Barbara Norman is an Emeritus Professor of Urban & Regional Planning at the University of Canberra and an Honorary Professor at the Australian National University. Barbara is also Director of the Urban Climate Change Research Network Oceania Hub (Columbia University, USA) and co-chair of Planners for Climate Action (UN Habitat).  She was recently appointed Chair of the Urban Policy Forum.

Sharon Bessell is a Professor of Public Policy and Director of both the Children’s Policy Centre and the Poverty and Inequality Research Centre at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum.

The post Podcast: Housing fit for our climate appeared first on Policy Forum.

Dr Nicholas Frank lays out why house prices skyrocketed in the 1980s and how the availability of credit became vital for families to survive with rising costs of living.

The consumption aspect of the economy currently depends on the wealth generated by increasing house prices. While this has led to wealth inequality, it has also contributed to rising income inequality. Additionally, it poses environmental concerns, as there is often insufficient regulation in place for emissions in the construction of homes, which further exacerbates the problem.

This episode is the first in a miniseries on Australia’s housing crisis, so stay tuned!

—-

Dr Nicholas Frank is a Research Fellow in the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse in the School of Regulation and Global Governance here at the Australian National University. He has worked with the World Trade Organisation and the OECD. His research focuses on the political economy of trade and investment governance.

Sharon Bessell is a Professor of Public Policy and Director of both the Children’s Policy Centre and the Poverty and Inequality Research Centre at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum.

The post Podcast: Australia’s dependence on housing appeared first on Policy Forum.

She expands on the the role of both local and political leadership, and how identity influences the way in which our politics work. People’s love for and connection to place is often overlooked or outright ignored, as is local knowledge. Place based community approaches is an integral part of climate adaptation.

Hosts Sharon and Arnagretta also discuss Bec’s latest work ‘Contextualizing coal communities for Australia’s new Net Zero Authority’ and discuss how an attack on coal is often felt as an attack on coal workers and communities. They talk about how in order to create common ground and progress, clear and specific communication is important.

Dr Rebecca Colvin is a researcher and senior lecturer here at the Crawford School at ANU. Her researches the social and political dimensions of contentious issues associated with climate policy and energy transition. Bec’s work is particularly focused on understanding the complexity of how different people and groups engage with social, policy, and political conflict about climate and energy issues and on the importance of identity.

Sharon Bessell is a Professor of Public Policy and Director of both the Children’s Policy Centre and the Poverty and Inequality Research Centre at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

You can find full show notes on the Crawford School of Public Policy LinkedIn account.

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum.

The post Podcast: Towards Net Zero: climate, policy and politics appeared first on Policy Forum.

Australia’s environment is in a state of continuous decline, under the pressures of climate change, unsustainable development, and resource extraction. This is affecting our rivers and our bushland, our native wildlife and our oceans.

As the environment changes, some fundamental human systems are also at risk: knowledge, identity, and a sense of place and being. But how can the value of such things be taken into account to shape public policy for the better?

This issue of placing a value on intangibles like culture is already being prosecuted in Australia’s legal system. For instance, in 2019, the High Court of Australia upheld a decision to award $1.3 million in compensation to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples of Timber Creek in the Northern Territory for ‘cultural loss’ and ‘spiritual harm’.

It was the first time the High Court assessed compensation for the extinguishment of native title rights under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and has been described as “the most significant native title decision since Mabo”, the ruling that led to the creation of the act.

Of course, it’s difficult to put a monetary value on the cultural significance of land, but recognising the damage that been done in this case was a significant step for the community.

More on this: Podcast: Justice for First Nations Australians

“While no amount of money can adequately compensate for cultural loss and its consequences, the High Court’s recognition of the implications caused by incursions and infringements on the fundamentals of our cultures are of some comfort,” said Dr Jackie Huggins, Co-Chair of National Congress of Australia’s First People.

Environmental valuation, which is the process of putting a value on environmental goods and services, can be useful in assisting policymakers to identify priorities and evaluate trade-offs. This is particularly important for Indigenous peoples, as land is intrinsically tied to traditional spiritual and cultural practices.

For one, quantifying the non-market value – the values of untradeable goods like clean air and biodiversity – may assist in communication with business stakeholders and in resource negotiations or advocacy by Indigenous peoples.

Resolution to legal cases can also be informed through valuation approaches, particularly for compensation purposes. This is crucial for Indigenous communities around the globe, who have fought back against dispossession and misuse of their land for decades through colonial legal systems, and will continue to do so.

