Welcome to Magazine Premium

You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

Member Login
Lost your password?

Moana Nui Action Alliance critique and recommendation for the Pacific Plan

January 14, 2013



support the document

Pacific Island Forum Submissions Page

We, the peoples of Moana Nui, connected by the currents of our ocean home, declare that we will not cooperate with the commodification of life and land as represented by APEC’s predatory capitalistic practices, distorted information and secret trade negotiations and agreements.

We invoke our rights to free, prior and informed consent. We choose cooperative trans-Pacific dialogue, action, advocacy, and solidarity between and amongst the peoples of the Pacific, rooted in traditional cultural practices and wisdom.

E mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono. A mama. Ua noa.[1]

Moana Nui Statement, Honolulu. Nov. 2011


Read “The Pacific Plan”

Honourable Sir Mekere Morauta, thank you for providing an opportunity for the public to critique and make recommendations to the 2013 Pacific Plan Review process.

Moana Nui Action Alliance is submitting this critique and recommendation. We are a loosely constructed not-for-profit alliance unaffiliated with any political organization, and our views represent the interests of activists, academics, and practitioners across Oceania. Moana Nui Action Alliance seeks economic equity and justice for Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia.


Background and Critique

The work towards strengthening regional cooperation and integration in the Pacific is nothing new and arguably, there have been several attempts at drawing up “Pacific Plans” since Captain Cook’s expeditions first mapped the Oceanic islands for Great Britain. Starting In the late 19th centurythe U.S, British, European, and Japanese colonial powers negotiated treaties and cooperative trade agreements for sugar, fur, sandalwood, oil, and other commodities. In the 1880’s, the Prime Minister for the Kingdom of Hawaii, Walter M. Gibson advised King Kalakaua to consider a Plan that asserted a Pacific empire with the Hawaiian Kingdom at its center.[2] By the end of WWII with Japan’s removal from its trusteeship over Pacific Islands, the view from the U.S. shore has been that the Pacific islands and peoples are part of what General Douglas MacArthur referred to as the “American Lake.”[3]

After the ratification of the 1946 U.N. Charter, the Pacific Island territories remained divided by new administrations either under Trusteeships or under the status of Non-Self Governing Territories (NSGT). As a result of this Charter, many of the Pacific Islands were mandated for self-determination. Yet, many Pacific Islands continue to be administered and exploited for our resources despite decolonization efforts and strong and viable struggles for independence. Despite the mandate for U.N. decolonization, the U.S, France, Australia, New Zealand, as well as new administrators like Indonesia and Chile, continue to repress and reject movements for self-determination. Even today, demonstrations in West Papua[4] or Rapa Nui[5] are being met with state-sanctioned violence. In addition, multi-lateral trade agreements like the WTO have concluded accession with independent countries like Tonga and Vanuatu, further perpetuating legally binding economic and political dependencies among Pacific Small Island States (PSIS) that have debilitative dispute mechanisms favoring investor-rights over the native-rights and health of the local population or environmental biodiversity.

Although the creation of the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) in 1971 should be seen as a success for Pacific regional cooperation, the governments of Australia and New Zealand have used their economic influence to undermine the PSIS towards pursuing a poorly-envisioned interpretation of its mission, enhancing “the economic and social well-being of the people of the South Pacific by fostering cooperation between governments and between international agencies…”

Whether it was intended to or not, the Pacific Plan serves as the latest blueprint for economic and security hegemony further facilitated by Obama’s “Pacific Pivot.” Just after the 2011 APEC meeting in Honolulu, Obama announced that, “The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay,” signaling a shift of military and investment resources into the Asia-Pacific.[6]

Authored by the Pacific Island Forum, the Pacific Plan would invariably submit resources to multi-trillion dollar trade co-operations either through bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or through larger trade initiatives like the ACP-EU, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), or ASEAN’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), all multi-trillion dollar trade co-operations. While the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) attempts regional integration by fostering investments and liberalized free trade, weak regulatory guidelines offer little or no protection from these larger trade co-operations.

Additionally, even as regulatory bodies like the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)[7], and agreements like the Vava’u Declaration on Pacific Fisheries Resources have attempted to protect regional fisheries, we are concerned that closer economic and security ties to the larger economies will further weaken the strength of these regulatory bodies. Last year, Greenpeace reported that December’s WCPFC meeting was a, “disaster for the Pacific” As there are still little-to-no binding mechanisms to protect fisheries from the ramifications of industrial fishing techniques, it should be a concern to all subsistence fisher-peoples that privatization schemes hatched by these multi-trillion dollar investment co-operations will ultimately hurt local livelihood.

During its drafting, PICTA could have better served the aspirations and needs of Pacific Small Island States and strengthened the inter-dependency and regulatory framework to benefit the needs of the people rather than the investment and aid regime. Such a political or economic arrangement might have given voice to a shared cultural identity in our region that is rich in resources and ecological traditions. Yet the current political status of Small Island States make Pacific-wide political integration unlikely.

Instead, the destabilizing privatization and aid policy perpetuated under-development, eco-systems degradation and resource depletion. In addition, the militarized and nuclear ambitions of the administering powers left little room for the local populations to freely express their political or economic will.

When Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) first met in Fiji in 1975,[8] the peoples of Oceania recognized the anti-nuclear sentiment of the region and emphasized solidarity with the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, more than 60 years after the dropping of the atomic bomb, the impact of the tragic 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown radiates outward, while the controversial nuclear ambitions of Prime Minister Abe’s government continues to threaten the bio-diversity of the region. As NFIP sought to create a nuclear free Pacific, in the end, it is the militarism of the U.S. and its influence in establishing a nuclear dependent Japan that appears to have won out in the end.

Ironically, in a nod to Hawaiian Kingdom Prime Minister Gibson, the Pacific Islands are already a part of an integrated Pacific Empire centrally coordinated in Hawaii by U.S. Pacific Command, the center for military operations in the Pacific. Nuclear testing and the building of military bases across the region could be seen as justification for administering the colonial relationship. Even as “Nuclear colonialism” came to an end with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in 1996, economic or political integration must have been seen as a distant possibility.[9] Decades of testing from 1946 onwards created a radioactive zone that is still embedded in the environment of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands saddling generations of residents with birth defects and cancer.

In 2010, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Caldwell met with American Samoa’s representative to Congress, Eni Faleomavaega to discuss policy enhancements between the U.S. and the Pacific Islands.[10] The following year, the US and its territories became observers to the Pacific Island Forum, enhancing closer relations to the regional economic development of the Pacific Plan. With the U.S. now cooperating with the sub-regional institutions and civil society organizations, new implementing arrangements that provide both security and infrastructure to Small Island States are promoting Wall St. investments and will ultimately benefit the investment regime and U.S. markets.

This hegemonic triumvirate of militarization, economic and political dominance suggests that the Pacific Plan creates opportunities for larger economies to create an investment protocol that would submit smaller island states to a process that works for the ever-liberalizing investment regime. Implementing arrangements that reduce risk for the investment and aid regimes are prying open markets by creating and privatizing infrastructure and security projects. PICs are trading not only their sovereignty—the will of the people—but also putting the very ecological and health resources that their people depend on at risk.

The failure of the Pacific Plan begins at the root. Any principle of integration growing out of the investment regime—through regional or bilateral investor-state agreements—will provide short-term gain at the expense of debilitating long-term ecological or health loss. This is not hyperbole, but a result of the privatizing investment policy that repeats itself over and again. The strength of an economy that privileges investment risk and debt is a false indicator for the national health of a people, particularly when new national accounting statistics are being revised to include ecological and other “well-being” indicators.[11]

In addition, the practice of investing in resources as a means to stimulate growth unequivocally requires a strict regulatory process. Such a process is clearly absent from the Pacific Plan. The suggestion of “Good Governance” (PP.pg7) as a form of regulation cannot be taken seriously, and when one considers “market-friendly” (PP.pg14) regulations at a time when the ecological bio-diversity of the Pacific is at risk and global climate change is impacting peoples everywhere, the vagueness of a “market-friendly” regulatory process suggests that the PIF is abandoning the peoples of the Pacific to the forces of the greater market economy.[12]

Since neither the U.S. nor the E.U. have adopted a viable regulatory safety net to protect even their own citizens from widespread deregulatory investments and corruption, the Pacific Plan provides an invitation for unfettered economic exploitation of resources in the Pacific Island region. As an example, last month the Financial Times had an insert ranking US “innovative” law firms. This list included law firms that created new “legal” investment packages that circumvent many of the regulatory changes put forth under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[13] Even new international accounting rules are way ahead of the regulatory commission. If practitioners and rights holders are ever able to assert their voice, the financial and investment institutions need to provide greater transparency and consultation with the community. It is not too late for the PIF to put forward a program that would provide greater consultation with the proper rights holders.



