Saving humanity's future is an achievable challenge, according to Anote Tong, former president of Kiribati and now climate activist. Because what's at stake isn't just the future of the climate on Earth, but that of an entire generation of young people who bear no responsibility whatsoever. A grandfather's words.
An undisputed leader in the fight against global warming, Anote Tong served for over ten years – from 2003 to 2016 – as president of Kiribati, one of the island states most threatened by rising sea levels. Kiribati is a Pacific Ocean archipelago made up of 33 coral atolls and other small islets. To try to protect this natural paradise of biodiversity and save its inhabitants, Tong has committed himself personally, first as president and then as an activist, to the international fight against climate change.
Today, Tong is an ambassador for Conservation International, the same NGO that recently announced a record plan for the reforestation of the Amazon with 73 million trees. One of his flagship concepts during his presidency was "migration with dignity" – the idea of migrating with dignity. Even if, more often than not, this phrase has been misunderstood or exploited. During the Bonn climate conference, Cop 23, we asked him to explain this and other challenges for the protection of the climate.
Read also: Anote's Ark, il documentario sulla vita di Anote Tong e sul futuro degli abitanti di Kiribati
In 2011 you said that in Kiribati "many young people go to bed every night fearing that something might happen to their home, especially during periods of high tide." Six years on, what is the situation?
The debate on climate change has been driven forward by the countries that stepped up within the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ipcc). With the latest analytical reports they have been clear: islands such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, will be submerged by the end of the century. And unless radical adaptation measures are taken, we will be underwater much sooner. For anyone, it is a future that is hard to imagine.
As far as I am concerned, when I was dealing with all of this and fighting for these issues, I was a leader. Even though I have retired from politics, I am still a grandfather to many grandchildren, and so the issue remains very important to me. I watch my grandchildren play and I ask myself: "What will happen to these young people?" – because climate change, although it is already happening and already having an impact, does not put my life at risk. But it will certainly put my grandchildren's future at risk. That is how we should see the situation. Many people say it is not a problem because they only think about themselves. But this is not about our generation – it is about the next one, and the one after that. We are talking about people, their future and the future of their nations. That is precisely what is at stake.
Also during those years, under your presidency, Kiribati purchased land – in part in Fiji itself, which presided over Cop 23 – launching the concept of "migration with dignity" to give the inhabitants the opportunity to build themselves a new home. Could you explain this concept a little more?
I never said we would be moving our people to Fiji. The move to seek new land was made to send a message to the international community, because it was not responding. No one was stepping forward to say: "You have a problem, we will help you." Buying that land was a strong statement to the international community. In fact, it was also an investment, because that land will be worth more in the future. Many people and journalists would ask me: "Are you moving your people?", and my answer has always been: "No!" – but whoever comes after me will be able to choose to do so should it become necessary. The Fijian government stepped forward saying that if the populations of Tuvalu and Kiribati needed to leave and had nowhere else to go, Fiji would welcome them. And in that case, Kiribati would have the land to accommodate some of those people.
What is being said on the topic of migration in the ongoing negotiations? Will we ever reach recognition of climate refugee status?
A great deal has been said on this topic. The reality we have to face is that whatever we do to build greater resilience on our islands, it will still be unlikely that we can create an area capable of accommodating the entire population, without even accounting for subsequent population growth. We need to understand that we are talking about a near-term scenario, something that will happen in twenty or thirty years. We have to face the harsh reality that part of our people may have to migrate because it will not be possible to accommodate everyone, regardless of how we respond to the challenge of climate change. I have often been told: "Your people will be climate refugees."
I have always rejected the concept of the climate refugee. I reject the terminology and the classification of our people as such. Because the last thing we want to lose, beyond our land, is our dignity. I would like our people to be able to choose whether to move, voluntarily. And should they decide to do so, they should move with dignity. How could we achieve this? We should be proactive, not victims. Actively providing our citizens with education and training so that they can have the qualities needed to enter new societies as qualified individuals. They will be able to integrate into communities as worthy citizens, as leaders. And they will be able to do so with dignity.
During the Bonn conference, we visited the Garzweiler coal mine 60 kilometres from here. A wound we have inflicted on the earth and which we keep open to feed our hunger for energy. How is it possible that even today, here in Germany — a supposed European leader in the fight against global warming — there is a mine of this size with such a devastating impact on the environment?
That is precisely my question. How is it possible? How can an open-minded and forward-looking country like Germany continue down this path? I believe the answer lies in the consciences of the German people and government. What I can say is that when I called for a moratorium on the opening of new coal mines, I was simply asking for the implementation of the commitments made in Paris in 2015. How can we keep opening new mines if we have decided to reduce CO2 emissions? These are contradictions. And that is the challenge.
After leaving politics, you have been active with the NGO Conservation International. Recently we reported on the largest Amazon reforestation project ever carried out. How important are these initiatives, and what is your role now?
This action is challenging the agreement reached in Marrakech because governments are not always the best agents of change. There is far more conservatism in governments because they are led by politicians. And politicians are sensitive to what they perceive as political problems. That is why most of them will not make sudden changes. It is important for civil society and NGOs to be active, particularly those with greater expertise. When I retired from politics in 2016, I continued my work with the organisation Conservation International, which is aligned with my objectives.
We should support and collaborate with governments and other members of society so that what is being done for forests can also be done for the oceans, to address the challenges facing them such as acidification, pollution and plastic. It is very important and it is effective to work with organisations that specialise in this.
In 2017 the presidency fell to Fiji — do you think Kiribati could ever chair a world summit like this one?
I believe nothing is impossible. Fiji was not in a position to physically host the COP, but collaboration between the global north and south is important, and soon we will need further partnerships. Fiji understands the challenges of climate change better than Germany ever could. Poland will be the next country to host the COP. And it would have been wonderful if Poland had shared the presidency with another island state. What is truly at risk, therefore, is this balance of mutual understanding.