In these cases, there has been mounting pressure to not only consider the material or environmental harms done to Indigenous communities, but also irreversible cultural loss and damage.

More on this: How many Australians lack safe and good-quality drinking water?

In parallel to this legal recognition, a growing number of studies have sought to find ways that valuations of natural resources can better reflect their true importance to Indigenous peoples. However, given the complexity and diversity of how Indigenous values are applied and understood, scholars, practitioners and policymakers should proceed with caution.

To advance knowledge in this area, our recent review critically analyses the existing academic literature and provides several key guiding questions for researchers in this space.

The first question that needs to be asked of any attempt at valuation is: what is the purpose? Is the real purpose the technical advancement of estimation methods? Or perhaps an intricate form of participation? We encourage research proponents to consider what the purpose of the research is and, consequently, consider whether it is appropriate.

How does Indigenous knowledge inform valuation? Study design should be directed by the Indigenous peoples affected by the environmental change in question. Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous-centric paradigms must inform research design, as flaws may arise from a non-Indigenous researchers’ choice of methods and assumptions.

Who will the beneficiaries of the research be? Researchers must consider whether Indigenous people, the general population, or they themselves will be the main beneficiaries of the work? When questioning who the intended or likely beneficiaries are, non-Indigenous researchers should identify who is negatively affected by the research process, its results, and its policy implications.

Whose values are being considered? Is the research grounded in the values of the Indigenous peoples affected by the environmental change, local residents of the affected area, or the general population?

What change is expected to come from the work? While material changes such as water quality or species density are relatively easily measured, extensive consultation is needed to understand what changes mean for affected Indigenous communities. This once again requires an understanding of how the environment, and potential changes to it, are understood within an Indigenous context.

Finally, limitations are inevitable, but it is necessary to ask how they might be handled. Indigenous valuation studies should be as transparent as possible. There is no single approach to respond to all limitations, and some approaches may be more useful in certain contexts than others.

A tailored approach to non-market valuation that is transparent about strengths and limitations, and is properly informed by Indigenous knowledge, is critical to this process. By utilising these key questions, scholars, practitioners and policymakers can adopt a best-practice approach that supports the voices of Indigenous peoples and the outcomes they need.

The post Placing a value on Country appeared first on Policy Forum.

Across Southeast Asia, coastal areas are facing unprecedented threats from urbanisation, coastal development, and climate change. Moreover, decisions about how land in these areas is used are often made exclusively by those holding political power, who are far removed from the communities that will feel their impact.

As a result, land grabbing, community displacement, and damage to both the natural environment and traditional livelihoods are becoming more common.

One area where these effects are being keenly felt is between Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore in the western Tebrau Strait, also referred to as the Johor Strait, where a number of large infrastructure and industrial projects are underway. As well as being a site of rapid industrial development, the area is home to essential seagrass and mangrove ecosystems that are the major lifeline for local artisanal fishing communities.

In areas such as these, establishing a fully-protected marine park is rarely an option, as industrial and urban development is engraved in the area’s master plan and takes priority on the grounds of economic development. Marine parks can also exclude local communities, as fishing within its boundaries is prohibited.

Scenarios such as these are not uncommon across Southeast Asia, as governments across the region pursue economic development in order to move their citizens out of poverty. But as this industrialisation takes place, natural habitats and traditional livelihoods are often sacrificed in the name of ‘progress’.

More on this: The 1MDB scandal and Malaysia’s 2022 general election

The cruel irony is that the most vulnerable members of the community – such as the small fishing communities – are most affected by such changes.

Small-scale fisheries are estimated to make up 90 per cent of global employment in capture fisheries, where fish are caught in the wild. However, participation numbers in Southeast Asia are likely vastly underestimated as workers are often informal, unlicensed, or have supplementary jobs.

It’s these communities that are often the overlooked victims of coastal development projects, especially if they aren’t represented by an umbrella entity that can advocate on their behalf. Across the region, but especially in Southeast Asia’s more authoritarian countries, these marginalised communities have few options when it comes to resisting planning decisions.

However, efforts can still be made to find mutually beneficial solutions that can have positive outcomes for everyone and preserve what remains of precious natural habitats.

Finding these solutions requires the creation of platforms for discussion that bring together all local stakeholders. These platforms create avenues to ensure that all members of the community are heard and invested in the future economic and environmental success of coastal areas.