It is our recommendation that the Pacific Island Forum re-draft the Pacific Plan from a regulatory process up and consider:

  1. Pacific Region Ecological Integration;
  2. Establish a Pacific-wide consultatory agency that can properly communicate with native rights-holders the benefits and disadvantages of the Pacific Plan;
  3. Create a binding regulatory process and an independent regulatory agency that represents native rights and ecological bio-diversity;
  4. Engage in the UN Statistical Division’s adoption of the 2012 Integrated System for Environmental and Economic Accounting.

Ecological Integration. From the perspective of regional integration, the military, economic and political triumvirate has already been co-opted by financial interests, while ecological integration has not.

Ecological Integration among Pacific Small Island States can provide far greater economic security and growth by agreeing upon strict ecological regulations and governance among the various trade sectors. Fisheries, energy, mining, agriculture, tourism and other industries that rely upon public-private investments or investor-state agreements—especially those that impact regional bio-diversity should be considered first in any Pacific Plan, as well as the internationally recognized principles for “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

In addition, there are technical factors in current national accounting revisions that suggest that Pacific region ecological integration could have far greater benefits to the region in terms of trade than ever presented through military, market-based economic or political means. While the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) recently adopted the Integrated System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) to revise current national accounting standards, the rules for accounting for ecosystem degradation (ED) and resource depletion (RD) have not yet been formed. Indigenous, ecological, gender equity and “global south” rights-holders should also be consulted in the System of National Accounting review process.[14]

As the larger economies look to privatize resources among Pacific Islands, these resources will likely be accounted for by corporations, thereby enhancing the national economies of the investors rather than the governments of Small Island States. As a further insult to Pacific Island economies, the exploitation of these resources could be privatized via the very same infrastructure and security that was developed in regional agreements like the Pacific Plan. This agreement that was supposed to protect the sovereignty of Pacific Islanders is actually threatening to turn native rights holders into renters of their own traditional resources.

These agreements, drafted as either bilateral or regional agreements are binding with real punishments that can be resolved by monetary payouts or resource compensation. Currently, investor-state agreements have no binding regulatory agency that can intervene in international arbitration courts like the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).[15] In the event of an ecological or health disaster due to mining or extraction, for example, there is little recourse for Pacific Island peoples to collect damages. In addition, should regulations be added after the agreement, corporations may have the right to sue for anticipated future loss of profits. There are currently dozens of these cases on the books. However, because these cases are very costly, corporate-driven prosecutorial overreach will likely be a burden for the state and for its taxpayers.

In closing, I’d like to turn your attention to the addendum: The Intervention of the Pacific Caucus, UNPFII. Written for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, this Monitoring Authority could also be expanded to initiate an Ecological Regional Monitoring Authority.

Sign the Petition. Thank you for your time.

Arnie Saiki
Coordinator – Moana Nui Action Alliance


Addendum: Intervention of the Pacific Caucus, UNPFII

Presented by Santi Hitorangi

Establishing a Pacific Region Indigenous Monitoring Authority for the implementation of regulating agreements impacting pacific peoples and our resources.[16]
The Pacific Caucus from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues welcomes the opportunity given by the UN Conference on Sustainable Development to comment on the impact of the Fukushima reactor spill, large scale resource exploration, degradation and depletion by transnational corporations on indigenous peoples’ land and territories, affecting our environments and livelihoods, undermining our economic, cultural and spiritual life and threatening the existence of many indigenous peoples of our region.

Recognition and protection of core indigenous rights are critical to REDD+ projects taking place in indigenous territories and must be effectively addressed by the UN-REDD. We have four recommendations:

  1. We, respectfully, ask the Permanent Forum to urge all States to recognize our right to our lands, oceans and resources, and that any military, industrial or mining uses be first approved by the free, prior and informed consent of our Pacific Peoples.
  2. We, respectfully, request that a percentage of the taxes and royalties States receive from companies who profit from our resources to be proportionately allocated to fund the establishing of an Independent Regional Indigenous Peoples Monitoring Authority.
  3. We, respectfully, call upon the United Nations Conference of Sustainable Development to urge all States to work with Indigenous Peoples to ensure the full implementation and the legal application of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and recognize our human rights and fundamental freedoms to self-determination and self-governance.
  4. We, respectfully, call upon the United Nations to assist with the creation of a region wide, independent and indigenous stakeholders-led agency to review and regulate the environmental and economic impact of resource depletion in our region. We seek an agency whose principal stakeholders are the cultural and traditional practitioners whose economic livelihoods are most impacted by exploiting our economic and environmental resources.

The very survival and future of Pacific Island Peoples is linked directly on the policies and practices of States and of international institutions and organizations.

The World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank[17]; have projects funded that have been negative and counterproductive to the interests of indigenous peoples and have often contributed to violating our fundamental rights by creating conditions of debt and poverty.

The World Bank has an operational policy on indigenous peoples that states that for any proposed projects that affect indigenous peoples, the borrower is required to engage in the process of free, prior and informed consent and that the projects include measures to (a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the indigenous peoples’ communities; or (b) when avoidance is not feasible, to minimize, mitigate or compensate for such effects.[18]

1) New Caledonia, a new nickel refinery belonging to Brazilian mining giant Vale is due to start full production next year.[19] Vale has brokered a so-called Sustainable Development Agreement with New Caledonia’s Kanak leaders in 2008. The company aims to become the largest nickel producer. In 2009, more that 40,000 litres of 98% pure sulphuric acid was released into a river leading into the mouth of Prony Bay, a UNESCO World Heritage bumper zone.[20] This resulted in peoples who depend entirely on the farming and fishing to survive are forced to endure serious ramifications to their health and their ability to sustain themselves in the territories belonging to the Thio, Kouaoua, Wawilu and Poum, among others.

2) Pacific Island countries and territories that have leased out swathes of the deep seabed in their Exclusive Economic Zones for exploration of minerals to transnational mining companies.[21] The Solwara 1 Project owned by Nautilus Minerals, a Canadian company, operates in Papua New Guinea and although operations have been interrupted by environmental and social resistance and lack of funding,[22] it is the only deep seabed-mining project that was close to full operation. As the technology develops for the acquisition of lucrative gold, silver, copper, nickel, and rare-earth deposits, we are concerned that small island nations will be at a tremendous disadvantage in protecting themselves from potential accidents and mishaps resulting from these large transnational mining projects. As of yet, there has been no Environmental Impact Study that has conclusively shown the mitigation of the impact of the mining process on ecology of the deep seabed, on fisheries closer to shore, or on the fragile reef system that is home to the greatest diversity of life on the planet. In addition, we are concerned that PNG taxpayers will be liable for costly legal disputes.

3) In Rapa Nui, our people are struggling against a tidal wave of developments proposals by the Chilean government in conjunction with international investment regimes, such as TransOceanica, for mining projects, airfields, ports, casinos, and hotels. Rapa Nui has been engaged in an unresolved decades long land rights and self-determination struggle with Chile. Now, Rapa Nui is at risk of being crushed under the weight of a regional free-trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, which Chile ratified in 2005. This free-trade agreement and proposed development projects will irreparably damage a UN World Heritage site, to the detriment to Rapa Nui, while primarily benefitting the Chilean government and the non-Rapa Nui investment regimes.

4) We are deeply distressed by the growing radioactive plume engulfing the Pacific Northwest region from to the ongoing Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster. We must participate in the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan, based on reliable scientific data, to assist Pacific peoples in monitoring and protecting health, food and regional resources due to this nuclear disaster. The impact of Fukushima on Pacific island peoples[23] whose health and resources have already been compromised by international nuclear testing and experimentation cannot be ignored. As evidenced by the continued negative health indicators and unusually high cancer rates of those living in the islands in Micronesia where massive nuclear testing was conducted fifty years ago. The States and corporations responsible for nuclear proliferation in the Pacific must be held accountable for impacts and remediation to health, economic and the environment of the indigenous Pacific peoples.

