Wednesday, September 25, 2013

PIPA - Smoke and Mirrors!

Phoenix Islands - a mere fraction of Kiribati's EEZ.

Read this.
Make sure you click on the link to the article by Christopher Pala, reviewed here.

Not a single word of contrition for having duped the world for years on end but on the contrary, the usual bullshit and then a whole lotta letters of support by their friends - and I must say that my waning respect for Her Deepness has taken one last and likely fatal blow.

And I cite.
To this end, Kiribati has made a sacrifice.
We established PIPA, which closed much of our territorial waters to fishing. We had to fight our own internal political battles and opinion on this decision, but it is a very large statement on our part.
And this one is even more egregious.
The people of Kiribati have also made such a gift. 
Three years ago, we declared 160,000 square miles of our Phoenix Islands a fully protected marine park, off limits to fishing and to any extractive use. Today these pristine islands and waters are a United Nations World Heritage Site – in fact the largest World Heritage Site (not for long!)

I think these gifts lie close to the heart of resilience: A decision to say “This is where we stop taking from the earth, and start giving back.” 
We need many such gifts to the world. Kiribati is a poor country that relies heavily on its marine resources for its income, but we did not hesitate to make our gift.
The truth?
The PIPA comprises a mere 11% of Kiribati's EEZ and only 3% of it are currently protected. Now CI calls it a 408,250 square kilometer multiple-use marine protected area (MPA) which is technically correct but highly misleading (and here!) and deeply dishonest - to use their example, it's exactly like claiming that California is a 163,695 square mile multiple-use wildlife refuge!

And those 5 million?
They will be squandered for "management" and if you read carefully, you will notice that there is zero mention of even one single inch of incremental territory being protected in exchange  - the question being, was this correctly represented to the donors?


No comments: