Podcast EP 29

Title: Making Pacific Climate Policy 

Akka Rimon [00:00:08] Kam na mauri and greetings, everyone. Welcome to the Pacific Wayfinder, your Guide to navigating the crosscurrents of security in the Blue Pacific Continent. My name is Akka Rimon and I’m your host. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land from which we broadcast today the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. Now, today, I’m very happy to have with me friends and colleagues from the ANU, but also from the Pacific who will be having a conversation with me on the IPCC report. Let me introduce them. To the far left, we have Salā Dr George Carter, who is from Samoa, Kiribati and Tuvalu, but who is also the Director of the Pacific Institute here at the ANU. The broad focus of Dr Carter’s research interests explores Pacific Island peoples and states’ influence and agency in international and regional politics. His interest explores international politics, covering negotiations, security, gender, finance, justice, science and traditional knowledge, climate change, geopolitics and regionalism, as well as the foreign policy and diplomacy of small island states in the Pacific. Dr Carter, thank you so much for making time for us this morning. Now, right next to me, I want to introduce the beautiful Mahealani Delaney. Mahealani is the project officer for the IPCC outreach in the Pacific ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions. Mahealani moved to Canberra at the start of 2021 to pursue a Masters in Environmental Management and development here at the ANU, which she has obtained. Congratulations on that. And with both her parents being Papua New Guinean, she’s always been passionate about working on solutions to the issues affecting the Pacific region today. Thank you for joining us also. Mahealani. It’s a delight to have you join this podcast.

Mahealani Delaney [00:02:08] Thank you. Akka, it’s lovely to be here.

Akka Rimon [00:02:10] Now for our audience who have been following our discussions and conversations here on the Pacific Wayfinder, we covered in the previous weeks. The analysis, if I may, of the IPCC report that was released in March and in the first series, we had Dr Henry Ivarature and Professor Mark Howden speak to us about the science of the IPCC Synthesis Report. In this podcast, I want us to narrow down to layman’s terms what the report means to our planet Earth, in particular to us in the Pacific. Let me kick off the conversation by asking you the question. What are your initial thoughts on the report? What key features stood out for you, and why are these features critical for our Pacific Blue Pacific continent?

Mahealani Delaney [00:03:07] Mark, last week in the podcast, went through kind of more detail on the report, but the overall message I find with a lot of the IPCC reports is that it’s quite confronting at first. Climate change is absolutely happening now. It’s getting worse, it seems, with each assessment, as with this one. One of the findings that hit me was that the impacts are worse than they had previously assessed and what they had thought. And those impacts are already quite severe. So that was really disheartening. But on the other side of that, I guess, is that there’s still a message of hope in the IPCC report and the fact that we do have all of the knowledge, resources and tools available today to tackle the real key issues from climate change that we’re facing is quite, I guess, empowering to know that we can do that. The thing that’s missing is that we’re not taking the action that we know we need to take, and we’re not taking it fast enough. And that was kind of my initial thoughts on it. I might pass it over to George, and he can talk about some of the further findings.

George Carter [00:04:23] Thank you very much for the invitation to come and give thoughts and ideas about the IPCC report and also impact on the Pacific. Now what the IPCC report speaks to is what many in the Pacific – leaders, policymakers, and people in education across the Pacific have been saying all along that the climate is in crisis. The climate crisis is here. It’s not just something that’s stated within political documents. It’s not just something that’s emphasised in national policy. But this lived reality is seeing that the climate crisis is here, that the report, which compiles the scientific evidence in the last seven years, says that there are severe climate risks and through global warming, we’ve seen this urgency to try and limit warming to 1.5 degrees. What the report also underscores is what we’ve been saying all along, that there’s widespread loss and damage, not just in the Pacific across small island states, but across the world. That It impacts communities, countries and regions through extreme weather events that we’ve seen this year with Vanuatu, with two tropical cyclones, that these extreme weather events impact the ability of not just communities but also states in terms of resources to rebuild through cyclones one after the other is something that we should take note of. This is something that’s not just concerning, but we should take that as the new normal. These extreme weather events, as well as that loss and damage, are impacted because of slow onset events like water availability and agricultural production in terms of floods. This is what the report says. While it gives us the science into what has been happening over the last seven years and projections, it also details to us what the lived reality is on the ground in the Pacific. And this, as we will unpack in this podcast, informs why this is not only national and regional but should be international attention in terms of addressing climate change.

Akka Rimon [00:06:55] Thank you very much for initiating this very important discussion, Dr Carter and Mahealani two things stood out for me from your responses to that first question. The paradox between the good news and the bad news. We are so close to crossing the overshoot level. At the same time, there is still hope. That’s one. The second thing that was mentioned by Dr Carter is the realities on the ground and the impacts of climate. Challenges and these drastic changes in the pattern of the climate system and more hazards, as you mentioned, in the case of Vanuatu. How does this then translate to where we are in the Pacific today? And I think it’s so important for us to be able to translate this to the language that our Pacific people, our Pacific policymakers, will understand. And we do. I want to say at the outset how great it is to have a science body such as the IPCC, a global science body that comes together and puts together these findings for us. But then getting the findings across to every region of the world, including the Pacific. What do you visage are the most important things we do now. And how does this report speak to some of the policies that are already, you know, developed by the Pacific? And there’s a number of them. 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy, the joint Declaration, and the recently released Security Outlook on the Pacific. How do we sum up all this? In terms of the Pacific’s leadership and actions.

Mahealani Delaney [00:08:45] It’s a very big question.

Akka Rimon [00:08:47] And I’m sorry.

Mahealani Delaney [00:08:49] Thank you for that. One thing just from your question, you mentioned overshoot. So I think that’s one thing that might be worth just explaining from the report. So the report showed that we are likely to exceed 1.5 degrees of warming by early 2013, and obviously, 1.5 is the warming temperature level that’s been advocated.

Akka Rimon [00:09:15] Especially by the Pacific?

Mahealani Delaney [00:09:16] Yes. Yeah. For a long time now. And so. The idea of overshooting is one that the report explains. Basically, it’s saying that we might exceed 1.5, so we might overshoot that level, and then we can bring warming back down below 1.5. And they’re kind of two different policies or target warming that we. Sorry, can I just explain that? So basically, they’re two different policies that we can aim for. One is 1.5 with no overshoot or overshooting 1.5 and coming back down. And if we exceed that level of warming and then have policies to cut emissions and bring the warming level back down, there’s actually heat on there’s actually a lot more risks associated with that. So there are risks of irreversible impacts that we can’t change in the future. And there are also a lot more impacts that we will see. And there are also feasibility concerns with carbon dioxide removal methods. So to actually be able to bring warming back down, which is what they talk about in overshoot scenarios. But in terms of exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius and the need for cutting emissions on a global scale, that’s something that I’ve always been drawn to in the reports, I guess having Pacific Island heritage. But having lived in Australia for the majority of my life, I’m drawn to that global side of the issue and the fact that the Pacific, a very, very small emitter in the grand scheme of things and historically, and so we really do have to rely on global cooperation and international mechanisms to make sure that we can cut emissions and keep them to 1.5. So that’s just on one aspect of the report I might throw to George on your well.

George Carter [00:11:15] What the report also tells us in terms of – as we try to not only take it on board but interpret some of its findings, that the most vulnerable populations and who contribute the least are the ones who are disproportionately affected. And we see that as well. And you alluded that the Pacific contributes no less than more than 0.6%. And that can be corrected on this. To greenhouse gas, global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s it. As the report has said, damages from floods, droughts and storms all around the world are now 15 times stronger. That we are also seeing that in the Pacific. So, yes, communities that are the most vulnerable are the ones being impacted by the most. It also tells us that adaptation is a solution and that resilient development is important. And that has been a part of the benchmark in terms of not only community, national and regional responses, but the report also tells us there’s a lot of maladaptation, and I think Mahealani can allude and sort of touch upon this in terms of projects that have an unintended outcome. And again, I’ll leave this to Mahealani to talk about this, but it’s important for us – yes, there has been a lot of work, but the report also says that there are a lot of these cases of maladaptation. The report also says there needs to be a lot more done in terms of financing. While we finance has been made available through international commitments and through the various different work of donor partners. It’s still not enough to assist or work with countries in the Pacific to adapt to this growing number of changes, which the report also says.

Akka Rimon [00:13:56] I think you underscored a very valid point about the Pacific contributing, and if I hear correctly, I think it’s also written clearly in the report that the Pacific contributes below 0.05 degrees per year of total emissions.

Mahealani Delaney [00:14:15] I think and that’s a combination of all small island developing states. So that also includes the Caribbean. So it would likely be lower than that not.

Akka Rimon [00:14:25] And now we’re in this episode, we’re trying to focus on next steps, the way forward for the Pacific. So I want to take a turn on our discussion and look at implementations in the Pacific. And can you help us understand Mahealani the work of the IPCC in translating this very scientific report but the important report for our region? How is some of the work at the IPCC reaching out to some of the issues and adaptation and mitigation efforts on the ground?

Mahealani Delaney [00:15:00] So I guess in terms of implementation, as George spoke to, adaptation is a key priority area for the Pacific, and that’s figuring out ways of responding to current and future impacts. And the report is very technical, and it does, though do a good job of outlining what adaptation measures have worked to date and what is likely to work in the future and kind of what needs to be in place in terms of governance and policies to support those adaptation measures. And when those are taken into consideration, as George was saying, there are actions that can be maladaptive, which is basically when they have a negative outcome that they weren’t intended to have. So one of the common examples in the report, not necessarily in this one, but in the IPCC’s adaptation report, was on sea walls and how, you know, when they’re first built, that’s great. They stop coastal inundation, but then as time goes on, they obviously need resourcing, they need funding and technical expertise to keep them up and often programs don’t give funding for the long term that they need, and they can also have negative impacts on the natural environment. So that’s just one example of maladaptation. But the report also points to the fact that adaptation measures have limits, and it breaks it into soft limits and hard limits. So soft limits are things that can be overcome with more finance or technology or expertise. And then hard limits are when the climate changes are so much that there’s actually no further options. So, for example, if a place runs out of freshwater resources completely. There are no options to adapt. And the only option is, you know, migration, which you know a lot more about [Akka]. But so, yeah, those are some of the adaptation considerations. And as George also pointed out, it speaks to the need for international finance to be able to fund these measures. And the fact that the 100 billion climate finance goal, which was agreed to in COP 15, hasn’t been met. And so with Pacific Island nations, a lot of the nationally determined contributions, which are the actions they commit to taking on mitigation and adaptation, they’re reliant on external funding so that without that external funding, they’re very limited in the options that they’re able to take to respond. And George, you can probably speak more to it.

George Carter [00:17:47] Yeah, Thank you. So I’ll respond to the question based on the linking of IPCC to national and regional attention and priorities. But as well as I wanted to highlight sort of keywords for me that come from the IPCC that sort of emphasise and drives a lot of the work from the Pacific. One is catastrophic. Part of what this report brings forth is that the impacts are catastrophic and this is something that has been argued for by the lived experiences of Pacific leaders and peoples in, you know, in various negotiations and within their policies that this is what the report also says, that impacts are catastrophic. The report also spells out there will be severe risks to communities and to countries. And that also has something that is a big priority this is why there is this attention in the Pacific. And of course, urgency that there must be not just more but more attention in terms of working around climate resilience, but also the movement that’s been progressed by countries to move to low carbon development. So I wanted to stress the link of IPCC to this work and the words which that is articulated in this report. IPCC provides that science, that science evidence in Mark and Henry spoke to. What happens is this science well, this report, while it is not a political document, it comes out of the political process, but it’s not a political document. It informs the work of the UNFCCC, it informs the negotiations, but it also informs and drives the work in the Pacific and how the Pacific works with its international partners. The reason why we want traditional knowledge projects on the ground, more attention and the work of linking traditional knowledge and climate change is because IPCC says that. IPCC says that communities can adapt to climate change based on traditional knowledge. But the report also says there’s not enough attention in the work of traditional knowledge. So this is where, it’s the bedrock in terms of the work of climate change, at whatever level, international in the region or at the community and local level. We say this big IPCC report says we need more attention in the work around loss and damage. This is how it’s based, right? So that’s how it’s been and where it will grow. And so some key documents around or frameworks in which the Pacific operates and how this translates into policy; of course, number one is this new vision around the Blue Pacific. Right? Blue Pacific identity is fundamental because it talks, and it’s a continuing legacy of the regions, countries and as well as organisations working in collaborative coordination, not just for security but also for climate change. So that’s important. Of course, we know that the Blue Pacific Framework, a 2050 Framework, speaks to the importance of the attention on climate change. In the technical side, the IPCC informs the work of organisations like SPREP, Secretariat of thePacific Regional Environmental Program, as well as SPC, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, as well as all other CROP agencies and NGOs and civil society and universities like the University of South Pacific. These organisations use the scientific report to inform. And also meet the trajectory of their work in the coming years. So that’s the sort of connection, but it’s not a only a report. Right. And it’s fundamental to understand that it’s an important international document that frames the urgency that’s needed by all countries. And if we don’t do that because of the severe risks, and if we don’t do that, we see that there’s a lot of we understand the catastrophic impacts it has on communities. So that’s that link, hopefully, in that five-minute I tried to sort of map out why this document is important. But of course, and we can explain go into a little bit more is how to implement that on the ground.

Akka Rimon [00:22:36] Yeah. Thank you. That’s a very useful insight, especially in making that connection between the IPCC and the Pacific and then the rest of UNFCCC in terms of climate action and efforts. I just want to go back to what you said, George, earlier at the beginning of the conversation, when you alluded to the leadership and the momentum of the work that the Pacific has done on raising the profile of, you know, of climate change and the impact it has on the region and the rest of the world. And now bringing into the discussion just recently on the connection we make to IPCC. Do you think the Pacific is a strong component of this work that IPCC is conducting? And if no, what areas, and maybe this is also for you Mahealani to come in, but I want to look at it in terms of regional efforts. What is SPREP doing? USP? You mentioned this in terms of research. The Pacific Islands Forum is also coordinating a lot of work in this space and also on the IPCC side. What has been undertaken on the ground to bring the science closer to communities?

George Carter [00:23:57] Well. I mean.

Akka Rimon [00:24:04] I know I always ask these long and fruitful questions, but I’m sorry, guys.

Mahealani Delaney [00:24:11] ‘ll start off with part of the question, which was about the representation.

Akka Rimon [00:24:16] Of the Pacific.

Mahealani Delaney [00:24:17] Of the Pacific within the reports. So that is something that in this project we’ve been doing to communicate the findings of the IPCC, which we’ve been doing for the last two years, and the feedback we’ve gotten from people throughout that process has been that they felt there wasn’t a strong Pacific representation. Sorry representation in terms of the publications that were being referenced in the reports, but also in terms of the IPCC author roles and people in the decision making. And so what happens in a lot of the reports where they have these global maps say, of impacts or vulnerability, because there’s not a lot of research from the region being put in there. It comes up with neutral representation so it’ll be greyed out or not have actually data available for the Pacific, which is one issue. And yeah, as you were saying before, traditional knowledge is a part of the IPCC that they say we need to be focusing more on using traditional and local knowledge to adapt to climate impacts, but it doesn’t actually have a strong, doesn’t have a strong stocktake, I guess, for lack of a better word, on what is already being done in the Pacific region. So when we’re talking to people about what it says, we often hear all this, all of these things already taking place, which might be reflected in other regional reports as well, but isn’t making its way into the IPCC. And that’s something that we’re working on at the moment, which we can talk to throughout the podcast.

George Carter [00:26:04] And so while the IPCC is not a political document, it’s a scientific document, a consensus around a set of scientists, it goes through a political process and it brings together a congress of scientists from around the world representing countries as well. And Mahealani alluded to in terms of the lack of Pacific research but also the representation of Pacific scientists in this Congress. And so that’s part and parcel of – while there is great attention and power and, majority of the project at the Institute of Climate, Energy and Disaster from the Australian National University, looking to is communicating the IPCC. We are also hearing, and hearing from partners in the Pacific that they want to know also how to participate in this process of IPCC. And it’s fundamentally important that we provide this platform to see how we can gauge more in terms of increasing that participation. However, while there’s been a lack of representation of Pacific scientists and maybe not enough Pacific research from researchers all around the world on the Pacific in this report, the Pacific have also used this as a way to advocate for particular special reports, special reports on such as special reports of smaller developing states. And a special report, an ocean sorry, special report on the 1.5, which links to small island developing states and a special report on ocean. Now, these two reports are not part of the main IPCC. However, they are special reports. And part of this comes through when countries from the Pacific, as well as small island states, regional agencies and the G77, were advocating for the measure of 1.5. Back before 2015, there was a pushback from other countries saying that we can’t use 1.5 because that’s not what the IPCC says. And so the advocacy at that time was saying, all right, let’s pursue a special report on 1.5. And when that report concluded right at the time of COP15, and COP21 in 2015, it stated that the world has progressed beyond 1.1 warming, which also had calls for urgency. So what I’m saying here, while we have had said, well, Pacific countries have had a small representation and maybe their science research has not been there, they’ve been able to use IPCC as a process as well to advocate for special measures like the Special Report and 1.5 [Report] and more importantly, the report that came in a couple of years ago and special report on oceans that links ocean to climate change. And while this forms again a basis for more work, not only at the UN international level but also supports the initiatives on the ground that governments are calling for it to increase more attention in terms of ocean climate change nexus.

Mahealani Delaney [00:29:23] So I might just add quickly, just on using parts of the report to advocate for issues. I think this last report was the first time that it explicitly mentioned loss and damage, which is, you know, a really big win, I guess. And being able to reference from the report and it mentions that currently our understanding of loss and damage, including economic and non-economic losses and damages, isn’t well understood, and it’s not well addressed by current policies. So that’s another example of using IPCC reports to hone in on specific issues relevant to the Pacific.

Akka Rimon [00:30:33] So that’s interesting that you mention Mahealani the loss and damage. And I know that the momentum on this work has been built up over the last COPs and last year it was achieved when they finally included the text on loss and damage. What does that mean for us in the Pacific?

Mahealani Delaney [00:30:53] So I guess kind of separate to the previous COPs, which George can talk to a lot better. But it means because the IPCC reports are a key input into negotiations, into the international climate negotiations at COP. It means that any material in that has a lot of weight in negotiations. So you can use that new text on loss and damage to say, look, the IPCC have said that loss and damage isn’t well addressed by current mechanisms, and then you can use that to advocate for stronger responses and stronger commitments at COP. And then I think the other part of your question was referring to the loss and damage agreement that came out of COP 27.

