Between 3–12 September 2025, I joined my Greenpeace Australia Pacific (GPAP) colleagues Raeed Ali, Shiva Gounden, and Consultant Lagi Toribau in Honiara for the 54th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Meeting. Held under the theme “Iumi Tugeda: Act Now for an Integrated Blue Pacific Continent,” the forum marked a critical moment for regional unity particularly on the contentious issue of Deep Sea Mining (DSM).
Arriving at a shared Forum Communiqué that acknowledged DSM as a regional priority was no small feat. For NGOs like Greenpeace and others who’ve been at the frontlines of this debate for years, this was a hard-earned win. DSM, if allowed to proceed without rigorous environmental safeguards and a legally binding mining code, could be the silent atomic bomb for Pacific ecosystems. Yet, the region still lacks a comprehensive legal framework and time is not on our side.
Over the past year, NGOs have actively engaged in regional and global spaces where DSM has surfaced: from ocean and fisheries meetings to global negotiations like BBNJ, United Nations Oceans Conference and UNEA. Despite offering deep technical knowledge, historical memory, and community-driven insight, civil society voices are still often sidelined particularly in spaces like the Pacific Islands Forum. Even in Honiara, during the two intense weeks of the Forum, NGOs had to fight to be meaningfully included and heard.
The endorsement of a High-Level Talanoa on Deep-Sea Minerals is a step forward. It signals the Leaders’ intent to develop a regional approach based on recommendations from the Forum Officials Committee (FOC). However, this process raises concerns. What kind of technical advice is being presented to Leaders? Who scrutinizes it? And where are the independent voices especially those from civil society in this structure?
At present, eight Pacific nations—Palau, Tuvalu, Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa and Papua New Guinea—support a moratorium or a precautionary pause on DSM. This reflects growing caution, yet some, like Nauru, continue pushing aggressively at forums like the UN General Assembly for the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to accelerate environmental regulations so mining can proceed.
These diverging positions reveal the growing geopolitical and political pressures surrounding DSM. More worryingly, they show how fragile our regional consensus is. The Pacific cannot afford disunity on issues as consequential as DSM where spiritual, cultural, and ecological futures hang in the balance.
If “Iumi Tugeda” is to mean anything, then governments, NGOs, faith-based groups, and communities must work together; not just in words, but in institutional design. PIFS must create a permanent, equal space for NGOs within DSM deliberations. No more back benches. No more afterthoughts.
The road ahead will test our leaders’ resolve. But the message from Honiara is clear: unity, accountability, and inclusion are non-negotiable if we are to protect our Blue Pacific for generations to come.