PINA

The year ahead will show whether Fiji’s political old guard can cede to a new generation, or if it will merely continue feeding on the aspirations of the young.

By Merewalesi (Mere) Nailatikau

2026 promises to be an eventful voting year for Fiji. Campaign noise is rising, and the country’s political parties are courting young candidates in an effort to mobilise a disengaged youth vote.

Across Asia, youth-led movements have driven political upheaval, from Sri Lanka in 2022 to Bangladesh in 2024 and Nepal in 2025. Human Rights Watch’s Meenakshi Ganguly observed, “These movements weren’t driven by a desire for political change alone. They were driven by young people seeking better lives.”

Young people across global contexts are demanding structural change that meets existential needs, outlasting political parties and regimes. Yet with a national median age of 28, Fiji’s male-dominated, gerontocratic political class bears little resemblance to its demographic reality. If the familiar adage that the young must learn from their elders holds true, it is also worth considering that elders might learn from the young – not merely when electorally convenient.

Six years ago, Fijian youth were among the 27 Pacific law students who blazed an audacious trail from a Vanuatu lecture hall, through the Pacific Islands Forum and the United Nations General Assembly, to what is deemed the most significant climate opinion in international law.

The Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WY4CJ) spearheaded a landmark Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), affirming states’ legal responsibilities to prevent climate harm, cooperate internationally, and protect human rights.

PISFCC’s journey has been one of sharing power and enabling succession – an anomaly in Pacific societies like Fiji’s, where young people lack models for genuine intergenerational handover.

As PISFCC’s director, 29-year-old Fijian Vishal Prasad, recalled, “To be really youth-led, we had some support in the beginning, but very quickly we had to figure out succession, how people would exit as they aged out, and how to do that responsibly.”

With succession as a core principle instead of an afterthought, those involved from the outset carried the weight of outsized expectations.

“We always had this thought in our heads: ‘We can’t mess this up,’” Prasad said. “The doors that opened for us through this campaign, we can’t close them for the people coming behind us.”

In conventional politics, solidarity over popularity is a losing strategy – not so for the ICJ AO campaign. With early backing from the Vanuatu government and networks like the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), young proponents eschewed solitary visibility in favour of collective solidarity.

“Making inroads in Asia-Pacific was very difficult,” Prasad recalls. “Our Asia colleagues said the Pacific has it good. In much of Asia, civil society isn’t viewed positively, and young people even less so – together, that’s a double no.”

Forging connections through the WY4CJ, Asian and Pacific youth worked cross-regionally to build relationships with governments, leveraging their expertise in international law, diplomacy, community building, and activism.

In the Pacific, Vanuatu’s early adoption of the youth-led cause, followed by the backing of regional institutions, allowed the movement to spill into global arenas. Progress did not hinge on partisan political popularity, but on young people collaborating to secure political will from their governments in support of a livable future.

“Vanuatu was the outlier,” Prasad said. “From the first meeting, they told us, ‘We’re taking this on, and you will be equal partners.’”

In Prasad’s home country, it took far longer.

“For Fiji, it took two years. We did events, wrote op-eds, everything. No one was interested. The Pacific Islands Forum was the tipping point. Once that happened, suddenly the climate justice AO was ‘a thing,’” Prasad recalled.

Weeks after the long-awaited ICJ Advisory Opinion, the movement’s gains were tested when Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu warned that Australia’s approval of the Woodside North West Shelf gas project could breach the court’s findings. While disappointing, it was not surprising to close observers that the Fijian government was silent. Fiji had in fact missed the ICJ submission deadline on the question of states’ responsibilities regarding climate change. In stark contrast, Fiji did appear before the ICJ in a separate case in support of Israel, on the matter of its activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Pressing on with expanding the impact of the ICJ’s landmark advisory opinion on climate change, and continuing to work closely with Pacific youth, Vanuatu has introduced the zero draft of a UN General Assembly resolution. Drafted by a cross-regional global committee, the resolution aims to clarify and strengthen legal obligations for climate action, and advance climate justice by operationalising the Advisory Opinion.

“What Vanuatu is trying to do post-COP is reinforce the Advisory Opinion,” Prasad explained. “To create mechanisms for implementation, and to address the structural injustices blocking progress. It’s about shifting the climate conversation into spaces where small island states have real power.”

