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

Podcast EP 28

Title: Final Warning: Migrating with Dignity: A Conversation with Anote Tong

Akka Rimon [00:00:17] Mauri and welcome to the Pacific Wayfinder, your guide to navigating the crosscurrents of security in the Blue Pacific Continent. I’m Akka Rimon, your host, and I wish to begin by acknowledging that we are broadcasting today from unceded Land. I especially want to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land on which we broadcast the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay our respects to their elders, past, present and future. And for this special episode, I’m joined by the Pacific Security College Deputy Director Jay Caldwell. Hello Jay. How are you?

Jay Caldwell [00:00:53] Mauri Akka, I’m very well. Very well. Glad to sneak back in here into the studio with you.

Akka Rimon [00:00:56] Great. Yes. And it’s so nice to have you back on one of the podcasts. Jay, are you excited for our episode today?

Jay Caldwell [00:01:05] I am excited for the conversation we’re about to have. I think it’s a really critical conversation. And both in terms of our special guest, who will get to introducing in a moment, and also in terms of yourself, in terms of expertise. I’m really looking forward to learning in terms of what we’ve got happening today. So today, if I set the scene, our discussion is going to build on the IPCC 2023 Synthesis Report with a focus on migration and particularly how climate change is driving displacement and migration worldwide. And we have with us here a world leader who we’ve had the delight of having around the ANU over the past week, who’s been in a number of conversations. But one of the most important voices that there has been on climate migration who continues to inform it. But I’ll let you do the introductions here, Akka.

Akka Rimon [00:01:55] Our special guest today is Mr Anote Tong, the former President of the Republic of Kiribati and the founder of the Migration with Dignity Policy. Anote served three terms from 2003 to 2016. During his term in office, he was responsible for drawing international attention to the human dimension of climate change and for declaring what was then the largest UNESCO World Heritage site, PIPA, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, which his government called a gift to humanity. Tong has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Anote, welcome to the Pacific Wayfinder. So my first question on the impact of human activities. I think if anything that the report has given us, it’s the level of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. It has been confirmed to have reached 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer. Now clearly, this will have detrimental impacts on our natural environment, particularly in the Pacific, but not just the Pacific. It’s the whole world, the whole of planet Earth that’s affected. How does it impact our way of life and on our people in every region of the world? What does this mixed message signal for you, Mr Tong, in terms of the movement of people or human mobility?

Anote Tong [00:03:22] Well, let me begin with an acknowledgement, thank you for having me. And of course,   ask the Custodians of this land, past, present and emerging to be with us and join us and bless us as we have this conversation. The numbers which are of course, scientifically based, as far as people in the Pacific are concerned, they’re just numbers. I think it’s about what the implications of those numbers would mean. And of course, most of our people in the region don’t understand what these numbers mean. COUGH But for those of us who keep track of what’s going on, 1.1 rise in global temperature is getting very close to the limit that we set ourselves in 2015 at 1.5. But of course, it’s got to be truly understood that. Let us go back to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, which then predicted that even by the end of the century, the impacts of climate change would already be disastrous for us – the countries on the front line, the low-lying atoll countries like Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and all of those other communities which have basically atoll nations, atoll islands. You know, I think here I understand this includes Tokelau, the Wallis and Futuna, maybe your Northern Islands in the Torres Strait. I think they will also be subjected to the same impacts. And so that fourth assessment report so well predicted that by the end of the century, those islands, including ours, would be submerged. In the subsequent reports, including the six assessment report which came out in February last year, I think 2022, that assessment had been updated and the science better reaffirmed. But only to say that no, it won’t be the end of the century it would be by 2060. And so the scenario is getting tighter and tighter. The tipping points are getting closer and closer. And so it’s not about the numbers. It’s what it means for people. Okay. And this is what we need to focus on. And I think you want to bring it down to the human level. We’ve got to talk about the impacts, the impacts, of which I know from my own personal experience, we are already experiencing. And so we have a serious challenge ahead of us. Can we hold this in time for the rest because we’re already gone? I think two scenarios indicate that unless we can reverse this process, those countries like Kiribati and other Pacific island countries in the region really are looking at a very radical adaptation in order to stay above the rising seas. But otherwise, we’re all going to be subject to huge displacement of our people.

Jay Caldwell [00:06:21]  I must admit, it was sobering in preparing for this conversation, sir, to read through, and obviously, there are implications other than sea level rise, but that implications around sea level rise in terms of one in 100 year storms becoming annual events by the end of our century. The baked in element in terms of sea level rise, it’s incredibly sobering all over again to see it in such stark language and with such a high degree of confidence in the current report.

Anote Tong [00:06:58] If I may just add to that. You know we’ve always been focussed on the rise in the sea level, but I’ve always believed that’s not the most immediate danger because already where the water is now, you know, at the beginning of this year in my own home, I’ve got photographs and videos to show you if you wish. But the water was coming over my sea wall under my front door. And that was a calm day. Now, if there was a change in the weather pattern, that there already seems to be a trend towards then even as we are where we are today with the level of sea level, it would be disastrous. And so the change in the weather pattern, I think in 2015 there was Cyclone Pam which hit Vanuatu or destroyed it, but then it did what it’s not supposed to do and that is go northwards towards the equator. It originates in the equator and they’re not supposed to go back. But this one did flood all of the islands of Tuvalu, flooded our southernmost islands and flooded the rest to a lesser degree. But it destroyed food crops and the rest it destroyed homes.

Jay Caldwell [00:08:07] It’s been quite stark seeing Vanuatu with the cascade of climate events in terms of what that looks like. Akka, can I pick up a question in regards, I guess, you made the point, sir, in terms of what we’re already seeing. And according to the UNHCR, that trend towards hazardous weather you pointed to, we’re going to continue to see that and including things like prolonged droughts as well. So it’s not just sometimes the absence of water that’s actually kind of a real challenge that Pacific islands are going to be facing. And UNHCR puts the figure on 20 million people per year that are displaced in some form from climate related drivers. Are we seeing this already in the Pacific? And are there particular instances you’d like to raise for people? Akka, you may have some examples as well in terms of where we’re already seeing climate-based displacement occurring in the Pacific Islands.

Anote Tong [00:09:10] You know, we don’t have to look at what’s happening today. We’ve had experiences of this in the past. We’ve had our people relocated from our islands, subjected to drought events. And if I might explain, this happened some time ago when people in some of the islands had to be relocated in the Phoenix Islands, a part of Kiribati, and then relocated in the Solomon Islands simply because of the weather conditions. Now, that is happening again. We are just coming towards the end of a prolonged drought period where the government has declared a state of emergency, where people are really suffering because we use the underground aquifer as our source of water. And so as the rain remains dry, then the water becomes very brackish. And it’s very difficult to have had the experience of drinking when that water has been in that condition. And you have to struggle to drink it. It’s not healthy. But if you have no choice, what else can you do? And so we’re coming towards the end of that as the El Nino begins to swing into place again. Okay. So as I was leaving home, the rains have started to fall. And I guess here in Australia you begin to experience your dry weather maybe, or your bushfires. Okay. So yes. But I think what we are experiencing is intense, these effects have become more intense.

Akka Rimon [00:10:49] Yes, sorry. I also wanted to add to the discussion, Jay, and thank you for posing that question, because I think it’s the conception held from outside the Pacific that they don’t fully understand that, you know, the marginal increase in sea level rise is devastating. It’s catastrophic on small island countries like ours in Kiribati. And you ask if there are displacements happening. I think for me, the bigger question is really about the ability to access life, full dignity, access to water, access to resources. And these resources have been affected in such a way that their ability to recharge themselves naturally has been impacted one way or another. And that is not giving us the full dignity of life that we expect. So I think it’s bigger than displacement. It’s beyond that. It’s about livelihoods, it’s about survival, it’s about access to everything else that everyone can access across the globe that we’re not.

Jay Caldwell [00:11:54] Fantastic. That’s a different framing, I think, from what often at the technical level there’s a talk about the numbers and movement. But that’s the lived experience.

Akka Rimon [00:12:05] But again, you know, spring tides, you know, we’ve had incidences, Mr Tong you’ll recall that I think it was the Cyclone Pam of 2015 where we saw some of the islands having to relocate their communities because of the flooding. And it was massive. You know, it was a big disaster for us and we weren’t prepared for it. It happened. And adding on to the shoulders of government, you know, the burden of having to bear the cost of these unforeseen incidences.

Anote Tong [00:12:42] You know, if I might just go back on some of the very experiences that we’ve had where given, as Akka says, the very small margin between the height of the sea during the spring tide and what land remains above the margin, and then all you need is a bit of a breeze. Okay. aecause 30 kilometres an hour wind for us is a storm. Okay, almost a storm. But if we had that in coincidence with these very high tides, then the homes would be destroyed. Okay. There have been occasions where the weather was fine, but there’s a pressure difference somewhere and it would press down and push the water up. And we’ve had the occasions when homes were destroyed. We had to bring in emergency relief. And when that happens, sometimes it’s not easy to bring in relief because the airports have been flooded. They cannot, they can’t allow the planes to land. So it’s got to be by boat. And that takes quite some time, maybe more than a couple of days, especially to reach the furthest islands. And so we do have this problem and it’s always there on the very edge, waiting to happen, given the right conditions. All of this would happen. But of course, there will come a time when the sea water would come. It probably would not go. And if it comes up with sufficient strength, then it would leave nothing behind.

Akka Rimon [00:14:19] So if I may jump in now, Jay, and just ask a question and I want to take us back to, you know, this week it has been, well, this was a packed week for me of learning and insights from the To Hell With Drowning [Conference]. You know, we’re talking about the IPCC report but at the ANU  we have this conference that’s brought together leaders like Anote, Kaliopate Tavola, Dame Meg Tayor from PNG and others and the wealth of wisdom and guidance that we’ve sought from this Pacific Elders voice has been, you know, critical. But I want to take us back to your time in government, Mr Tong, if you can tell us a bit more about migration. We opened up with that question about the impacts of climate on human mobility. And in 2003, when you came into government, sir, you introduced the Migration with Dignity policy. And I know coming from the conference there were heated debates around migration, you know, not being the solution, but what was your thinking on this? If you can just walk us through that. Help us to unpack, to understand why migration is such a critical option for a country that is barely three metres above sea level, a country that has nowhere to turn, no higher ground to turn in the face of sea level rise.

Anote Tong [00:15:52] In order to truly appreciate what is happening in our part of the world, one has to understand the structure of the islands, the geography. We talk about three metres. It is not three metres. We talk about an average elevation of two metres. It’s not even two metres. Okay?. The tidal changes that we get at the most two metres. When it comes over two metres, then there is serious danger. And so how do we deal with that? And I must say that when I first saw the report of the IPCC, the third assessment report, which was pretty basic at that time, and I saw these two words sea level rise, and my immediate reaction was one of panic, because I understood very well the vulnerability, because having lived in a situation like that, you know, we regard these weather events as part of the normal cycle. But when you’re getting new information coming in and telling you that, yes, it’s normal, but it’s getting more abnormal as the days go by and that the sea level will not continue to be rising the way it’s been for the last number of years. And so you just extrapolate beyond that understanding from, certainly from my reading of the reports, that it’s not a linear escalation. It is exponential. And so it’s going to happen much, much faster than we’d seen in the past decades.  And so, you know, in my struggle to find a solution for the people that I am, I’m supposed to protect. And one of the greatest fears that I had was to be asked by one of my people, “You know, we are hearing about the sea level rise. And we understand that given our vulnerability is going to be a huge threat. What solutions have you found for us?” Because the honest and frustrating response would have been, you know, there is nothing we can do about it because it’s beyond our control. And that was the only answer that I could give. But it was never good enough. It really demonstrates that actually, one is not deserving of leadership if that is the kind of answer you’re going to give. You’ve got to do more than that. And so I must admit that I struggled for a long time. Went crazy, I guess with a crazy situation, trying to find out. I talked to people about floating islands, raising the islands. At the end of the day, I had to find something that I could put on paper and say, these are the options. And so at that time, the options would have been like this; given the scenario that had been predicted. That the islands would be submerged. In order to survive as a country, we would have to undertake very, very radical adaptation measures. Maybe most probably by raising the islands above the rising seas and continuing to do that. Hopefully that would safeguard. But I also acknowledge the reality that we could never mobilise the resources to be able to do that to all of the islands. And it may be the case that we could only mobilise the resources to raise one or two islands, but then this would raise the question of what do we do with all of those people? And so there is no doubt in my mind that there will be those of our people who will choose to migrate. But. Do we just allow them to do it on their own, or do we take a proactive position by actually preparing them to make that choice consciously so that they do not migrate as second class citizens. Let’s just look at what’s happening in Europe. The massive migration of people from North Africa. I monitored that very closely. What happened in Europe was people were scrambling to get across, and I’m sure it was from climate driven impacts. And so what has been the result? People were dying in the process. People were moving into situations where they were not always entirely welcome. And because they were not prepared, nor were the communities they were moving into prepared. And so it was really an attempt on my part to try and put some dignity in one of the most undignified events in any country’s history. I can tell you it’s not an easy thing to come to terms with. And I know that sometimes my suggestion that my advocacy of migration with dignity has been misunderstood and in some cases actually rejected. But I think we’ve got to be brutally realistic, given the scenario of what’s at stake. I can assure you that the world that we know today will not be the world that we will have in the next few decades. And we have to come to terms with that rather than hope and pretend that it will not happen. Let’s plan for it. Just in case it happens, because I believe it is going to happen.

Jay Caldwell [00:21:25] So that point you make about people misunderstanding and rejecting the point you’re making there and the policy and the initiative in the struggle, I guess, that you’re talking about in terms of that policy. Why do you think that rejection occurs? Why do you think people struggle with it in the way that you’re talking about?

Anote Tong [00:21:50] I can understand because those are my very sentiments from a nationalistic point of view. You don’t want to give up. You don’t want to be defeated. You don’t want to be seen as being not nationalistic. Okay. Again, there are those who believe maybe that by suggesting that we migrate that it would undermine our negotiating positions for the loss and damages and whatever else we’d be negotiating. Okay. But I don’t think this is about negotiations. This is about the survival for our future generation. I’ve got 20-odd grandchildren and I don’t want their lives to be a point of negotiation. I want to be able to provide a 100% guarantee that they will be safe. And so the propositions that I put forward were, yes, let’s build our resilience so that at least those that choose to migrate with dignity, on merit if necessary, it does not have to be about special consideration. I am serious because I’d rather have our people migrate on merit with qualifications and being able to come here, places like Australia who is terribly short of skilled labour. Let’s train our people to be skilful so that they can come and build a place here as worthwhile citizens, contribute to the economic welfare of this country, not as second-class citizens occupying the slums as we see in some cases where people from the Pacific have gone into cities like Auckland and gone into the backyards. This is not what we want and we have the opportunity to plan in order to avoid that, rather than take up the emotional argument, say, no, no, no, it won’t happen. We don’t want it until the last moment and it happens and then we are not prepared. Let’s give our people the opportunity to make that choice themselves, but let us prepare them in order to make that choice. This is the concept of migration with dignity, but it’s a two way process. It also needs preparation of the communities they are going into, so that there is a very good acculturation program from both sides so that the tensions would be removed and I came up with this because I spoke with some German elderly people and I asked them, how do you feel about the mass of people coming in from North Africa? Because Germany is one of the most accommodating countries in Europe. And they said we were very happy to assist initially, but then we began to be overwhelmed and so they began to worry. And so that is going to happen. But given the numbers in the Pacific, I don’t think we’ll ever going to take over Australia.

Akka Rimon [00:24:47] I was going to ask a question in relation to what Tong just said. As you are aware, Tong, the Government of Australia is introducing a Pacific Engagement Visa. How would you advise, if you had any guidance or wisdom to share, to strategically organise the quota and how this selection process will be driven? What would be your advice?

Anote Tong [00:25:14] Well, my advice would be to simply just say that it’s not a new thing, that it’s already been happening here in the Pacific because the Pacific has been divided into roughly three groups. Okay. And let me say this because it’s been so obvious, but maybe not obvious to some people with the Polynesians more aligned with Australia, with the Cook Islands having free access, Niue having free access, Tokelau having free access to New Zealand with the Northern Micronesians having free access to the United States with Australia having a very close relationship with Papua New Guinea. But it’s the rest of us who are former British colonies who remain in isolation. And this is where you’ve got the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu as well, who were former British colonies, just waiting there for somebody to come and want them to be there. And so I think that’s something that is not new. It’s not breaking new ground. It’s just doing what it’s been happening. I understand that the Prime Minister of Samoa came up with an interesting proposition, and I think it’s been proposed in the past and I’m proposing it also, Compact type arrangement, similar to what New Zealand has with those Polynesian countries and what the United States has with the Micronesian countries. There is no reason why it cannot happen. You know, a free movement of people. Okay. And in the process, hopefully, combined with the program of upskilling our people in our own countries and filling in those skills gaps, which is the problem here in Australia and New Zealand. This is why you have our seasonal workers coming in to prop up your farming industry. Well, we’ve supported the farming industry in the past with the phosphates that we provided. And on this occasion, we have more than enough labour to provide that support again and at the same time draw some benefits out of it.

Jay Caldwell [00:27:28] Can I build on that question? I think the Samoan Prime Minister’s challenge really was a challenge, and it had great ambition in terms of an EU style arrangement, in terms of open access within that extended Pacific family and in terms of using that kind of phrase and thinking and you’ve been a national leader and you’ve dealt with this issue as a national leader, and often the challenge is directed to a country like Australia. But is there a role for the region as a whole here in terms of shaping up a system of both thinking about migration with dignity at a regional level, that we could actually create a structure that you think would work consistently for everyone?

Anote Tong [00:28:14] Well, I think Australia has started doing it with the Australia Pacific Technical Colleges. Okay. And I hope it was the result of our discussions with John Howard in Madang at the retreat and the Forum in 2005 where he proposed this, the Australia Pacific Technical Colleges. And I remember talking to John Howard, I said, John, I know you bring in 30 to 40,000 people from Asia every year, why can’t you bring our people in? And he said, but you people are not trained. So train them. And so the APTC program has the potential to do that, but it needs to be propped up at the national level so that they dovetail into the APTC program. Because I understand that some of my colleagues have complained about the brain drain. Quite frankly, I don’t subscribe to that notion because we have too many brains. They’re just not being developed. We need to develop those brains and export them and in the process maybe get some remittances back. But I think the seasonal worker scheme and all of these things are actually making it easier for our people to come into your different cultural environment, because crossing that environmental barrier is quite an obstacle. It’s not easy, I can assure you. And so coming in and out, getting used to it, and then they will learn to appreciate what it is that they are coming into, what it is that they can offer and understand and overcome the hurdles that they would otherwise face if they were just to come in one go and try to adjust. But this is more of a slow adjustment process. We have had this experience with our own seamen who have worked on German ships and gone into Europe and they come back very westernised in some ways, in some ways in a positive sense and in some way in a negative sense. But there is no denying the fact that they’ve seen a different world and are beginning to appreciate it and understand it.

Akka Rimon [00:30:27] Okay. I’m going to throw in the next question around the international political landscape around climate displacement. And we do understand that there is no law or protective mechanism for climate displaced people. How do you see migration with dignity responding to this very absence of a policy, internationally?

Anote Tong [00:30:54] I think if I might make that distinction between migration with dignity and refugee status, because I think by definition, migration with dignity does not at any level refer to refugee status. But I think I acknowledge because when I was advocating this and they try to match it with the definition, the international definition of climate refugee, which does not exist in that way, simply because the international definition is lacking. And yet we remain with, you know, this is something that is lacking. I don’t see what is the reason why we cannot change that? Because climate change was never a challenge until most recently. And so surely how inflexible can that law be as not to realise that changing circumstances and accommodated accordingly, but migration with dignity would be something that would be part of the normal process of migration. And I think it must also be understood that this process will happen of its own accord. But there is no doubt in my mind that there will come a time when the migration with dignity pathway will not be adequate and it would run out of utility because the disaster comes and then there would be a scramble, there would be no time to train people that they can migrate with dignity. And that is the time that the international definitions need to be able to step up.

Jay Caldwell [00:32:36] Can I just ask about the recent UN resolution that called for the International Criminal Court or Court of Justice? Thank you. To make its judgement or call for a judgement in regards to climate impacts and responsibility. Do you see a pathway there in regards to, and I see you shaking your head already, in terms of climate refugee status.

Anote Tong [00:33:06] You know, I don’t know. I never truly understand people’s position on the climate change issue because what it is climate change is destroying the livelihoods and the homes of people. It’s a slow process,  but nevertheless the most effective process ever in the history of mankind in destroying the lives of so many people in their homelands. Yet, there’s never been an acknowledgement. And I think that is because those who would be responsible for all of this are, in fact, maybe defining those definitions. Okay. And I guess in my moments of deep frustration, I said, it’s no different from, and I’ve said I’ve spoken in the US and I’ve said, let me give you an example. There are these two guys living next door to each other. And this guy, he’s got a tree in his driveway so he decides to cut his tree, but his tree fell on the other guy’s house. Okay. And so what does he do when somebody comes? Oh, and so what does he say? Too bad. No, he doesn’t. He pays for it. So why are those destroying our homes, not paying the same compensation? Where is the justice? Simply because there is no international regime to deal with this. But our moral compass conscience should tell us what the right thing to do is. And I’d like to think that our international legal system is based on morality.

Akka Rimon [00:34:51] Well, I’m going to ask a last question, Jay, if you have any more questions, let me know. But we’re also running out of time. But bringing us back to the region and our region has seen a lot of opportunities, if I may say, challenges, tensions in the past year or so. Where do you see our region in ten years time? And by saying this, I want to acknowledge, sir, that, you know, you have been among our Pacific leaders who have done great work raising the visibility of our Blue Pacific Continent internationally at the UN, bringing climate change to the fore of the discussions, changing from terrorism to a climate change focus as you’ve been saying, and including the oceans in the climate change discussions as well. But where do you see our region and also in a climate that’s increasingly geo-politicised, if I may say, the pressures of the geopolitics have come to our region more profound than ever before.

Anote Tong [00:36:01] But let me say that the focus on climate change was in the past, on the science, and it was wonderful science, extremely interesting, attracting a lot of grant funding for the researchers, and we had to turn it into a human issue. Now the human issue is about that, and I think it reinforced the pressure to cut back on emissions, and that’s been the focus on carbon emissions. But there’s been no genuine discussion of what to do with the people who would be affected. That is still missing in the international debate simply because nobody is willing to say, yes, we understand it’s going to happen. We are ready to deal with it. Okay. Nobody, no country has stepped forward except Fiji has done that. And I announced it because Fiji has been the only country with the moral courage to step forward and say, yes, if it comes to that, we will step forward. But here we are continuing to tighten border controls. And so that has been the problem. And we need to understand that and I keep saying it, the world that we know today is going to be a very different world even in ten years time. But are we ready for it? What’s going to be our reaction with the pressure for migration from displaced people? What’s going to be the response of countries, are they going to tighten up their borders or are they going to loosen them to allow for the humanitarian actor. It’s not that you have to do the right thing. And that is a challenge. And I think. I don’t have the answer because nobody has stepped forward. But I think the pressure is there. I think if some of you would go back to my statements in the past, I have drawn the analogy of the Titanic and again, I have been misinterpreted when I draw that analogy of the Titanic. It’s about the morality of people on the lifeboats and those in the waters and whether those on the lifeboat would have the compassion to bring those swimming on board or are they going to push them away so they can retain the wonderful life, that lifestyle that they’d been able to have. They don’t want that to be compromised. And that is a challenge. I’ve always said, and I continue to say, that climate change is the greatest moral challenge to humanity ever. And in the years ahead, our humanity is truly going to be tested.

Jay Caldwell [00:38:52] Can I just say one thing? I think that we’ve been struck and people have been struck in this region and so thankful for your leadership over time and in the climate change space. And I think in that recent International Court of Justice or the UN resolution, the fact that there was a group of Pacific youth who are actually at the heart of that, driving that, there is an incredible confidence to make the claim around climate from countries and from organisations across the Pacific. But part of that is because of the leadership yourself and others have shown and sort of making the Pacific position clear and giving space for that. And I think there’s a real thankfulness across the region and it’s a real tribute when you see examples like that in terms of Pacific youth standing up, in terms of the leadership you’ve been able to provide over time.

Anote Tong [00:39:49] So it is not our world, it’s what we’ve done. It’s what we are doing to prepare the world for them to come. Because so far, I must say that I don’t know that I will survive until 2060, when the waters are coming over the home islands. And I hope well before then that. Some kind of solution would have been identified. I think we’ve got to come to terms with the reality that we’ve got to stop thinking about me. Okay. And getting what it is that is good for me. But it doesn’t matter if it’s not good for anybody else. I think we’ve got to change the narrative. I think from my understanding it is that maybe it’s the system that we have that’s been dominant, which is maybe the capitalist system, where greed is good. No, let’s get away from that. Now, let’s share with you some of our Pacific ideologies, which is. Come on, let’s look after each other. Okay? It’s about us. It’s not about me alone.

Jay Caldwell [00:40:57] Thank you, sir.

Podcast EP 27

Title: Final Warning: What the last IPCC Report means for the Pacific

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:00:18] Apinun Olgeta, that is Papua New Guinean for good afternoon to you all, and warm Pacific greetings. Welcome to another episode of the Pacific Wayfinder podcast, your guide to navigating the crosscurrents of security in the Blue Pacific Continent brought to you by the Pacific Security College. I’m Dr. Henry Ivarature, your host. But before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we broadcast from today the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. Well, last month, the IPCC released its final report in its seven-year-long reporting cycle, delivering a final warning to the world on the severe impacts of climate change and the action that must be taken to mitigate the worst impacts. We know climate change is the single most important issue for a Blue Pacific Continent, and this report provides essential insight into what is necessary to protect and prepare Pacific communities for the future. To discuss the report, I am joined by Professor Mark Howden, Vice Chair of the IPCC, Director of the ANU Institute of Climate Change and a regular guest of this podcast. Welcome, Professor Howden.

Professor Mark Howden [00:01:58] Good afternoon.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:02:00] I am also joined by Pasha Carruthers, a Review Editor of the IPCC reporting cycle, who is joining us from the beautiful and warm islands of the Cook Islands. Finally, but certainly not least, I am joined by my colleague, Professor Dave Peoples, Director of our Pacific Security College. Let me kick off the conversation by asking Pasha, how have you seen Pacific Islanders contribute to advancing our region and our world’s understanding of climate change both within and outside the IPCC?

Pashsa Curruthers [00:02:48] Well, outside of, definitely it’s a lot of contributions. Within the IPCC it’s been a little bit of a struggle, I think, to get very much Pacific representation in, because there’s a tendency for a lot of unpublished or grey literature. And as we know that the IPCC focuses primarily on peer-reviewed academic literature. So it’s increasing over time. But when I was first involved in the IPCC, my first mitigation meeting was in Ghana in the year 2000. I think what that was the IPCC Working Group Three summary for policymakers meeting. And I was the only Pacific Islander there, and I was representing the Cook Islands and there was two from the Caribbean as well. So it’s not just Pacific Islands, it’s small island states in general. And they tended to be, and I was one of, I think, four woman delegates. So it was kind of an interesting time. And things have certainly changed a lot in the 20 years since 23 years, I guess since. And definitely there’s a lot more collaborative literature. I think that’s where we’re starting to see the papers being written that need to be reviewed to make it into the IPCC Synthesis. And because the scientific knowledge is definitely there, traditional knowledge and local knowledge is very much based on observations and observations over time. But in the Pacific, that’s largely being passed down by oral history. And so it’s a matter of capturing that knowledge and getting those observations of how things have changed into the literature that can then be reviewed and assessed. Yeah, that’s a brief answer.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:05:07] Thank you Pasha. I will turn to Dave. This report explicitly mentions the need for multilateral efforts to combat climate change. What role do you see the Pacific region, especially the Pacific Islands Forum, playing in advancing the climate action called for in this report?

Professor Dave Peebles [00:05:30] Well, tenkyu tumas Henry and a big hello to all our listeners and viewers out there. May I say it’s very humbling to be here today because firstly, I want to tell everyone that Henry is actually a professional radio host in an earlier part of his life, so I am very much playing Robin to his Batman today. And you can tell by his voice and his professionalism that Henry knows what he’s doing. And I’m just here as a guest, of course, so I’m always humbled to hang out with Henry. But to be with Mark and Pasha today is really a great honour because, you know, when I think about the global experts and the people that have really made an impact, I feel very privileged to be with both of them today. So thank you, Henry, for bringing us all together. I think in terms of the Pacific Islands Forum, throughout the Forum’s history, it’s always had a very strong focus on environmental issues and climate change issues. And given the history of the region, given the fact that the Pacific is very much on the frontline of climate change, you know, I think the Forum has had this global leading role in advocating for environmental issues and climate change issues. And I think if you look at the more recent security statements and declarations from the Forum, certainly those statements make it very clear that climate change is the single greatest threat to the region and that that’s set out in the key Forum document, the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent that this is the thing we’ve got to focus on. I was in Vanuatu recently, Henry, and it was the week that Vanuatu experienced two cyclones and just the devastation that was caused, the homes that were lost, the flooding, the separation of families and, you know, people who didn’t know for 24 hours whether family members were well or not well, alive or dead and just sort of back to back nature, just as people were recovering from the first cyclone, here comes cyclone number two. And I think it really speaks to things that are in the global reports, but also the Pacific Forum’s own documents about the intensity and frequency of weather events and these extreme weather events really impacting on Forum Island countries. I think the Forum as an organisation and also the individual Forum Members have, in my view, played a tremendous role at the global level and I think, have shown immense global moral leadership on the issue of climate change. And I think what’s going to be interesting in the next few years is if Australia, with Pacific Island countries, co-host a Conference of the Parties. I think that’s going to be a really important opportunity for the Pacific Islands Forum to really reflect on and bring their Pacific Islands experience to the rest of the world.

Professor Dave Peebles [00:08:56] The Pacific Security College aims to strengthen a Blue Pacific Continent through learning policy, engagement and regional collaboration. You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn and find a library of research, blogs, podcasts and videos on our website, pacificsecurity.net. Our podcast, The Pacific Wayfinder brings together leading voices on our shared security challenges. Stay up to date on the latest thinking on Pacific security and subscribe to the Pacific Wayfinder wherever you get your podcasts.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:09:31] Can I turn to Professor Howden. Humbled to be with you sir. Humbled to be with you. But reflecting on all your work over the last few years, what are the key scientific findings that have been Synthesised in this latest IPCC report and the trajectory from here?

Professor Mark Howden [00:09:53] Well, thanks very much, David, and thanks to Henry and to Pasha for participating in this. It’s great to be here. So if I had to sort of summarise the report, it was really that the Synthesis report strongly confirms the information which has been provided by the science community and by other communities, policy communities and those who hold traditional local knowledge and others, and that is, that the world is changing and it’s changing very fast, in fact. So what this report says, is that it’s very clear that humans are causing climate change and that climate change is now impacting effectively on every ocean, on every continent, on every island system across the globe. And those impacts are net negative. So on average, they’re negative. There are some positive examples, but mostly negative, and they are surprisingly large at this point in time. So at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial. There’s also good evidence that people are starting to adapt to these changes. So they’re not just sitting there and waiting. They’re actually starting to respond to the changes that they’re seeing. And what this report identifies is that, yes, there is significant adaptation, but it’s not happening fast enough or its scale, to the extent that it needs to be to offset the changes we’re already seeing. So there is an adaptation gap which is growing, which is reported here in the Synthesis Report. It also importantly identifies that as climate change progresses, our existing adaptation responses will become less and less effective as temperatures go up and as sea levels go up. And so that adaptation gap is likely to grow. So we need to be paying particular attention to closing that gap and putting in place all of the different mechanisms, the scientific, institutional, capacity building mechanisms that enable us to close that gap, including finance. And on the emission reduction side, it actually again shows that there’s very substantial activity happening. So emissions on a year by year basis are several billion tonnes lower than what they would have been in the absence of mitigation activities. So there is good news there. But the bad news is that our emissions continue to go up. And so they’ve been record levels in the last couple of years. So a record post COVID and then last year was a record level as well. And that is driving up our greenhouse gas concentrations and driving climate change. The good news story, again in relation to emission reduction is the Synthesis report assesses that there are many, many different options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And roughly speaking, we could make a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions right now, with the technologies and institutional arrangements we have at relatively modest costs, so well below 100 USD and often in negative territory. So we actually might make money out of reducing emissions. And so again, it paints a picture of, yes, we know what to do, we know how to do it, we could be quite effective in doing it, but we’re not just doing it fast enough.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:13:08] Thank you, Professor Howden. Just want to take a step backwards and ask yourself and Pasha, how you played a role in putting this report together? I would like our audience to know, I mean both of you have played a significant role, but what role did you play in making sure that report came together? Can we just share with the audience your role in this regard? So I might get you going first Professor and then we will ask Pasha.

Professor Mark Howden [00:13:47] So thanks for that. So the Synthesis report is an unusual report in an IPCC cycle. So it’s actually the responsibility of the Chair to actually run the Synthesis Report. And as a Vice Chair, I actually sit under a working group. And so there’s a couple of layers between me and the Chair who actually runs the Synthesis Report. My role specifically in the Synthesis Report has been, I was involved in the scoping process. I was involved in developing some of the original ideas through that scoping process and the approval process. And then I was a Review Editor on the Summary for Policymakers for the Synthesis Report. And in the approval session I participated, including through, sort of trying to get contact groups and what we call huddles, which are small negotiations, effectively resolved so that the text could be locked in and we could progress with the report. So I had a range of different roles. Some of those were more on the scientific side and some were more in the sort of negotiating space.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:14:57] And in the role, did you find it difficult, you know, were there challenges on finding solutions? Were the negotiations that you have to play to get the text in place or was it smooth sailing?

Professor Mark Howden [00:15:12] Definitely not smooth sailing. So there were a couple of smooth patches. So there was one figure there, which was the sort of climate science figure which got through in record time. So there was actually no significant government comments about the figure. So it got approved very quickly and that was wonderful to see. However, for most other things, there was significant negotiation over the nature of the text and that, you know, ranged from relatively minor differences to very major differences in perspectives from different countries. And so particularly around things like finance and how finance was being treated in the Synthesis Report was one of those friction points.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:16:02] Yeah, I know it took over seven years to culminate to this report. So what was involving, you know, collecting the information and putting this report together over the seven years.

Professor Mark Howden [00:16:17] So the Synthesis report brings together the six other reports in the cycle. So there was three special reports. There was the 1.5 Degrees report, the Land report, the Oceans report, and then the three large assessment reports, the Climate Science, the Impacts and Adaptation and the Emission Reduction reports. And the Synthesis Report is aimed at bringing together the core messages from across those different six different reports and putting them into a more concise format. So, you know, more pithy, more condensed format and where possible, to actually do a Synthesis. So it’s actually bringing material in from those reports, those different reports, and splicing it together so that the sum is greater than the parts that are made.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:17:03] Pasha.

Pashsa Curruthers [00:17:05] Yes.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:17:07] Can I ask you to share your experience on your role in putting this report together?

Pashsa Curruthers [00:17:14] Well, I had a very small role, while relatively small. I was a Review Editor for just one key chapter. And in that chapter, I was a review editor, one of two. And it was very interesting. It was the chapter on International Cooperation in Working Group Three. I certainly didn’t have the breadth of experience that Dave did. But in the past I’d been a government expert review and some of those other roles when I was working for the government. But this time it was mostly looking at making sure that the comments from expert reviewers from governments were actually addressed properly in the preparation process of the chapter report. Lots of bedtime reading and lots of very obscure hour zoom conferences because there was over 20 chapters and 20 authors on that particular chapter and all in different time zones. And over a three year period we were going through the iterations of the chapter and having meetings where there was negotiations about what was in and what was out. And it was all very difficult during COVID and that actually delayed the overall report by, I think, at least one or two years. So my role was to report back on how the authors were considering each other, considering the material and considering the review into comments. I think it is safe to say that things were left out of the texts that were on the more on the controversial side. Even though lack of mitigation, lack of emissions reduction will definitely mean that severe loss and damages, particularly for Pacific Islanders and basically everybody around the world, but us being on the front lines. That linkage, even in the chapter on international cooperation, was very difficult to make. The way that some of the authors would have liked to have made it, and the way that some of the authors didn’t want to make it. So it was very interesting to see that process. And I guess my role was just to make sure that the comments that were coming in were recognised. I mean, there was a lot of comments on the scientific thing, proposals of new materials, which is another way that Pacific Islanders can get materials introduced, maybe even once the chapters are drafted. There was a lot, because there was a cut-off and then an extended cut-off for the literature to come in. So I think it was very important to see that process and I hope that in future, myself and other people with Pacific perspectives would be able to introduce more of the literature that’s coming out of the area. And on those areas that Dave talked about where the adaptation gap is growing there’s a need to look at new areas, which I’m sure we will turn to, such as marine transport mitigation, which hasn’t really been touched yet I don’t think, and other things like that.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:20:58] Sounds like a very thorough process for the integrity of the report. So very challenging work, because the world is looking at this report. Everyone is going to be reading this report. I remember, Professor Howden, when you were presenting on the impact of climate change for Kiribati. I remember you saying that the impact on freshwater will be severe, that small island states will have water security issues. Sea level rise. There would be much stronger cyclones. There will be increased wave energy. There will be increased storm surges. And my question is from this report, are those observations that you’ve made, are they going to be more severe or are they going to be more problematic for this part of the region?

Professor Mark Howden [00:22:14] Thanks, Henry. And just before I go into that, just your comment about how thorough this process is and following up on what Pasha said is that my assessment of this is the IPCC documents actually are the most reviewed documents in the history of humankind. If you actually look at the sort of levels of review by the science community, by governments, by others, and the fact that the summary for policymakers is approved word by word and line by line by the governments of the world, there is no equivalent in terms of the thoroughness which people actually trawl through this and make sure that, you know, all of the I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed. And so it is an extraordinary process that we’ve gone through and done which I think is really important to actually provide the best information we can to the policymakers that the report’s intended for. So when it comes to those extreme events and problematic sort of changes that you’ve just identified Henry, the core message coming from this report, I would say in relation to that is the more we understand the nature of climate change, the more concerned we should be about the consequences. Because the levels of impact keep on going up. They don’t come down with increased understanding, but also with increased greenhouse gas emissions. So we haven’t taken our foot off the accelerator in the last 20 years or so, like we’ve kept pretty much pushing down hard and so a combination of the fact that we’ve, you know, continued to generate more climate change and the fact that our understanding as we get into more depth, we see more and more problematic consequences of climate change, I think adds up to a worsening picture. And in particular, we in the IPCC, we have things called burning embers diagrams. They’re essentially risk diagrams. And just a couple of years ago, I put together an analysis of this, which included a historical assessment of how we assessed risk at different times so that the burning embers go back to the third assessment. So that’s, you know, close to 20 years ago. And so when we actually look at this is that across multiple IPCC reports our assessed risk at any temperature increases. So, you know, the red bars of those diagrams keep on coming further and further down. Right. And in fact, to the extent that we had to introduce a completely new category a few years ago, which was essentially the unmanageable and irreversible category of risk, which we previously didn’t have because the literature was actually now showing there were unmanageable and irreversible impacts of climate change. So when we actually look at that evolution of risk, it’s not only likely to get worse as climate change progresses, which of course is under our control, you know, we can go into a low emission scenario. But if we keep on a fairly high emission scenario, it’s also a factor that knowledge increases, and our levels of concern rise because our understanding has actually revealed new issues. And just one example of that, of course, is what’s going on with breakdown of the big ice sheets in both Greenland but also Antarctica. And they’re giving rise to further and further concerns because they’re happening quicker and quicker than we thought.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:25:49] So to reverse this trend, this trajectory that we are progressing toward, what should our world really be doing, what should the political leaders be doing now?

Professor Mark Howden [00:26:02] Reducing greenhouse gas emissions as fast as we can. It’s so very clear. There’s a very direct relationship between our emissions of greenhouse gases and temperature. And so the only way we can actually put a stop to increase temperature rise is by reducing our carbon dioxide levels to net zero and doing that very quickly and at the same time reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases to very substantially between 30 and 60% and so that’s the only way we can stop climate change and that’s the core thing. But in the process, of course, we’re already suffering climate change and we’re likely to suffer more regardless of how quickly we reduce emissions, which means we also at the same time have to adapt to climate change. So we have to chew gum and walk at the same time.

Professor Dave Peebles [00:26:54] For the latest analysis on climate, environmental, human and national security trends in our Blue Pacific region, you can read the PSC Blog at pacifcsecurity.net. Our contributors come from across the region and include policymakers, practitioners and academics. If you would like to contribute, get in contact with our team through our website.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:27:19] If I may, Henry, just following on Professor Howden from your comments, could I ask Pasha and also Professor Howden. 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Pacific has been very clear for a long time that for the survival of some states, certainly to keep adaptation to somewhat manageable levels a 1.5 degree target is really important. I think this latest report shows that 1.5 is going to be exceeded in the not too distant future. I would just be interested to hear from both of you what are the immediate realistic steps that could be taken to keep 1.5 degrees in sight? Perhaps, Pasha first, from your experience.

Pashsa Curruthers [00:28:13] I think it’s an interesting question for the Pacific, because one of the key sectors that we’re responsible for is transport. That’s really where you could say that our emissions come from and there are technologies out there that can help with that. And I think so we need to start getting and deploying all these technologies at scale that we already have in place. We do, as we said by Dave before, we do know largely what to do. There’s a lot of emphasis on carbon capture and storage. And coming from, I’d say, more developed countries. I mean, that’s something that would never even be possible to do anywhere in the Pacific, I don’t think, maybe in Australia if you consider that. So that’s not necessarily the solution right now, I think. It’s just basically deploying, scaling up what we already have as fast as possible and we’re still hoping, I think, as the Pacific region that we can do this in time to not exceed 1.5 by too much because it is already hard to cope with the impacts that we’re seeing right now. As you mentioned, two cyclones in a week in Vanuatu. It’s just a huge challenge that faces us. But at the same time, we cannot abandon the adaptation measures that we’re doing and what we’ve seen in the past is that choices made 15 or 20 years ago have longer-term commitments. When you’re doing infrastructure development, what you’re planning for the future. All of our 2050 development strategies really need to take into account climate change better still, and start to channel investment into the alternative technologies that can help and also put pressure on the world to take action, basically.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:30:39] Professor Howden, can I turn to you. Is 1.5 degrees still realistic? And if yes, what do we do?

Professor Mark Howden [00:30:46] Look, the way I’d put it is that there’s an extremely narrow pathway to two keeping to 1.5. And that’s both with extraordinarily rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, plus, we have to be on the lower end of the climate sensitivity sort of scale to actually keep to 1.5. What the report shows is, as you mentioned, David, is that we’re likely to get to 1.5 sometime in the early 2030s and maybe a little earlier than that and maybe a little later, unless we have very rapid and deep cuts, we’re going to exceed 1.5. The question is how much we exceed 1.5. Is it a very small and temporary, you know, exceedance, or is that a much longer term and more substantial? And that really depends on how much we reduce our emissions. So the Synthesis Report did actually provide an assessment of what those emission reductions look like. So for a 50/50 chance of staying to 1.5, we have to reduce our emissions by 43% against 2019 baseline by 2030 and a 60% reduction by 2035. And then going to net zero for carbon fairly quickly after that. So that’s what we have to do. And, you know, if you actually just reflect on the news over the last couple of days in Australia with the safeguard mechanism, yep, we’ve got we’ve started to have those sorts of emission reductions, that sort of degree and rate of emission reductions in that component of our emissions profile. But that’s only 30% of Australia’s emissions profile. So it leaves essentially 70%, you know, uncovered by that particular mechanism. So as Australia, as a, you know, an indicator, we’re not on track to meeting those 43% reductions against 2019 because our current commitments are against a 2005 baseline, which makes that an easy task. And so we do have to go harder if we’re to keep temperatures to 1.5.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:33:12] What do Pacific Islanders now need to do to prepare themselves? What steps should they do if we are in a situation where we won’t be able to meet this 1.5 degrees Celsius. What must Pacific Islands now prepare for going forward?

Professor Mark Howden [00:33:39] Yeah, it’s a really important question and one which I think Pasha is best placed as someone who lives in the islands. I can say what the science says and that is that, it’s really important to keep the pressure up to keep temperatures down as low as possible. So there’s a political and a moral sort of dimension to that. I mean, in terms of reducing emissions as Pasha has said, is that Pacific islands generally don’t produce a lot of the greenhouse gas emissions. And there are now emerging alternative options, much lower emission options for ocean based transport. And so those include sort of modern sailing ships, they include shifting to renewable methanol and possibly ammonia in some circumstances to reduce the footprint of shipping. As Pasha said, the likelihood of Pacific islands being substantial emission sinks for carbon sequestration is probably being overoptimistic. There’s probably some small scale activities there, but not to the extent of billions of tonnes that are needed to resolve this problem. So that’s on the emissions side. So just, you know, like everyone, I think just looking at our emissions profile and trying to push that down as much as possible. Secondly, by understanding the science and taking on board the science that prepares you for what sort of adaptation task is ahead so that that’s you know how to deal with the sea level rise which is accelerating. So sea level rise is going up faster and faster over time. And so we need to look at what the sea level rise scenarios are because they’re being updated on a fairly regular basis. And they also tend to be getting worse and worse over time. And looking at how climate change is likely to affect extreme events and similar things. So doing things, for example, like effective building codes and materials, so that you have houses which are able to survive a significant cyclone, ensuring that vulnerable villages close to sea level are actually, you know, relocated in some cases to better places and putting in place the sometimes the hard, you know, coastal protection that protects high value areas such as cities etc. Getting people aware of the things that they can do to protect themselves in the face of extreme events. And there’s a whole series of things there. Really important, though, to recognise that this is the task of all of us, you know, whether it’s emission reduction or adaptation. It’s not just about governments, nor is it just about individuals and communities. It actually should be a collaboration between different parts of our society working together in one direction.

Pashsa Curruthers [00:36:44] I wholeheartedly agree with everything that you just said. Currently I’m involved in a project at a subnational level looking at policies, and I just came back from a regional meeting in Palau of basically the sharing lessons learnt about efforts in scaling up adaptation in the Pacific. And that came through so clearly. I mean, sometimes it’s small, relatively inexpensive activities such as in Palau, they’ve had two huge benefits from setting up a community radio station which we got to go and do a site visit at, and that was very helpful in the last few extreme events around early warnings and also in response to things like vector borne disease outbreaks, just educating and doing that in local languages. I mean, that’s always so important. And sometimes with the IPCC, it’s very scientific, it’s a lot of jargon. And governments also have their own set of jargon. So it’s a matter of getting the awareness raising out into the local languages and carried by local champions. I think that’s also very important to help learn about what options are there. I think there’s a lot of room for cooperation between Pacific Islands. In terms of one example, water security. I’ve worked in two different regions, the North Pacific region and the South Pacific region, on slightly different water security projects. But the thing about water security is it has been an issue for atoll islands for the longest time because they don’t have very big aquifers and groundwater sources under the ground. And now that is under such threat because of sea level rise. So even their growing areas are under threat. But there are some technologies out there, such as desalinisation, but they’re very expensive, very difficult to maintain and run. And so right now, I would say the capacity isn’t there in a lot of more remote atolls. So what are they going to do about their water? For the moment it’s water tanks, but development partners don’t necessarily like water tanks and even communities because they have their own flaws and they only last about 15 to 20 years. So we’re going to have to think in the face of changing rainfall patterns in the face of saltwater intrusion into people’s groundwater. How are we going to sustain these solutions, even if they are shorter term solutions? How can we renew them and recycle them? And that’s going to happen across the Pacific. But what are some of the lessons being learnt? How can we share them and how can we just get things happening on the ground sooner rather than later so that we don’t face real tragedies, I think would be the word. There was a drought in the Marshall Islands around 2014. People actually died because they didn’t have access to fresh water in time and there was a combination of factors that contributed to that. And that’s in the 21st century. So you wouldn’t expect that to be happening so recently. There’s a lot of work to be done. And I just think it really needs to be done. And it’s good that we’re having these conversations and that the IPCC is bringing such attention to it. But I think until you’ve been to some of these places, maybe it’s very hard to imagine if you’re sitting in an air conditioned building somewhere, having, you know, not having any water issues that you know of yet.

Professor Mark Howden [00:40:48] Pasha raised a really important point, and that’s a translation of the often jargon loaded IPCC reports, and the very dense sort of information in products such as the IPCC reports into something that people can understand. And so in a fortnight’s time, we’re actually going to Nadi in Fiji. We’ve got a sort of a public event there and also a policy roundtable. And one of the things we’re launching there are the IPCC fact sheets. So these are fact sheets which actually simplify the IPCC into much more understandable language, and they are translated into five different languages which are appropriate across the Pacific. So we’re actually trying to do that translation both into simple language but also into the language that people actually use.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:41:34] Yes, because it’s a very complex scientific report. The average Pacific Islander wouldn’t really understand it unless it is explained in very simple terms for them to understand. I think that’s drawing us to the end. But I mean, just before we go to conclude, I want to ask you, what is the next step for the IPCC, you know, going forward with climate change. What’s next after this?

Professor Mark Howden [00:42:06]  I mean, for me, it’s continuing to brief people about what we’ve just done. So the Synthesis Report and the underlying material that supports that. And so that’s briefing governments and communities and others, including that Pacific event in a fortnight. But the next official IPCC event is the elections which happen in Kenya in the end of July. And so that’s the existing chair and co-chairs, etc.. they finish their term and there’s the elections for new chairs and co-chairs, etc.. So that’s the next big step.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:42:47] Well, thank you very much, Professor Howden, our friend from the Cook Islands, Pasha, for your insights and Professor Dave Peebles for your contributions to this conversation. I’d like to thank you all for joining me in this podcast, and to our audience for tuning in for another Pacific Wayfinder episode, your guide to navigating the crosscurrents of security in the Blue Pacific Continent. Malo. Thank you.

-END

Podcast EP 26

Title: Writing our own stories: Pacific Women in Security

Akka Rimon [00:00:55] Yuma, greetings and Hello, Olgeta. I wish to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land from which we broadcast today, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and also pay our respects to their eldest, past, present and emerging. Today, our security discussion is built on the recent celebration of International Women’s Day. Oftentimes we reflect on this event by sharing stories of success and achievements of women across our Blue Pacific Continent, but also bring to the table issues that we feel are seldom heard. This speaks to the diversity of our Pacific region and of the issues confronting our women today. We appreciate and celebrate these unique differences in a region and a world where difference is valued. I am delighted to welcome to the show today two brilliant women and academics here at the ANU who are also daughters of the Pacific. Dr Gemma Malungahu is a Tongan research fellow with the Department of Pacific Affairs. Her background is in health sciences, public health and qualitative research. She undertook her undergraduate studies and the majority of her postgraduate studies at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and completed her PhD in 2020 titled ‘Too Little Space’. And this, I understand, reflects the experiences and perspectives of housing and housing policy. Tongan families with rheumatic fever in South Auckland and also includes key housing informants. Her research findings supported earlier research that underlies the issue of systemic racism and essentialism that occurs within the socio-political sphere influencing poor decision-making processes. The findings led to the development of a policy framework called the Lolo Na‘ati. Am I saying that correctly Dr Gemma?

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:02:44] Yes, Lolo Na’ati.

Akka Rimon [00:02:48] Lolo Na’ati model to help improve the decision-making processes and addressing the rights of Pacific peoples to adequate housing and aiming to improve the overall health and well-being of Pacific peoples in North New Zealand and the diaspora in general. Dr Gemma, Welcome to the Pacific Wayfinder.

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:03:06] Well, a very comprehensive introduction. Mālō. Yeah, very happy to be here. Thank you for having me.

Akka Rimon [00:03:14] And I am also delighted to welcome today Dr Theresa Meki, another Pacific Research Fellow with the Department of Pacific Affairs and Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific. Theresa completed a PhD with the Department of Pacific Affairs last year. Her research focuses on women’s presence and vote share in Papua New Guinea’s election history. She is interested in elections and women’s political representation in Melanesia more broadly. Prior to commencing her candidature with DPA, Theresa worked as a field producer and research assistant for the DFAT-funded, Pawa Meri film project, a partnership between the Victoria University of Melbourne and Melbourne and the University of Goroka in Papua New Guinea. Dr Theresa, a warm welcome to you also.

Dr Theresa Meki [00:04:00] Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Akka Rimon [00:04:03] Okay, so to kick start our Maroro, as we say in Kiribati, our dialogue or conversation, allow me very quickly to acknowledge the rich backgrounds that you’ve both come from. Dr Gemma with your work in health sciences and qualitative research and Dr Theresa in politics and vote share in Papua New Guinea, these are two distinct areas critical for development and security in our Blue Pacific home, from the lens of your research work. My first question is what is the distinct role that you see women play in national security, in particular, their traditional roles and their contributions to policymaking in the Pacific?

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:04:43] Yeah. Would you like to go first, Theresa?

Dr Theresa Meki [00:04:45] Oh, no, you first.

Akka Rimon [00:04:47] Whoever feels comfortable.

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:04:48] It’s a very beautiful question and an important one, as we are all aware usually national security is defined from the traditional perspective of, the importance of military and defence. And as we know and the Pacific, security means a lot more and a lot more than that. It’s a lot broader and a lot more deeper. And it’s connected to who we are as a people. In terms of the role of Pacific women in the context of national security. I feel that as strong and resilient Pacific women we bring to the table very important perspectives aligned with the importance of resilience. As you all know, the Pacific is a very diverse region, both culturally and linguistically, but also ethnically as well. And so, of course, women come from all walks of life across the Pacific and have very different views of what security means to them, not only as individual, powerful women within their own families, but also what it means to them in a village and in a community as well. And so with those perspectives, I think women have the opportunity to be able to voice their views at a more, not only a national level, but also at a, at a more village level, as well as a province or a district level in the context of PNG. To be able to have a say about the safety of women, as we know, there’s high rates of violence, high rates of abuse not only physically and sexually, but also the emotional and psychological issues of poor mental health. And that was increasing and through anecdotal evidence, we know that mental health issues had increased during COVID. And so, looking at that, there are all those aspects of what security means and the safety of all Pacific women within the village. And I know that and I feel that women can bring a lot to the table in terms of discussions about, ensuring that we incorporate that aspect of security in itself.

Akka Rimon [00:07:18] Thank you very much. I really like how you set the tone, opening the discussion on this. Right. Looking at security, not in traditional sense, but in the Pacific lens, through the Pacific lens, rather, and understanding it from all the diversity that you mentioned and then slowly pulling in back women, which is, the focus of today’s discussion. I would want to invite you, Theresa, to also contribute to that.

Dr Theresa Meki [00:07:45]  Thank you. So for the aspect or the angle that I’m coming from with women in politics, we in the Pacific fare very poorly compared to the rest of the world. It’s not that we don’t have agency, a lot of women in the Pacific. I feel that since, missionisation and colonization, that traditional agency that women had to, be influential in the decision-making that affected their family or their clan or their tribe through their husbands or their uncles or their spouses, whatever network they had got lost along the process. And the last couple of decades has been for women to fight, to get back into that space. So women have always been there, the 50% of the community, all the decisions about safety and food and security and well-being of the people come through them. They filter what their family eats. They decide where to plant things. They have agency and decision-making about, feasts and celebrations and all these aspects of a livelihood and a society that’s thriving. But I feel that they’ve kind of been demarcated to a certain space. So women still have agency and have a voice, probably in the local setting or in the village or in the home or in these confines. But it does not mean they don’t have anything to say or can’t contribute because they’re always there. It just seems that they’re more in the background. And the whole journey of trying to get women in parliament is to bring their experience and their lived experiences and all of that, what they have to the fore so that they can influence policy and have their say at the table. That’s a struggle at the national level we still go through. But that does not mean that at the local level in the village where a lot of our communities still live, women still have a lot of impacts and say in the spaces where they occupy.

Akka Rimon [00:09:34] Wow. Brilliant. Yes. So thank you for sharing that perspective from your research lens.

Akka Rimon [00:10:18] And just building on that question and discussion we just had, how do you see the role of women in the context of climate adaptation?

Dr Theresa Meki [00:10:27] Well, I’ll just continue since I was talking previously. So when it comes to women and how before getting into climate adaptation, how climate change affects them. So the women, and I speak as a Highlander or someone from Papua New Guinea, when I go to the market, the majority of the people are women. They’re the ones selling their produce. That means that they’re the ones in that gardens as well. And I know their husbands and male partners also play a big role in doing that. But it’s not what you see when you go to the market. You see the women at the forefront of, this very important cash economy and livelihood. Now, when something like a drought happens or when there’s rain continuously, when seasons are out of sync, as we’ve been experiencing, that means, corn might not be growing at the time it should be or certain vegetables and fruit. And it’s the women who have to navigate that. So what’s the backup crop? And I’m just thinking, really, right down to the village level, what kind of food do I get to feed my family? What can I find that’s nutritious enough to get us to the next stage, whether that crop will come to harvest? , so these types of decisions they’re making all the time. So we just have to listen and get out there and listen to how they’re navigating in their livelihoods, day-to-day decisions that they’re making. Because, we talk about big things and fields, but a lot of people in the Pacific still live in this. , they’re still farmers. That’s how they survive. And I think that they’re navigating all the time. We just have to pay attention and document their stories and put it out there because it can impact people that are making decisions to look and, take into account.

Akka Rimon [00:12:07] Thank you. Thank you for that. Yep. And so there are a lot of best practices that women can teach us, right? Sometimes we’re reflected in a negative light, right? The Pacific that’s suffering all the time, and victims all the time. And then you’re telling us now women have been there for hundreds of years, adapting to these changes all the time and being resilient.

Dr Theresa Meki [00:12:29] Yeah, just to give a little anecdote. So my mum, she’s a Kafe lady. She comes from the Eastern Highlands and she was telling me how in times of drought with the banana plant, they actually eat the root of it. They peel it off and there’s a way of cooking it because that’s the thing that will last longer. So the banana itself might not be growing, but it’s right at the bottom where it’s edible. And like, that’s not common knowledge, that’s not sold in stores.

Akka Rimon [00:12:56] And I’m hoping that we are documenting this information because they’re absolutely critical for the future generation. Yeah, I just hope that they get more reflected in some of the policies, some of their preparation methods. Dr Gemma, did you want to add to that on climate change?

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:13:13] I think that’s an important aspect that both of you have touched on, looking back and learning from our traditional ways of knowing and being and doing and using that to help navigate the present, but also moving forward into the future when it comes to adapting to issues of climate change. That was a beautiful quote that you had shared with us from your mother, about how they used to use, those traditional ways of knowing about the plant to help us with surviving today. And, it reminds me of, like, the important notion of Mana where, like going back to, all important historical but very rich cultural knowledge systems about, the sacred, our sacred ways of living and also the power that comes of that. And I know that a lot of literature that talks about climate adaptation talks about the scientific and more technological aspects of how we could adapt to climate change. But actually we’re really missing the essence of who we are as a peoples. Our cultural identity, which is usually always lost from generation to generation. But like you mentioned, it’s about, reminding ourselves of who we are and using that to help us navigate, and of course, help us influence how we can adapt to climate change. So I think that’s the power of where we are as Pacific women. We can really contribute to these discussions not only at the academic level but also on the ground as well.

Akka Rimon [00:14:56] Thank you so much. Yep. I’m really liking the way that we’re going with the conversation. Ladies, thank you so much. And I want to go on to the third question, which is on the powerful theme of International Women’s Day, which is embracing equity. And how do you see this applied in terms of, and I’ll pull away from the national security discussion. How do you see embracing equity in the context of academia? And why do you think it’s important for us to increase our Pacific women numbers in academia? Also, in thinking about your responses, consider the women and girls that are watching today. And why would you encourage them to join the space where you’re in the same leadership roles that you’re in?

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:15:47] It’s a big question.

Dr Theresa Meki [00:15:48] Big question. I don’t regard myself as a leader. But for women to be in academia, I think it’s very important for Pacific Island girls to get their voices out there. And, speaking and sharing is one thing, but writing is also very important in publishing. And when we get to the stage of, there’s. Who gets the privilege of getting their work, becomes policy is another conversation. But for right now, it’s important for us to document our narratives, all lived, and experience all of that so that it’s there for the next person coming up to pull from these resources. But yeah, I think that’s important. In the Pacific for so long, we’ve had our history documented by colonizers and outsiders, And we need to write our own stories. That’s really important. Yeah, that’s, that’s what I do, I try to do that as well. I’m not as writing as much as I should be, but that’s the challenge that I set for myself that I need to document because my unique lived experience and what I bring to the table, they matter and they’re important, and they can influence some policy down the line. I don’t know just yet, but it’s important for me to write.

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:17:31] Yeah, I completely agree with what you said, Theresa. And to add to that, when I think about equity, I think about the importance of levelling the playing field between the Pacific and the Pacific. And, and so like I know, in the diaspora, we see that there are, higher rates of non-Pacific women and girls who have the qualification and have access to education, tertiary university and so forth, and have the means to be able to access that. Of course, we know that for the Pacific it is at a lower rate, not only in the Pacific, in the diaspora, but also for our young women and girls in the Pacific region. There’s there’s less of an opportunity to be able to access, things like scholarships or the resources or the means to be able to access education in order to get into the academic space. So for me, when I’m thinking about, that embracing equity aspect, it’s about, making sure that there’s an increased opportunity, increase resources available so that all young Pacific women or young Pacific girls actually can have that option, have that as an option, of course, to have an option in their mind. But when it comes to the actual logistics, the actual resources, the actual funding, I feel that we can do better to make that an actual viable option for them to take once we’re an academic academia as well. The retention rates for our Pacific in general is much lower than non-Pacific. So making sure that, when we have an increase of Pacific scholars or academics within the institution of course we know that there’s greater support to help our Pacific girls, help Pacific women, provide that empowerment that support that they can if I can do it, you can do it, too. And so, like, it’s a sharing the success, but also taking people with you, As for Theresa and me, being doctors at the Department of Pacific Affairs, we see our success not as individuals, but we see it as a success of our family, our village, but also like bringing with us people that we can also elevate and take along in the journey. And that, that’s important. I know that there has been anecdotal evidence through our own connections where it’s sad to see that some women put down other women, particularly in the Pacific. And what we want to do and what we want to see is that we help support each other and empower each other to climb not only the academic ladder, but also every other ladder, socio-economics, finances and so forth. And so it’s about celebrating each other, supporting each other, being successful and nurturing each other, to flourish. Because if we’re not going to help support each other, then who is, and so I’m not saying this to put people down, but it’s I think it’s an important message that we ought to share with the future generation.

Dr Theresa Meki [00:21:09] Can I just add to your thinking that you just reminded me of, I don’t want to use that term. People use it a lot, but, mentorship. So what I do is make a concerted effort to be because I have friends who are in their seventies, women in their sixties, fifties, forties, and then I have a friend who’s like 16, 15, 20, so like have vertical friendships rather than just being with your peers. And in that way, you’re indirectly mentoring them by just listening to them, telling them about, your day, their day. You learn so much by engaging with younger people and with older people. So if there’s one encouragement that I’d like to leave out there, intentionally seek out a younger person and an older person and befriend them, just be a part of their lives. And that’s, you can learn a lot, and you can give a lot because you have a lot to give. And that happens through genuine friendships. Sometimes we put them in mentorship, and it becomes this thing where you have to be thinking about their careers and how to guide them in that way. But people learn on their own, and sometimes they just need someone to bounce ideas off with. And I think it’s important to have those vertical friendships. I’ve mentioned that in other spaces, but because we’re on record, I thought I’d say that.