One potential solution that could be expanded at scale throughout the region is the establishment of ‘community-conserved’ areas. This is an innovation to the standard exclusionary marine park concept – which generally restricts nearly all human uses of an area – as it allows multiple uses of the seascape, yet works to ensure its sustainability and collaborative preservation.

More on this: Policing Malaysia’s maritime border

An organisation this author works with, Kelab Alami, has had some success in its efforts to establish a community-conserved area in Johor, Malaysia. By working to bring developers as well as government agencies to the table with the local community and scientists, Kelab Alami has been able to highlight the importance and credibility of local knowledge – and established the fishermen as vital habitat experts whose views and inputs are invaluable to science and conservation.

Empowering the community through the recognition of their wisdom and expertise has also strengthened their voice in mobilising for their rights, and has enabled local youth to take ownership over documentation and research efforts for their seagrass, mangrove and island habitats, and resident fauna.

This local community now has a forum to engage with external entities, local and government agencies, and surrounding businesses and developers to ensure local participation and collaboration in spite of myriad institutionalised power hierarchies that traditionally make it harder for them to have a say in local decision-making. The focus of these platforms is not to apportion blame, but to find solutions and mitigate further damage.

The community-conserved areas concept has the potential to protect the natural environment and promote economic development.

First and foremost, it could help protect local fish stocks from industrial fishing activities, protecting the livelihoods of these small fishing communities. This can also give rise to other economic opportunities, such as the development of an ecotourism industry. In Johor, ecotourism has become a supplementary source of income for local fishermen – who have been employed as boat captains and facilitators in local habitat and fishing heritage tours.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has named 2022 the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture. In doing so, the FAO noted that small-scale fisheries are the way forward in helping poor coastal communities climb out of poverty, ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine resources and reducing habitat damage.

As such, it is essential that coastal development in Southeast Asia invests in innovative multi-stakeholder platforms. By bringing together everyone who is invested in sustainable development as equal partners in an authentic community, policymakers in the region can nurture inclusive solutions for the benefit of all.

The post Preserving Southeast Asian fisheries appeared first on Policy Forum.

Climate change is a major hazard in the international trade system, with increasingly severe and frequent disasters disrupting the economic activity that has underpinned global growth in recent decades. But despite the significant risks, the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the preeminent multilateral global trade body – has been unable to adapt.

Dealing with climate change is essential to achieving sustainable global development and poverty reduction, and international trade plays an important role in addressing this challenge.

However, global trade is also part of the problem. This is because greenhouse gas emissions are integrated into global production and supply chains – as trade volumes have increased, so have emissions.

The wealthiest countries – those that have benefitted most from the current global trade regime – are the worst offenders. According to a 2020 report on carbon dioxide emissions in international trade by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the per capita emissions of its member countries were around 2.5 times higher than the world average and 3.6 times higher than non-OECD countries.

More on this: Can Asia and the Pacific get on track to net zero?

Moreover, as citizens of developing countries become wealthier, they naturally consume more resources and thereby contribute more to global temperature rise. One only needs to look at the increase in emissions from China since its integration into the global economy to see this in action.

However, it is this very economic development via increased trade that developing countries need to successfully mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. So, more sustainable global trade is needed to fund the fight against the very climate impacts globalisation has created.

A well-regulated trading regime could be a net benefit in the fight against climate change – via the promotion of environmentally sustainable goods and services – rather than the anchor on global emissions reduction it is today.

The WTO and its 164 member states have a critical role to playing climate change mitigation efforts, but the organisation’s inefficiencies are preventing it from making progress.

The largest impediment is the ‘single undertaking principle’, which requires complete consensus for the adoption of new rules, and that every member of the WTO abide by all the same agreements, regardless of circumstance. In other words, nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.

Ideally, the single undertaking principle should promote fairness in the international system, but in reality, it does the exact opposite. It slows down negotiations significantly and raises the risk of them failing.

More on this: Podcast: The loss and damage consensus at COP27

As a result of this requirement for consensus, no specific WTO framework addressing climate change has been adopted. This inaction poses unacceptable risks to lives and livelihoods. Worse still, existing WTO agreements can hinder member state’s efforts to avert climate change and environmental damage.

