would provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West. I think this new park should be called Henry Lawson Park. It has only one small historic building, the forlorn and partially restored Wickham School of Arts. It was here that a teenage Lawson, who worked nearby, attended adult education classes in the evening in the 1890s - presumably to improve his English! Herald columnist Bradley Perrett called for the creation of a park in the city to rival Sydney's grand Hyde Park (Herald, 20/6). He suggested Lambton Park for extensive modification, and others have suggested Gregson Park, in Hamilton. There were objections published in the Herald to these locations because many families are keen to keep using the park facilities that had been developed and extensively used over many years. However, the proposed park space in Wickham at the end of Honeysuckle Drive is a blank canvas, and Perrett's idea of creating an impressive parkland to rival Sydney's Hyde Park would be well placed there, as a gateway to the CBD between the Interchange and the harbour. An additional lung for Newcastle in its most densely populated area should be the highest priority for the final stage of the Honeysuckle development. I witnessed one of the best examples of co-operation between our three levels of government and our two main political parties when the Honeysuckle project was launched in Newcastle in 1992, three years after the earthquake. The initial $100 million fund to support the conversion of disused railway land in the Newcastle CBD was enabled by the Keating ALP government's Better Cities program, which provided two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining amount and management of the development being provided by the NSW Fahey Liberal government. The City of Newcastle, under the leadership of lord mayor John McNaughton, also played a critical role in supporting the changes required locally to make this urban renewal project happen. As the Hunter-based federal senator, I joined a roundtable in Newcastle City Hall when this bipartisan intergovernmental agreement was signed off in 1992. We had high hopes that the conversion of 50 hectares of derelict CBD railway land on the harbour would be a game-changer for the renewal of the city centre. Politicians then stepped back, and NSW bureaucrats took over the Honeysuckle project approvals process. Now, 33 years later, it's crucial to ask: has the Honeysuckle project, which is nearing completion, lived up to our initial high expectations? Regrettably, many of the planned green spaces have not materialised. The potential for the impressive 1988 Bicentennial Newcastle Foreshore greenspace project to extend down the harbour as far as Wickham was lost when apartment and hotel developments were approved on Honeysuckle land, encroaching on the harbour's edge. Near the restored former railway workshops, a very imaginative plan for a small boat harbour inlet was also scrapped. Initially, a mix of commercial and residential buildings was envisioned, but apart from notable exceptions such as NIB and Hunter Water, and a scattering of small businesses, Honeysuckle now predominantly has a concrete canyon of apartment buildings, all about the same height, for its entire length. There is, however, one last chance to offset some of this urban planning disaster. Next to the Interchange, on the western edge of the Honeysuckle land, are two remaining large parcels of undeveloped land west of Cottage Creek. The current plan is to create a 'gateway' to the CBD with even more intensive urban development, including additional apartments. This plan should be scrapped. The last thing Newcastle City needs is an extension of the current concrete canyon along Honeysuckle Drive. A much better gateway to the city would be open parkland, stretching from the Interchange to the harbour foreshore. This would provide an additional green space for the city, where it is needed most. This land is currently a car park by default. However, converted to parkland, it would provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West. I think this new park should be called Henry Lawson Park. It has only one small historic building, the forlorn and partially restored Wickham School of Arts. It was here that a teenage Lawson, who worked nearby, attended adult education classes in the evening in the 1890s - presumably to improve his English! Herald columnist Bradley Perrett called for the creation of a park in the city to rival Sydney's grand Hyde Park (Herald, 20/6). He suggested Lambton Park for extensive modification, and others have suggested Gregson Park, in Hamilton. There were objections published in the Herald to these locations because many families are keen to keep using the park facilities that had been developed and extensively used over many years. However, the proposed park space in Wickham at the end of Honeysuckle Drive is a blank canvas, and Perrett's idea of creating an impressive parkland to rival Sydney's Hyde Park would be well placed there, as a gateway to the CBD between the Interchange and the harbour. An additional lung for Newcastle in its most densely populated area should be the highest priority for the final stage of the Honeysuckle development.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store