For many years, indigenous peoples have advocated at the UN for the full recognition of core collective rights, such as full ownership rights to their lands and natural resources and the right to self-determination. Recognition and protection of these core rights is critical to REDD+ projects taking place in indigenous territories, and must be effectively addressed by the UN-REDD. The UN Declaration entailed a process of more than 30 years in which indigenous peoples and States forged common ground on the need of protecting indigenous territories and governments.

The UN Declaration is a global statement of the law concerning indigenous peoples, which enjoys today full support from the world community. It is by virtue of these rights that indigenous peoples can control, use, manage and benefit from their lands and natural resources according to their governing institutions, laws and customs.[24]

Yet, currently, UN-REDD has no policy specifically protecting indigenous peoples’ territories and governments, which are indispensable for survival as distinct peoples within existing nation-states. The obligations of human rights and climate agreements, we have not seen a UN-REDD policy in which larger economies, implementing agencies or investment regimes are fulfilling these obligations; governments negotiate regional trade agreements that are reinforcing investor-state frameworks, often with the support and encouragement of our sub-regional institutions and without consultation or approval by indigenous peoples.

SOPAC, the geo-science and technology subsidiary of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) has secured funding to draft a framework that would enable Pacific Island nations to mine the deep sea for minerals, and this SPC-authored framework would disenfranchise Pacific Island communities, impacting the livelihoods of Pacific Islanders without their free, prior and informed consent.[25]

With respect to mining and other industrial investments among Pacific islands, negotiations and agreements are often kept secret from public purview. Citing limited negotiating time limits, inadequate access to legal representation, or governments who are not aligned with indigenous interests, Pacific Islanders require an agency that would enable farm and fish practitioners and our cultural stakeholders to participate from the initiation of such negotiations and agreements, and have access to the legal resources and adequate time to adequately represent our interests.

Decisions over the ocean environment cannot be made by governments or investment regimes, or even by regional organizations like the Pacific Island Forum, without free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous community. An independent regional body comprised of indigenous peoples adversely impacted by the decisions of governments, trade representatives, and corporate stakeholders to develop a specific policy aimed at protecting the rights contained within the UN DRIP, must be established and funded.

We, the Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific respectfully request the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development implement our requests to ensure that policies enacted will provide protection of indigenous peoples’ substantive rights, especially the rights of self-determination and permanent sovereignty of our natural resources.




Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. Statement drafted at the Moana Nui 2011 meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii in November 2011. (http://www.change.org/petitions/moana-nui-2011-statement) Accessed 9 Sept. 2012.
  2. “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board, 1868-1882.” Walter Murray Gibson, Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1884. Hawaii State Archives
  3. Enclosure Draft of ‘‘Memorandum For The Secretary Of War And The Secretary Of The Navy,’’ part of ‘‘Type Of Government To Be Established On Various Pacific Islands,’’ Joint Chiefs of Staff (hereafter cited as JCS) 1524/2, November 15, 1945, file 8–21–45 sec. 1, JCS Geographic File, 1945–1945, Combined and Joint Chiefs of Staff (hereafter cited as CCS) 014 Pacific Ocean Area, Records of the Combined and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Record Group (hereafter cited as RG) 218, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
  4. Karma Family. “Papuan Prisoner of Conscience Filep Karma in Jakarta For Medical Treatment”. West Papua Media Alerts. September 27, 2012. (http://westpapuamedia.info/tag/international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  5. Rizvi Haider, “Easter Islanders Seek U.N. Intervention in Dispute with Chile” IPS. Jan. 21, 2011 (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54201) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  6. Engdahl. William T., “Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China. Global Research. Aug. 24, 2012. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-s-geopolitical-china-pivot-the-pentagon-targets-china/32474) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  7. Greenpeace. “WCPFC Outcomes a Disaster for the Pacific,” December 10, 2012. Atuna.com (http://pna.atuna.com/ViewArticle.asp?ID=12196) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  8. No Te Parau Tia. No Te Parau Mau, No Te Tiamaraa, For Justice, truth and independence. Report of the 8th Nuclear Free and Independent Pacifici (NFIP) Conferenence. 20-24 September 1999. Pacific Concerns Resource Center. Suva, Fiji. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/87482853/1999-NFIP-8th4) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  9. Rapaport, Moshe. The Pacific Islands: Environment and Society. 1999. Bess Press. Honolulu. Page 140.
  10. “U.S. Policy in the Pacific Islands”Testimony given by Asst. Sec of State Kurt M Campbell, Bureau of East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs, before the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, 
Washington, DC, September 29, 2010.
  11. United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy. The SEEA framework follows a similar accounting structure as the System of National Accounts (SNA) and uses concepts, definitions and classifications consistent with the SNA in order to facilitate the integration of environmental and economic statistics.