Akka Rimon [00:31:39] Okay. So that’s interesting, Mahealani that you mentioned loss and damage. And I think it’s one of the achievements of our Pacific region because it’s been the momentum for this work has been built up for some time until just last year’s COP 27 when this was finally agreed to, achieved the at the meeting. But I want to look, we’ve had a quite interesting conversation beginning with the science, what the IPCC report says, and then narrowing down to how this translates to layman terms in terms of the Pacific. But I want us to look in terms of next steps and where we are. And you mentioned that the national determined contributions from the Pacific are there in place. So everything. everyone is tracking with their own progress towards this global commitment. Right. Where does Australia fall in all this, if if I may ask?

Mahealani Delaney [00:32:37] Yeah. So so I think it’s it’s quite complex, I guess, in terms of Australia’s climate policy. I think everyone probably has their own views of it in terms of linking it back to what the IPCC report says. So it says that the emissions from existing fossil fuel projects alone will exceed 1.5 degrees. So that means that not even approving new fossil fuel projects, we will already exceed 1.5. So if we think of that in the Australian context, we recently passed the safeguard mechanism amendments which changed, well, it basically put a cap on a number of the largest polluters. So it means that a heap of new fossil fuel projects won’t be able to go through. But at the moment, I think it’s about 116 fossil fuel projects are being proposed. And so that still means if half of them go through, you know, 70 new fossil fuel projects, and we don’t have a solid plan in place to phase out the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.  I think last week as well, there were six nations from the Pacific that agreed to a fossil fuel non-proliferation agreement. And given what the IPCC report is telling us on fossil fuels alone exceeding 1.5, I think that is an area that Australia if they want to be serious about supporting Pacific climate priorities, that’s an area that they need to make a commitment to and say they will phasing out existing fossil fuel projects and saying no to new fossil fuel expansion. Was there anything else you wanted to add?

Akka Rimon [00:34:26] Yeah, maybe. I just want to add that I raise that question because Australia is not just a part of our Pacific region, but we also understand that it’s one of the most vulnerable countries also to climate impacts. So it would be interesting to see the trend and movement of, you know, these policies and commitments as we move forward. Now I want to focus on next steps and the recommendations that were spelled out from the report. Can both of you give us a bit more detail about what this thing means in the Pacific? And I’m going to just throw in, you know, the elements of climate financing. Where are we on this? Because this has been a long standing debate whether the Pacific is accessing it or not. And now the more prominent issue of us having to, you know, come to a borderline of reaching an overshoot completely or, you know, us coming to the crossroads of, you know, no turning back. It would be too late for us what are what’s in store for us. But also, because there’s a lot of talk on transitioning to green energies and does the Pacific have the capacity?

Mahealani Delaney [00:35:43] Did you want to start on that one?

George Carter [00:35:45] Sure. So what the report also tells us is the need for sort of responses now and sort of long-term responses. And these are all this is nothing new. This is something that has been said in previous IPCC. I think it’s also important that part of the big focus on the current IPCC are on the impacts that it’s, for many places, catastrophic and the severity of this that we don’t take action. But there still are many things that need to happen. So first is in terms of adaptation. While there has been great progress in the work that has been carried out, as I said earlier, the report tells us there are so many different gaps that still exist. Part of this is also continuing challenges. So in places like things like adaptation and also the increasing link to places that cannot accept where the issues around loss and damage will come through, what needs to be done there. More attention, of course, to financing to support these adaptation in terms of mitigation. Yes, there has been attention to low carbon development, but all around the world, and we see this in through the indices of all countries now to try and find that which they peak their emissions. And it’s not the same across the world. You know, we see that countries like China, like India still live with emissions that will peak in 2060, 2070. So we need those. And what the Pacific has been calling for is a peaking of emissions immediately in 2025, 2030. So there is still that big gap in terms of mitigation, but also in terms of financing. And that’s where the $100 billion was there to support not only adaptation but also mitigation. The big gap there still hasn’t reached at hundred billion dollar a year. When we called [support] for the war in Ukraine, countries are able to mobilise hundreds of millions of dollars in two or three months to support that initiative. I mean, to support that important cause. But when you say about the cause that we are all seeing, that all countries are impacted not just countries, but even the private sector, is still lagging in terms of its support. And so the report also sees an encouragement for not just governments, private sector, but across that there should be initiatives, increasing initiatives to call for more. And finance and technology and the transfer of technology from developed countries to a country like Kiribati or to a country like Samoa is fundamental for this transition. That technology to respond to these climate changes is made affordable, but also that can be utilised within, you know, isolated islands and not just within the bigger economies. So that’s something that’s fundamental. But a part of that also is that cooperation not just between states or among states but also with the private sector to try and encourage these big transitions. Now those are the big ideas that we have been working and living with in the last decade or so. But this, as the report is saying, this needs to be done more so now. Now, the other thing that’s also promising for me is the fact that this report also talks about vulnerability, which communities are more vulnerable or as well as the need to be more inclusive and talks about equity, that they need to promote and prioritise equity, climate justice, inclusion in the transition process, that it’s not just focusing on big country or community scale, but it’s importance of that in this work or transition is that we are reminded, you know, to put vulnerable communities or vulnerable peoples at the forefront, which talks about, you know, the importance of gender, disability and all other aspects of social inclusion.

