Latest news with #Houniuhi
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘We were heard': the Pacific students who took their climate fight to the ICJ
'I'm so nervous about today … it's going to be OK. Let's pray.' Those were the quiet but powerful words of Cynthia Houniuhi on Wednesday morning, just before the international court of justice (ICJ) handed down its historic advisory opinion on climate change at the Peace palace in The Hague. In the packed courtroom, thousands of kilometres from home, tension hung in the air. For Houniuhi – one of the original 27 Pacific law students who sparked the global legal campaign that led to the ruling – the moment was overwhelming. As the judges began to speak, she became teary. Years of hard work and late nights had come down to this. 'I was literally hanging on to each and every word the judge was saying. I was anticipating, waiting for the things I hoped to hear. The more I listened, the more emotional I became,' Houniuhi said. 'When the judges stated that states' obligations are not limited to the Paris agreement or the climate regime but also extend to environmental law, human rights law and international customary law, I cried right there in the courtroom.' The ICJ's advisory opinion for the first time gives the Pacific and all vulnerable communities a legal mechanism to hold states accountable and to demand the climate action long overdue. In the landmark opinion published on Wednesday, the court said countries must prevent harm to the climate system and that failing to do so could result in their having to pay compensation and make other forms of restitution. It says states are liable for all kinds of activities that harm the climate, but it takes explicit aim at fossil fuels. For a young Pacific woman at the forefront of this global fight, this win wasn't just political, it was personal. And it was history. 'We were there. And we were heard,' she said. The group of students all hailed from Pacific island countries that are among the most vulnerable in the world to the climate crisis. They came up with the idea of changing international law by getting the world's highest court to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis. The campaign was led by the nation of Vanuatu, a Pacific state of about 300,000 people that sits at the forefront of the climate crisis and has been ranked by the United Nations as the country most prone to natural disasters. Sitting beside Houniuhi was Vishal Prasad, executive director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), quietly taking it all in. 'I'm still trying to process everything,' Vishal said on Thursday. 'Cynthia was beside me, and our Pacific team was there. Line by line, paragraph by paragraph, I was amazed. From the obligations of states under the Paris agreement to the recognition of human rights and the right to a clean, healthy environment – and then to hear the court speak so strongly on fossil fuels – it was incredible.' The Ni-Vanuatu anthropologist and minister for climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, remembered when those same students first approached him for support in 2019. 'Back then I never imagined it would grow this big. It felt like a wild dream – this idea that we could go to the ICJ. But we thought, 'Why not?' There was youthful ambition and energy, and surprisingly – with support from across the world – we got here. Especially thanks to the international youth climate justice movement.' But it wasn't easy. Over the years, the movement faced resistance from major emitting countries. The Pacific had to go back, gather more evidence, more testimonies – and keep pushing, despite the odds. Siosiua Veikune, a youth climate advocate from Tonga and PISFCC member, said the group's cautious optimism about the case gave way to overwhelming gratefulness when the ruling was handed down. 'At first, we were skeptical. History has shown that courts sometimes speak to some issues but leave others out. But this ruling … it was bold. It was clear.' 'As a young Tongan, I hope we've helped set a healthy legal standard – a blueprint that can be replicated globally. This duty of care … it goes beyond legal obligations. It speaks to who we are in the Pacific.' The opinion didn't just recognise states' climate responsibilities – it tied them directly to human rights and the lives of frontline communities. Many in the Pacific and those who have been following the advisory opinion, including those who contributed to oral submissions, cheered with joy when the advisory opinion came down. Rufino Varea, director of the Pacific Islands Climate Network, said the court had handed Pacific people 'legal backbone for climate justice'. 'No more excuses. Those who fuel this crisis must stop the harm and help repair it,' he said. 'The law now reflects the justice our communities have always demanded – and we will use this opinion everywhere we fight for our people.' Pacific feminist climate activist Tamani Rarama said the ruling offered new tools in the fight for accountability. 'Now we have clarified, more nuanced international legal advice – a pathway for justice, redress and repatriation for the loss and damage our frontline communities have endured for years.' From scientific submissions provided by the Pacific Community to testimonies gathered by PISFCC in the Witness Stand for Climate Justice, every part of the case was anchored in the experiences of Pacific people. Dr Coral Pasisi, the Pacific Community's director of climate change, reflected on what the ruling means to her personally. 'My children told me before I left: there better be a decent outcome. Especially my 10-year-old son, who said, 'Mum, you've been doing this for 13 years, and the adults still aren't listening. Maybe you need to bring the kids to the table.' 'What this advisory opinion does is bring that next generation into the heart of climate discourse. It's a recognition of intergenerational responsibility. And we cannot have that conversation without bringing our children into it in a meaningful way.' As the Pacific celebrate, PISFCC and Pacific leaders are already discussing how to use the ruling in upcoming negotiations – especially in the lead-up to Cop30 in Brazil and working out what it means to the Pacific. For Houniuhi and the students who began it all, the work is far from over. 'This is a victory forged by Pacific youth but owned by all,' she said. 'We pushed the world's highest court to listen – and it did. Now we move from legal words to living change. Young people will make sure this ruling cannot be shelved or spun.' As for how she'll celebrate, she plans to wait until she gets home. 'It still feels surreal. Some of the people I want to celebrate with are back home. So, for now, I'm holding back the celebration – just feeling deeply grateful.'
The Advertiser
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
History in making as World Court to advise on climate
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. 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. 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. 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.
Perth Now
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
History in making as World Court to advise on climate
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.