Similarly, young Fijians confronting strained health and education systems, a drug crisis, an HIV epidemic, and escalating gender-based violence are calling for structural, intergenerational change, not merely a change of government. Experience has heightened these demands, given that Fiji’s most recent government transition began with a vote from ministers to raise their own salaries. Three years later, prospects for young people remain as precarious as ever.

As with the borderless nature of climate change, young people also recognise the interconnectedness of struggles across the globe, as well as the connection between climate change and human rights. This expansive outlook has enabled Pacific youth climate advocates to build global alliances, avoiding the myopic thinking that dominates national partisan politics.

The year ahead will show whether Fiji’s political old guard can cede to a new generation or will merely continue feeding on the aspirations of the young. Fiji’s aging demagogues would do well to heed what the youth-led climate justice movement is demonstrating – that political office is not a prerequisite for impact.

By Stephen Howes

The urge to survive is a powerful one, for both an individual and a country.

Nauru, whose population was decimated by infectious disease as a result of colonialism, still celebrates Angam Day on 26 October every year. This was the day in 1932 when the birth of a baby brought Nauru’s population up to 1,500, a minimum number thought necessary at the time to guarantee the future survival of the Nauruan people.

Two Pacific countries currently facing a declining population are the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI).

RMI’s population fell from 53,158 in the 2011 census to 42,418 in the 2021 census, a decline of 20 percent. According to the SPC, its population now (presumably 2025) is only 36,914.

The situation with FSM is more complex. According to official statistics, its population continues to grow, reaching 105,381 in 2024, up from 104,832 in 2021 and 102,843 in 2010. However, authoritative sources, including the IMF and the United States government, note that in fact FSM’s population has fallen. A census was conducted in 2022, but the results have not yet been officially released; the government’s figures rely on extrapolating earlier trends which are now out of date. Veteran analyst and commentator Francis Hetzel wrote in 2024:

Over the past decade, Federated States of Micronesia has lost a large chunk of its population, according to a 2022 census that still has not been formally released. Its population plummeted from 102,000 to 71,000 over the previous ten years (2012-2022), thus marking a loss of 30 percent of its population.

The U.S government reports a 31 percent decline in FSM population between 2010 and 2023, and the IMF reports a similar figure. A recent academic study of FSM reports a 25 percent reduction.

The fear that some Pacific island countries could eventually be almost or completely abandoned goes back at least to the ANU professor of geography, Gerard Ward, whose 1989 article predicted this fate for several of them.

So far, however, the experience of the Pacific is that population declines are temporary and are followed by periods of population stabilisation or growth.

Nauru’s population recovered from the lows of almost a century ago to reach 12,000 today, though it did suffer a minor decline in population in the early 2000s when its economy struggled.

Palau, like FSM and RMI, has a “compact state” relationship with the United States. It experienced a population decline from 20,000 in the early 2000s to 18,000 in recent years, but its population too seems to have stabilised.

Niue and Cook Islands are also relevant examples as they have similarly open-ended migration rights to New Zealand that Palau, FSM and RMI have with the United States. Niue and the Cook Islands both had higher populations in the past. Today, they are both high-income states with stable populations.

Niue’s population fell from a peak of 5,200 in the late 1960s to just 1,900 in the early 2000s, but has stabilised at that level since. Cook Islands had a population of above 20,000 in the early 1970s. It fell to around 15,000 during its economic crisis in the mid-1990s, but has since recovered and stabilised at around 17,000.

All three of Cook Islands, Niue and Palau have achieved high-income status, with incomes per person well in excess of the World Bank’s US$14,000 threshold (see Figure 9 of this recent discussion paper). Good jobs back home both deter outward migration and attract migrants from other countries, thus helping to stabilise the population.

Both FSM and RMI are heavily dependent on foreign rents, specifically revenue from aid and fishing licenses. A smaller population means higher rents per person and, therefore, a higher income per person.

Some of this positive feedback from migration to per person income may already be apparent in these two countries. RMI’s national income (measured in terms of GNDI) grew rapidly in the 2010s: at an average per-person rate of 5.1 percent between 2010 and 2019. Using the official population numbers, FSM’s national income per person grew more slowly, at an average rate of 2.5 percent. But if we use what appear to be the actual population numbers for FSM, its per-person income growth is about three percentage points higher, and so at least as high as RMI’s.