This is not just detrimental for developing countries, but also for the WTO itself. Due to the obvious inadequacies within the single undertaking principle, many countries are increasingly turning to bilateral agreements, and even new forums, to negotiate green trade agreements. This undermines the legitimacy of the organisation at a time when it is critical make significant strides in climate change mitigation efforts.

In response, reform is needed, for the future of both the planet and the WTO.

One option for the organisation is to pursue ‘plurilateral’ trade agreements, whereby members would have the freedom to choose which agreements they wish to pursue and adopt. Contrary to the single undertaking principle, plurilateral trade agreements are not hampered by the need to be approved by every member.

Freed from the strict single undertaking principle, this plurilateral model has led to some successful negotiations around specific issues, particularly anti-counterfeit measures. If this success can be translated to climate change mitigation efforts, a sustainable trade system could be within reach.

The WTO’s lack of action on the climate crisis only exacerbates disruptions to the global value chain, slowing development and exacerbating poverty.

The international trading system urgently needs to find ways to further environmental sustainability, but so long as the WTO remains inflexible and blind to the disparities between the most and least developed countries, it’s hard to see significant progress being made.

The post Reforming the WTO for a greener future appeared first on Policy Forum.

Tonga is one of the most natural disaster prone nations on earth. From October to April each year, the Pacific Island kingdom is buffeted by frequent cyclones, which damage infrastructure, knock out mobile communication and destroy homes.

However, at the peak of the 2021-22 cyclone season, Tonga’s misfortune doubled. Between 20 December to 11 January, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano experienced a series of massive eruptions, shooting ash 58 kilometres high and causing loud booms, which were heard as far away as Alaska.

The eruption – now known to be the largest the world has seen since Krakatoa in 1883 – subsequently caused a major tsunami, which smashed into Tonga’s coastal areas on 15 January.

Whilst the initial effects of these disasters have now subsided, the damage to people, livelihoods and the environment has been ongoing. The World Bank estimated that the damages amounted to US$90 million with 19,250 people affected, including 10,000 children.

To make matters worse, Tonga detected its first case of COVID-19 in the community only a few days after the eruption, even as volcanic ash was still visible in the air. Behind the headlines was the trauma caused by death and displacement.

More on this: Supporting climate displaced peoples

These events also led to an overwhelming outpouring of ‘ofa (love), through the mobilisation of resources by Tongans and others across the world. Yet whilst these ‘ofa have been gratefully accepted in ‘the friendly isles’, a number of important questions about the efficacy of this humanitarian assistance have come to the fore.

Not least amongst these have been concerns about the ability of the stretched Tongan government to absorb, coordinate and distribute assistance to its citizens.

The primairy providers of aid to Tonga after the disaster were Australia and New Zealand, who delivered emergency supplies including hygiene kits, kitchen kits and other essential supplies. This came in addition to the millions already committed to Tonga in development programs.

The Government of Tonga also received US$8 million in emergency funding from the World Bank to support response and recovery efforts. Other bilateral partners such as the United Kingdom, Japan, China and France also showed their ‘ofa by sharing their expertise in different areas to support Tonga in the aftermath of the disaster.

More on this: Tonga's transnational disaster response

Meanwhile, non-government organisations (NGOs) and their overseas partners have helped Tonga in the emergency response phase. The Church Leaders Forum and other leading NGOs targeted an area of care often neglected by aid providers in post-disaster assistance – psycho-social support.

The aim of such programs is to not only provide the material building blocks for recovery, but also to help victims share experiences and recover a sense of normalcy in the wake of the tragedy.

However, whilst much of this assistance has helped Tongans rebuild their lives, some may have languished in a state of bureaucratic and logistical limbo. At recent regional security conference, some people conveyed their anecdotal concerns about containers of aid being left at the docks.

As a developing nation, the capacity of the Tongan government to properly manage the large amounts of aid being delivered is limited. This is in large part due to logistical and bureaucratic capacity constraints, making coordination difficult – especially in times of crisis. This can mean that it is unclear what is needed where, making it difficult to distribute critical resources to the people who need them most.

As such, it is crucial that development partners work in concert with the Tongan government and communities to ensure that distribution is coordinated effectively and consistently across all levels.

With the next cyclone season looming, it’s the Tongan government and its international partners need to address these capacity issues now. This is no easy task, but with the frequency and severity of disasters set to increase as global temperatures increase and sea levels rise, it is vital to the kingdom’s future. Malo e ‘ofa!

The post Is aid to Tonga reaching those who need it most? appeared first on Policy Forum.