Akka Rimon [00:40:04] And that is so important because we want to ensure that everyone has access to support whatever adaptation and mitigation efforts there are. Okay. So I’m going to ask you, it will never be enough having an episode for us to discuss this massive topic. But I’m going to ask you to just sort of sum up and help policymakers. If you were to provide advice, how would you sum up a summary of summaries of scientific reports in just one or two sentences?

George Carter [00:40:38] Yeah. IPCC report is a massive report. It’s a big undertaking to read it. There are different services that are provided in terms of, the way universities, but also institutions try and interpret the report. We cannot stress the importance of the link of this report to international discourse on climate change, to regional as well as national. There was a direct link. What we need to work on more, and this is something that many of us are passionate and coming in meetings in next week in Fiji will be discussing is how we make this accessible for everyone. And part of this is also how to participate in that process. And part of that is that collaboration, but also prioritising the work and research coming out from the Pacific, not just through universities but the work that the national departments, national agencies and local researchers are doing. There needs to be a mechanism or platform that elevates this research, but not just that, also finding ways to connect it through journal articles to get it within the IPCC process. So here’s what I’m saying here, I guess, is the need for more collaboration. IPCC is not a report that others write on the Pacific, but something that the Pacific should be part of and should also be leading in these processes, as what we’re trying to articulate. We have in the past had the opportunities in terms of this being possible, but we are also in a space that we can do more.

Akka Rimon [00:42:17] Yep, that’s slightly over your two-sentence mark, but thank you for that, and Mahealani? Any lasting comments from you?

Mahealani Delaney [00:42:26] Yeah. So just to build off what George was saying, it is important to note that these reports are global in nature, and especially the last Synthesis report, which was the synthesis of the summary reports. So the information for policymakers across the Pacific, I think, and it’s mentioned in the report that all of that needs to be adapted, I guess, for the local context. And because there is in a strong Pacific Islander representation in those reports at the moment, there will be other reports and publications from across the region that will also be beneficial for policymaking. But in terms of increasing representation in the reports, which was spoken to and is really important for getting text in there that can be used in negotiations, like at COP. We at the moment are doing a project which was spoken about in Fiji next week. We’re meeting with people from across the region. To figure out how we can get more voices from the Pacific in the next report, both in terms of research that is being referenced and also in terms of the roles like authors, so that they are the ones reviewing the final text and can advocate for issues that are relevant for the Pacific to be included.

Akka Rimon [00:44:01] Yeah. Thank you, Mahealani. And thank you, George. And thank you also to our viewers and listeners. Till next time we hope to see you again here on the Pacific Wayfinder, your guide to navigating security cross-currents in the Blue Pacific Continent.

-END