However, it is far from guaranteed that a declining population will boost per-person income enough to lead to population stabilisation. Both FSM and RMI are upper-middle rather than high-income economies. Neither has been successful at attracting much in-migration (unlike high-income and tourism-reliant Palau — according to its 2020 census, in a labour force of 14,000, 5,300 workers are overseas-born).

From a policy perspective, neither FSM nor RMI will want to surrender its migration rights. Indeed, with the crackdown on migration in the US, American demand for compact-state labour is only going to increase.

What both countries can do is make it more attractive for their citizens to stay at home. The recent introduction by RMI of a universal income payment (funded by the grants provided to it by the US as part of the compact state arrangement) should be understood in this context. Since late last year, all RMI residents, including children, are entitled to a payment of US$800 per person. Though not generous enough to make this a universal basic income payment, it is a bold move. RMI has been scolded by the IMF for not targeting this payment at the poor, but that misses the point. The country wants all residents to stay, and especially the more skilled and higher earning.

In summary, the population declines that FSM and RMI are experiencing, while dramatic, need not be bad news. Three other Pacific island countries that have experienced recent, significant population declines — Niue, Cook Islands and Palau — have all since seen their populations stabilise and have either retained or achieved high-income status. Whether, when and at what level population stabilises in FSM and RMI remains to be seen.

The Regional Working Group on the Implementation of Domestic Violence/Family Protection Legislation (RWG), together with the Pacific Women’s Network to End Violence Against Women, launched the Regional Gender Based Violence Counselling Framework as part of GESI week at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat on 12 February 2026.

The Framework is a Pacific-led and Pacific-owned guidance designed to strengthen counselling standards for survivors of gender-based violence across the region.

It is a culmination of years of collaboration between RWG member governments, crisis centres from across the Pacific region, counsellors and civil society organisations, responding to widespread challenges identified by countries in implementing domestic violence laws.

Prior to this work, only three Pacific countries had national GBV counselling standards in place: Tonga, Solomon Islands, and Kiribati.

Developed through extensive consultations in Kiribati, Samoa and Papua New Guinea, and guided by the lived experiences and voices of survivors, the Framework establishes minimum standards for ethical, safe and survivor centred counselling practice.

It provides clear guidance on confidentiality, safeguarding, professional conduct and accountability for all service providers, from government counsellors to women’s crisis centres and faith-based organisations centred counselling practice.

Speaking at the launch, alternate Chair to the outgoing Chair of RWG, Livai Sovau, Legal Adviser for the Department of Women and Social Development Affairs, Government of Nauru, emphasised the significance of the milestone:

“This Framework reflects our shared commitment to ensuring that every survivor of violence is met with dignity, respect and professional care, no matter which country they are in. It is Pacific-built, tested, and will help 13 RWG member states and governments strengthen or establish national counselling standards that protect our families and communities”

Chair of the Pacific Women’s Network to End Violence Against Women, Shamima Ali, highlighted the power of this partnership and its meaning for frontline workers across the region:

“For decades, crisis centres have been the backbone of safe, confidential support for survivors, often operating with limited resources but with deep commitment. This Framework brings governments and civil society together around shared standards that put survivors first. It is a milestone for our region, a testament to our collective strength, and a tool that will help ensure no survivor is ever left without safe, ethical support.”

SPC’s Principal Strategic Lead for Pacific Women and Girls, Mereseini Rakuita, reflected on the deeper regional significance of the Framework:

“This Framework is a major milestone for our region. With 2 in 3 Pacific women experiencing violence, it is essential that our laws are backed by safe, rights-based, survivor centred services. This Framework strengthens our ability to turn commitments into action and ensure real protection for women and girls across our Blue Pacific.”

Both the RWG and the Network acknowledged the Government of New Zealand, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for its long-term support which enabled the consultative process, drafting and validation of the Framework. They also recognised the Pacific Community (SPC) for its coordination and leadership as Secretariat to the RWG throughout the development of this regional resource.

As countries move to adapt the Framework nationally, partners emphasised that it will play a critical role in strengthening domestic violence legislation, improving service quality and ensuring consistent, accountable support for survivors across the region.

“This is a gift from Pacific governments and CSOs to our people,” added Sovau “Together, we have created something that will protect lives, strengthen services and ensure that our region continues to progress, our way, for our people.”