Akka Rimon [00:22:21] It’s extremely important, and I really value the discussion. Ladies, I guess for me, the big takeaway from what you just gave me is accessing, providing access for Pacific women empowerment. These are really very powerful themes, right? We want to empower them to also grow like everyone else. But I want also to acknowledge the trailblazing women of the Pacific who entered the field and provided the way for us. And look at you. You’ve also joined that. Aside from stories of women breaking ceilings and breaking barriers, what are the leading issues of concern for Pacific women and girls that we need to focus more work on?

Dr Theresa Meki [00:23:31] I think a big issue that’s happening that more attention needs to be placed on is violence against women and just the threat to their safety. There’s such a stark difference to say, walking around in Port Moresby or somewhere and then walking around in Canberra. That really brings to light the issue of safety, like when you’re here, you don’t have that consciousness or awareness that, I need to hold my bag closely or that someone’s kept calling me or, you don’t feel fearful. And it’s such a great, liberating feeling to walk from the bus stop at 10 p.m., which you can never do back home in your country. Right. So it would be lovely and great if we could create that type of environment. And that’s not just a women’s thing. That’s a whole nation-society thing. We need to build safe places for our girl children, our young boys to walk around freely from school and back and forth and not feel like someone’s going to roll up and pick them up or they’re going to get bullied or just I really worry about the safety of how it is that how stark it is between our society and the West. And there’s a lot that needs to be done in that space. And it’s across all sectors, but that’s something that I worry about. I recently became an aunt, so I’m always thinking about the safety of my niece and nephew. I’m like, Oh, what’s it like? And are they going to go to school, or do we need to pick them up or, does just that whole thing plays in your mind when you experience different stages of life? These things can become more pronounced in your space of thinking. And that’s one thing that I’ve realized more now than before.

Akka Rimon [00:25:12] Thank you for that. Dr Theresa. I echo that sentiment. I also would want a world that’s safe for our children to roam around without having to feel threatened, about their security. You’re so right in bringing that up. Dr Gemma?

Dr Gemma Malungahu [00:25:30] I guess one aspect of safety that I would like to add to the discussion is, and might not necessarily be the leading issue, but it is an important issue nonetheless, is the importance of cultural safety. And it was a, I guess a concept that was coined by Irihapeti Ramsden from New Zealand, and it concerns the importance of both Pacific but also non-Pacific peoples being able to have that critical consciousness and being able to understand their own implicit biases and then how that actually influences the interaction with other people. So this might not necessarily be a key issue for women, Pacific women or Pacific girls per se, but it is an issue across the board, across the board for all the Pacific. And I know that, of course, I have my own implicit biases, too, as a Pacific woman. But like, whether or not that leads to true mental interaction with others, I know that. And here within the academic space, just taking it back, a lot of the time when I was going into university, when I was taking classes, if the lecturer was non-Pacific and would provide examples that were non-Pacific and Eurocentric and very aligned with that of the Western paradigm and ideal, I felt less than, my self-worth was lowered because I couldn’t relate to that particular lecture or that class. And so I would be less likely to want to study for that because I couldn’t relate to that. And so that is an example of poor aspects of cultural safety that have been practised, you’re teaching in a university where there is a number of Pacific students and so, therefore, being able to apply that in the class itself is important. And so making people feel safe in their own identity and their own culture so that they could thrive and also flourish and survive, and that academic space or whatever space it is that we might find our young Pacific women and girls, or even just of boys and men. And it’s not any secluded to the academic space, it’s across the board. Whatever field. Even in the workspace, too, Right? And so making sure that there’s equity. Or like the way that your supervisor or your boss treats, different people within that job. So it’s important, like sorry to take it to the student aspect, but I feel like it’s an important one that is always or sometimes overlooked, particularly, maybe in academia and so forth. And so that’s just adding to that previous question that we talked about in terms of, the academic space and empowering and ensuring that there is access. So yeah, this physical access into the institution, but it’s also that continual access in terms of being seen and being able to have that opportunity to have your voice listened to or heard from people of colour, particularly the at the institutional level, the higher up level. Making sure that there is  space for us.

Akka Rimon [00:29:43] Thank you very much Ladies, and I really like that we ended on that cultural note. We started off with concerns about the risk of safety that women face, domestic violence, and the list goes on. And then we come back to the role that cultural identity and cultural security plays. And I think that’s very powerful because in our Pacific communities, we have our own traditional practices that I want to I just want to comment on one from Kiribati, curfews where we by 6:00PM in every village, a village gets together for devotion and nobody goes around the village. Right. And this is something that I feel is now being threatened as we become an increasingly globalized community. And I feel that with the introduction of TV mobiles and a lot of, technologies, these cultural aspects are slowly fading from here. So it’s good that we sort of end and wrap up the discussion around that. We need to include more women in academia, get our voices out there, as you say Theresa, very powerfully, it’s about writing our own stories and motivating and empowering our own people, and especially young women and girls. That wraps up our conversation today. We have come to the end of our podcast, but what an enthusiastic conversation that was. I really enjoyed it, and I hope you did too. I want to close by saying thank you to our guests. You have been very generous in sharing your time, but also your wisdom with us. And on behalf of the Pacific Wayfinder, I want to wish you well in your endeavours, in your work, and in all that you do for our Pacific region. Thank you.

Podcast EP 25

Title: Unpacking the Pacific Security Outlook Report

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:00:07] Avinun Olgeta and warm Pacific Greetings. My name is Henry Ivarature, and welcome to another episode of The Pacific Wayfinder podcast brought to you by the Pacific Security College. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat released a Regional Security Outlook 2022 to 2023, forecasting key security challenges facing the region over the coming 12 months, including a projection of the Boe Declaration Action plan, key areas which are climate, natural disasters, gender-based violence, illegal fishing, cybercrime and transnational organised crime.

The report also details new trends underpinning the region’s responses to those sustained challenges, including the impact of COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global price increases and inflationary pressure. But before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we broadcast from today the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people and pay respect to their eldest, past, present and emerging.

Today I am joined by my new co-host, Akka Rimon, co-host of the Pacific Wayfinder and a fellow Pacific Islander. Akka.

Akka Rimon [00:02:04]  Mauri Henry. Thank you for having me.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:02:06] You’re welcome. Jay Caldwell, Deputy Director

Jay Caldwell [00:02:12] Henry, thank you very much for having me. And it’s good to be here with my partner in crime who lives in the office next door to me as well. Looking forward to the conversation.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:02:20] And I’m very, very pleased to introduce our new director, Professor Dave Peebles.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:02:28] Hello, Henry. And a big hello to my Pacific brothers and sisters.

It’s great to be here and what an honor to be here on my first podcast with three such fine, wonderful people. Very pleased indeed.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:02:39] So can I ask each one of you to just, you know, especially Dave, now that you’ve taken on this role, our speakers out there and our stakeholders need to know who you are. So could you please just let our stakeholders know a bit about yourself?

Prof Dave Peebles [00:02:58] Thanks very much, Henry.

And I must say I’m getting a bit old because I’ve been studying the Pacific, living in the Pacific, working on Pacific issues for almost 30 years now. So really this has been the thing that I’ve been most passionate about for most of my life, other than my wife and children. I’m very passionate about them as well, of course, But the happiest time we had as a family was living in the Pacific. And I always said that there was nowhere else in the world that I wanted to be raising my children over that period because of those, you know, really strong Pacific values of everyone looking out for everyone else. And that really strong sense of community and also the wonderful connection to the ocean as well. So the Pacific has a very special place in my heart, but also in the heart of my family as well. So to go back many, many years,

I started my undergraduate studies on the Pacific and that then led to a PhD where I looked at Australia’s role in the Pacific and also the Pacific Islands Forum and the future of the Pacific Islands Forum. So that was a lot of fun and really interesting and that led to a position with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So for many years I was able to work as an Australian diplomat and that took me to many parts of the region and allowed mento work on many interesting issues. I most recently was working on climate change and the Pacific Islands Forum and overall strategy on the Pacific. So that was all good fun. But I’ve also lived in Solomon Islands for four years, been a peace monitor in Bougainville, and while we were living in Solomon Islands, my wife also had a special role. She was the only female special coordinator of the RAMSI, Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. So it really is a whole of family commitment in our house to the Pacific. But I’m really delighted and honored to have this position at the Pacific Security College. I’m here as a servant of our Pacific brothers and sisters, the college is here as a servant of our Pacific brothers and sisters, and really looking forward to working with the many, many people who are passionate about the future of the Blue Pacific Continent in coming years. Thanks very much Henry.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:05:22] Dave. When you wrote about the future of the Forum at the time, did you think or imagine that the forum would be as it would be today, plagued by all the challenges that it is facing?

Prof Dave Peebles [00:05:42] It’s a really great question, Henry. I always saw the potential of the Pacific Islands Forum to play a really critical role in bringing the region together and confronting the challenges, but also the opportunities before the region as well. I was writing my PhD, which became my book in the early 2000s so the set of issues we had in the early 2000s aren’t the same as the issues in the 2020s. I think climate change was emerging as an issue and the Forum was already talking about it. But obviously now we far, far better appreciate what an existential threat it is for the Blue Pacific Continent and how it is the greatest security threat. So it would be difficult to imagine all those challenges. But I did have the strong belief that back then, which continues today, that the Pacific Islands Forum is where the region comes together and speaks as a united voice to the rest of the world. And that’s a really powerful thing indeed. So no one can quite predict the future. But I did see the importance of the key regional institution body for the future of all of us.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:06:54] Thank you, Dave. My next question is for Akka as a PhD student and who’s living in a period of this change that’s happening in the issues that are evolving and her at work on climate and all that, how do you foresee climate as an issue that may drive the agenda of the Forum going forward?

Akka Rimon [00:07:22] Thank you, Henry. It’s something that for me calls for moral leadership. It’s a time for the world to be united. The regional architecture, particularly not only to be present, but to be working. Is it delivering on the needs and priorities of the region, thinking about how does it ensure safety and security of the rest of their lives?

Jay Caldwell [00:07:47] Can I ask Akka a follow up question their? Akka in terms of the you know, there’s that responsibility, too, to be able to drive the safety and security of the region. Do you think the Forum is actually playing that role in terms of the efforts that have been made thus far? Do you think that the Pacific is in a stronger place because of the work of the Forum? At this point?

Akka Rimon [00:08:09] It’s plays a very critical role. Never have we undermined the role of a regional architecture to deliver on priorities like climate change, but we’re talking about an era where we are confronted by not just one issue, we’re talking about climate change, but a multifaceted other issues climate, human displacement, inflation. You spoke about Ukraine, invasion of Ukraine and I think for me personally, I would like to see that the Forum delivers much stronger in terms of providing connection to the grassroots, because we have in front of us today a report that I think is brilliant outlining a map of how we should address security. And before I even read it, I’m thinking I’ll understand this, but how do people on the frontline or in the grassroots interpret that? Are we translating enough in terms of how much we want them to also be aware.