    The SEEA is a system for organizing statistical data for the derivation of coherent indicators and descriptive statistics to monitor the interactions between the economy and the environment and the state of the environment to better inform decision-making. The SEEA does not propose any single headline indicator. Rather it is a multi-purpose system that generates a wide range of statistics and indicators with many different potential analytical applications. It is a flexible system in that its implementation can be adapted to countries’ priorities and policy needs while at the same time providing a common framework and common concepts, terms and definitions.
    (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.

  12. Pacific Island Forum. “The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration” 2007 version.
  13. SenGupta, Reena. “Firms Grow Smarter on Strategy” FT.com insert “U.S. Innovative Lawyers. 2012” November 29, 2012. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a217b9d2-2fe2-11e2-ae7d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2GYudyqvw) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  14. Work on the additional portions of the SEEA, namely Experimental Ecosystem Accounts and Extensions and Applications, is on-going and expected to be completed before the 44th Session of the Statistical Commission in February 2013. (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  15. Kelsey, Jane and Lori Wallach. “Investor-State” Disputes in Trade Pacts Threaten Fundamental Principles of National Judicial Systems. April 2012 (isds-domestic-legal-process-background-breief.pdf). The TPP investment chapter can be found online at: http://tinyurl.com/tppinvestment
  16. From a paper delivered to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20, 20-22, June 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil by Santi Hitorangi, Pacific Caucus Representative UNPFII.
  17. Special Rapporteurs, U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Tenth Session, “Study on indigenous peoples and corporation to examine existing mechanisms and policies related to corporations and indigenous peoples and to identify good practices.” New York, 12-27 May 20122, Item 3 (a) of the provisional agenda.
  18. World Bank, Operational Manual. OP4.10-Indigenous Peoples (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20553653~menuPK:4564185~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html)
  19. Gooch, Nicole. “Nickel and Maligned”. 2012, Apr, 27. The Global Mail. (http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/nickel-and-maligned/214/)
  20. Radio Australia, “Thousand of fish dead after acid leak at New Caledonia Nickel plant.” April 6, 2009.
  21. ACT NOW! and PANG Joint Media Release, “Economics of experimental seabed mining don’t add up for Pacific island countries.” May 15, 2012. Papua New Guinea Mine Watch, (http://ramumine.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/economics-of-experimental-seabed-mining-dont-add-up-for-pacific-island-countries/).
  22. “Future of PNG Deep Sea Mining Uncertain,” Papua New Guinea Mine Watch, December 20, 2012 (http://ramumine.wordpress.com/2012/12/) Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
  23. U.N. General Assembly, Fourth Committee (GA/SPD431). “Fourth Committee delegates urge more funding for scientific committee to enable it to assess emerging risks of atomic radiation on human health, environment.” 16 Oct. 2009. (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd431.doc.htm)
  24. Crippa, Leonardo A. & Gretchen Gordon. “Comments on the UN-REDD Programme Guideline on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.” Indian Law Resource Center. January 2012. (http://www.indianlaw.org/content/centers-redd-related-comments-fpic-guidelines-benefit-and-risk-assessment-tool)
  25. Papua New Guinea Perspective. http://www.pngperspective.com/news/pacific-deep-sea-mining-framework-under-fire/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pngperspective.com%2Fnews%2Fpacific-deep-sea-mining-framework-under-fire%2F
Print Friendly