The introduction of Australia’s Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) represents a new era for Pacific migration. Commencing in mid-2023, the visa will allow for 3,000 workers to come to Australia annually.

In contrast to previous labour mobility schemes, the PEV offers the opportunity for permanent residency, including for family members. However, it is not clear how the new visas will be allocated across the Pacific.

While people from larger Pacific Island countries (PICs) may regard the visa as an opportunity to move to greener economic pastures, for the people of Kiribati, it could offer a lifeline in the face of climate displacement.

As part of the first permanent migration scheme for workers from the Pacific and Timor-Leste, the PEV is modelled on New Zealand’s Pacific Access Category, which began in 2001.

Visas will be allocated via ballot, although how many will be allocated to each country remains unknown. The Australian federal Labor government initially announced a proportional selection formula that offered higher quotas for countries with larger populations.

More on this: What do Pacific workers think about Australia’s Engagement Visa?

However, given that climate-displaced people are not specifically recognised under the 1951 United Nations refugee convention, many have argued that the visa should give consideration to the countries that are most impacted.

Kiribati is a prime example of a nation that could benefit massively from such a recalibration. Located in the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Australia and Hawai‘i, Kiribati is one of the most climate change vulnerable nations on earth. Beyond the droughts and famine it is already facing, expected sea-level rise will make its islands largely unhabitable within this century.

The PEV program could also offer significant material developmental benefits. The economy of Kiribati is small, and its prospects for growth are limited by its rapidly growing population of nearly 120,000 people.

With a minuscule private sector, the over-burdened government is in dire need of economic revenue expansion and access to markets, as well as employment for its citizens.

Importantly, many I-Kiribati have experience in the sectors in which Australia is facing a shortage of skilled workers. This has been shown most clearly via the large number of I-Kiribati healthcare professionals that have migrated since the introduction of the 2006 Kiribati-Australia Nursing Initiative.

More on this: The future of New Caledonian sovereignty

This growth has reinforced the demand for the skills of I-Kiribati workers from Australian employers, and demonstrates their value to the Australian economy and society. It also validates the Kiribati training and recruiting systems.

The result is a win-win relationship in which I-Kiribati workers meet skills needed in Australia whilst building their economic resilience and, via remittances, supporting families at home.

To maximise benefits for low-lying islands, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) could examine how to integrate the aims of the Boe Declaration on Regional Security – the Pacific’s primary framework for cooperation on security issues – into PEV-style migration programs.

This could help the PIF determine its position on the PEV program, and address the emerging concerns of some member states about the impacts of brain drain and the climate crisis. Simultaneously, this assures Australia of a fully utilised program.

The introduction of the PEV has reinforced Australia’s economic links with Pacific Island countries. However, it could also serve as an opportunity for the Australian Government to take on the mantle of regional climate leadership. By prioritising low-lying island states that have limited options in the face of sea-level rise, Australia could prove it is truly part of the Pacific family.

This article is based upon a paper published by ANU Department of Pacific Affairs (DPA) as part of its ‘In brief’ series. The original paper can be found here.

The post Can the Pacific Engagement Visa support climate displaced peoples? appeared first on Policy Forum.

What does the historic agreement to establish a ‘loss and damage’ fund at this United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Egypt mean for small island developing states, particularly in the Pacific? How can negotiating parties ensure the fund is operationalised by COP28 in Dubai, rather than allowing countries to stall – as has been seen with previous initiatives? And with Australia looking to co-host the 2026 instalment of the conference with Pacific Island nations, what impact would a successful bid have on the region and the Australian public? Dr Siobhan McDonnell and Dr George Carter, who negotiated on behalf of Pacific Island countries at COP27, join Professor Sharon Bessell and Dr Arnagretta Hunter to discuss the talks and to look ahead to the next conference in Dubai. Listen here: https://bit.ly/3EUs29x

Siobhan McDonnell is a legal anthropologist with over 20 years of experience working with Indigenous people in Australia and the Pacific on land use, gender, and climate change. She is a Senior Lecturer at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and Chief Investigator for the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project on Climate Change and Gender in the Pacific.

George Carter is a Research Fellow in Geopolitics and Regionalism at ANU Department of Pacific Affairs and Director of the ANU Pacific Institute.

Sharon Bessell is Professor of Public Policy and Director of both the Children’s Policy Centre and the Poverty and Inequality Research Centre at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group.

The post Podcast: The loss and damage consensus at COP27 appeared first on Policy Forum.

The recent climate talks in Egypt have left us with a sobering reality: the window for maintaining global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is closing fast and what is on the table currently is insufficient to avert some of the worst potential effects of climate change. The nationally determined contribution targets of Asian and Pacific countries will result in a 16 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan and the package of decisions taken at COP27 are a reaffirmation of actions that could deliver the net-zero resilient world our countries aspire to. The historic decision to establish a loss and damage fund is an important step towards climate justice and building trust among countries.

But they are not enough to help us arrive at a better future without, what the United Nations Secretary-General calls, a “giant leap on climate ambition”. Carbon neutrality needs to at the heart of national development strategies and reflected in public and private investment decisions. And it needs to cascade down to the sustainable pathways in each sector of the economy.

At the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), we are working with regional and national stakeholders on these transformational pathways. Moving away from the brown economy is imperative, not only because emissions are rising but also because dependence on fossil fuels has left economies struggling with price volatility and energy insecurity.

More on this: Indonesian nationalism and the Ashmore Reef debate

A clear road map is the needed springboard for an inclusive and just energy transition. We have been working with countries to develop scenarios for such a shift through national roadmaps, demonstrating that a different energy future is possible and viable with the political will and sincere commitment to action of the public and private sectors.

The changeover to renewables also requires concurrent improvements in grid infrastructure, especially cross-border grids. The Regional Road Map on Power System Connectivity provides us the platform to work with member states toward an interconnected grid, including through the development of the necessary regulatory frameworks for to integrate power systems and mobilise investments in grid infrastructure. The future of energy security will be determined by the ability to develop green grids and trade renewable-generated electricity across our borders.

The move to net-zero carbon will not be complete without greening the transport sector. In Asia and the Pacific, transport is primarily powered by fossil fuels and, as a result, accounted for 24 per cent of total carbon emissions by 2018.

Energy efficiency improvements and using more electric vehicles are the most effective measures to reduce carbon emissions by as much as 60 per cent in 2050 compared to 2005 levels. The Regional Action Programme for Sustainable Transport Development allows us to work with countries to implement and cooperate on priorities for low-carbon transport, including electric mobility.

Our work with the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade also is helping to make commerce more efficient and climate-smart, a critical element for the transition in the energy and transport sectors.

Even with mitigation measures in place, our economy and people will not be safe without a holistic risk management system. And it needs to be one that prevents communities from being blindsided by cascading climate disasters.

More on this: What can we expect at COP27?

We are working with partners to deepen the understanding of such cascading risks and to help develop preparedness strategies for this new reality, such as the implementation of the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action for Adaptation to Drought.

Finance and investment are uniquely placed to propel the transitions needed. The past five years have seen thematic bonds in our region grow tenfold. Private finance is slowly aligning with climate needs.

The new loss and damage fund and its operation present new hopes for financing the most vulnerable. However, climate finance is not happening at the speed and scale needed, and it needs to be accessible to developing economies in times of need.

Innovative financing instruments need to be developed and scaled up, from debt-for-climate swaps to Sustainable Development Goal bonds, some of which ESCAP is helping to develop in the Pacific and in Cambodia. Growing momentum in the business sector will need to be sustained. The Asia-Pacific Green Deal for Business by the ESCAP Sustainable Business Network (ESBN) is important progress. We are also working with the High-level Climate Champions to bring climate-aligned investment opportunities closer to private financiers.

Climate actions in Asia and the Pacific matter for global success and wellbeing. The past two years have been a grim reminder that conflicts in one continent create hunger in another, and that emissions somewhere push sea levels higher everywhere. Never has our prosperity been more dependent on collective actions and cooperation.

Our countries are taking note. Member states meeting at the seventh session of the Committee on Environment and Development, which opens on 29 November, are seeking consensus on the regional cooperation needed and priorities for climate action such as oceans, ecosystems, and air pollution. We hope that the momentum begun at COP27 and the Committee will be continued at the 79th session of the Commission as it will hone in on the accelerators for climate action.

In this era of heightened risks and shared prosperity, only regional, multilateral solidarity and genuine ambition that match with the new climate reality unfolding around us – along with bold climate action – are the only way to secure a future in which the countries of Asia and the Pacific can prosper.

The post Can Asia and the Pacific get on track to net zero? appeared first on Policy Forum.