Pacific Security College [00:09:18] The Pacific Security College aims to strengthen capacity collaborations and policy making for a stronger Pacific security. You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn and find our library of research, blogs, podcasts and videos on our website pacificsecurity.net Our Podcast, The Pacific Wayfinder, brings together leading voices on our shared security challenges. Stay up to date on the latest thinking on Pacific Security and subscribe to The Pacific Wayfinder wherever you get your podcasts.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:09:54] That’s a very important observation, and that’s, I think, the challenge that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat would have to absorb and try to educate the region, particularly the people who see security in a different light. And now with those introductory commentary, I’d like to not take us forward to some of those questions that we would like to address about this report that’s before us or that has been released by the Forum Secretariat and I think the first question is open to anyone of you who is keen to answer it, but the question reads, what is unique. And Akka you have already mentioned something here so we can get back to that But what is unique about this report compared to previous security outlooks for the region, what is really unique about this report?

Jay Caldwell [00:10:55] Can I jump in there for start?

Henry and then we can come to one  of those things But I think one of the things that’s really interesting about this report is that it’s actually active and out in the public domain. So the Forum has a real role in bringing together a consolidated security picture for members in a range of forums, particularly in transnational crime. But this kind of security outlook, in my understanding and you can correct me if I’m wrong Henry here, but hasn’t actually been in the public domain. And I know even in its development during 2022 in terms of forming a security picture, the initial thought was that it would be for members consideration, you know, internally, because basically this is analysis, this is a consideration of what are the core security risks at the national and the regional level that the region needs to address. And I think one of the striking things is this does some of that function that Dave was speaking to in terms of the strength of the Forum, in terms of speaking for the region to the world, we’ve talked about how that everyone has an interest in Pacific security. It’s not only owned by those in the Pacific themselves. And this is a real opportunity to frame the Pacific security risks in a Pacific voice so that it’s owned from a regional level. I think Akka brought up a really good question. It might speak out well, does it necessarily speak to the community or you know, we might be asking a lot there. But I think it’s really important that this is actually in some ways some of the best expression of the Forum in terms of shaping the environment for the type of engagement that’s the priority of Pacific Island peoples.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:12:36] Dave do you have any thoughts about that?

Prof Dave Peebles [00:12:39] Look. Henry, I just want to agree with my wise

colleagues here.  I mean, really, that’s good. But I think a lot of good points here. And I think the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat is really to be congratulated for this report. I think over many, many years now, but most particularly with the Boe Decleration and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, the Forum and its leaders on behalf of their peoples has had this very sophisticated approach to security. It’s not one thing or the other thing. It’s all elements of traditional, nontraditional security issues are all brought together. And I think that’s that’s a really important point. I think the many things I like

about this particular report is the detailed analysis of that sophisticated approach to security. But what I’d really commend to all the listeners is having a look at the two year projections. I think that’s really important that the report provides this analysis of what’s going on, but also looks forward and it’s not all grim in the area of illegal, unregulated, and under-reported fishing,for instance. New technologies mean that the story of the next couple of years is probably pretty positive in terms of picking that up. Other places, it’s more grim. Obviously, the climate change situation is getting grimmer. So I think those two year projections are really quite important as well. And just a follow on from some of Akka’s earlier points. I do think that when the Forum has spoken with a united voice on the world stage, the way that it’s been able to influence thinking and negotiations on climate change has been really important. So I think what’s going to be interesting over coming years is for Forum members. I think the more they put into the Forum, the more effective and powerful the Forum will be. So that’s going to be an interesting conversation across the region in coming years. I think.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:14:42] Yes, please Akka.

Akka Rimon [00:14:43] I just want to go back to what I said about the Forum being able to translate this. And I want to say that I do acknowledge I’m sure there’s a lot of communication strategies in place to translate the document to other languages of the member countries. So I want to note that I just guess I want to reinforce that it’s important for such a vital, vital document to reach down to the communities. Now, if you allow me, Henry, to also add to what I find unique to the document, I think it’s a timing, the timing of the document. If there’s any time that it has to be launched now, is it because of the geopolitics. I think there’s a lot of competition going around in the region and it’s important that this document came out at a time that speaks to the Pacific countries mandate Pacific countries interests to see this is what we want and this is what we see. So no better way to put it. I think it’s all said in the in the document.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:15:45] Sort of like the Forum now setting the regional narrative for the security conversation that should be taking place that they want their people to focus on, to let others know that these are the security areas that are important to us. You know, this is a geopolitical security conversation that’s happening in the Indo-Pacific, conversation that’s happening. And I think this is where perhaps the region now says these our central security issues beyond what the conversation is out there. So yes it’s, really a very valid point now. Well, let’s move on and ask a second question. And I think some of these might have already come out from Dave, your conversation. What are the emerging trends we ought to be paying more attention to? So the report is out there,  but what are the emerging trends that we should pay more attention to? Extra attention to that might have probably escaped the perimeter or the remit of this Outlook report?

Prof Dave Peebles [00:16:57] I can kick off Henry, and I’m sure we’ll have more wisdom from Akka and Jay as well.I think because the report is holistic in the approach to security. I think one of the interesting issues that came out for me from the report was just the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in terms of the impact on inflation in Pacific Forum Island country members. And I think also the related issue of what that means for food security as well. So I think there’s the headline points that you would want and expect to see from a report like this on on the climate change challenge in its own right. But also the sophisticated analysis the report makes in terms of the linkages between climate change and a whole lot of other issues, what it means for greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters and responding to those. But I really liked how the report tracks through a few issues. Well, Russia-Ukraine conflict inflation in Forum island countries, food security issues for the peoples of the Pacific. So I think there’s a lot there that I really commend to the listeners.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:18:15] Jay would add anything to Dave’s thoughts?

Jay Caldwell [00:18:19] Yeah, and I like that point about connectedness. So issues of connectedness and I think that’s probably something that threads right through the document that actually there’s a real attempt to grapple with that complexity of, of a whole of security picture, which is really complicated to grapple with. And telling some of those key stories is really helpful. I think probably in terms of image, I actually think that the the documents self has does an excellent job in terms of covering the waterfront, in terms of the issues that are core, probably one that’s threaded through there and not really brought out is the challenges around sort of information disorder. And again, this isn’t unique to the Pacific. All countries and regions are having to face that. But we’ve got a really challenging information environment and in terms of providing certainty for people and providing direction and coherence within our countries and within the region, it’s a really challenging thing to do. Again, some of this ties back, as was flagged in the report to the  sort of the Russia-Ukraine crisis in a more permissive environment and techniques of information manipulation that are more exposed and being used. But like we saw during COVID, it’s not just about the big strategic risks here. It’s about the impact that comes through in our community. And we saw the vaccine hesitancy and the the sort of, I guess, the clumping of grievance issues that had such marked effects and that spelled out in the report as well. And there are real challenges for government trying to grapple with that. How do you talk the truth to your community in a really disordered information environment?

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:20:03] Something that just emerged very recently and that may have probably implications for the consideration of security in this part of the region is the the China balloonthat flew over the US. And there are reports or that such kind of sightings have been seen across the Pacific and that escapes this part of the report and may have implications going into the future and how Island People look at such incident in terms of its resources.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:20:57] I think it brings home that, as the report discusses, even though it doesn’t get into that specific issue. But I think the incident with the the balloons does highlight we are in this new era of strategic competition rather than cooperation, and that is going to have a lot of implications for the evolution of the region, the evolution of security issues in the region and strategic competition is an enormous issue. Climate change is an enormous issue. So the Pacific Islands Forum and its members are really have all of this in front of them. So some of the most challenging issues in human history at the moment, I think in terms of the the balloon issue, what’s interesting to me is that we’re not talking about, you know, a kid’s birthday party balloon. I mean, I understand just from the media reports that, you know, the balloons the size of a bus. And so there’s a safety issue if if nothing else, it’s it’s not like you and I are sort of setting off a balloon outside the the ANU tomorrow. Henry but I think it is just yet another manifestation of this this strategic competition era and and just the need for the Pacific Islands Forum members to come together and approach these issues from a position of strength and common interest. But Akka?

Akka Rimon [00:22:26] But let me just add onto that Dave and  I want to acknowledge just how borderless the world is. And when we speak, when I heard about it, I said, well, the world is becoming anyone can undermine somebody else’s sovereignty, whether it’s a balloon or a submarine in the sea. But it makes me feel also that what I said earlier about the timing of the the report coming out is also a realisation that as a region, we are connected to the rest of the world and whatever impacts and you said it at the beginning, Ukraine invasion is going to affect us one way or another, whether we like it or not.

Jay Caldwell [00:23:08] I think one of the interesting things that is in the report there, that kind of parts of the balloons, an example of is that point about information sovereignty and the sovereignty of of the countries over their own data and core information. And that is actually reflected in the document and particularly in the area of maritime domain awareness. And it was really striking actually, in the report to see that there had been five state based offers and 11 corporate offers of maritime domain awareness platforms for the region. Everyone’s coming with their kitbag to the region, but it’s a question of then who will own that data? What does that mean in terms of sovereignty over that data for Pacific countries? So while they might not be wrestling with balloons yet, Henry, they’re certainly kind of approaching it in particularly in turn in regard to maritime domain awareness and making sure that there is Pacific ownership of that data. That’s cool.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:24:05] And I suppose also the capacity capacity of Pacific Islanders to use that information, sustain it over the long term, resource it, and continue to grow it in often things that come true. You know, they lose their notice and then go out of fashion, not fund it, or sustain it. So we have to also think about making sure that our governments have the ability, Pacific governments have the ability to resource it, to sustain it and harvest utility that it provides. That leads us to this second or third question. How does this report, if at all, shift current thinking about Pacific security to regional architecture and our role in it, and PSC’s role in it? Can I throw it to Jay. Sorry, Dave, I have to pass this ball over to Jay

Prof Dave Peebles [00:25:10] Henry, I think he’s a wise man.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:25:17] It’s a clean ball.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:25:18] That’s right. That’s right. That’s right.

He’ll have wise things to say. So I must say, Henry, I just did enjoy listening to the sound of your voice. So I think you were born for radio? Yeah. I think people are going to hear this and sort of try to recruit you to radio stations. So I hope you enjoy working at the College.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:25:36] Well, Dave, as a student at Victoria University in New Zealand, many years ago, I used to go down and read the news. Well, I had to transcribe the news from English to Tok Pisin and Police Motu and I had read the news within 5 minutes flat both in Tok Pisin and it switched to Hiri Motuto speak in two languages in five minutes flat as a radio announcer. Nice to do that every Friday. Yes, but it’s just that I didn’t pursue that career.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:26:08] But it was it was a viable career.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:26:10] Yes.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:26:11] So this is taking you back.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:26:12] And at the end of the 10 minutes or so,

you went out and your cheque was already printed. You just went and cashed it off.Maccas on a Friday afternoon.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:26:24] Oh, that’s good.

Jay Caldwell [00:26:25] Well, don’t take up any radio offers now.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:26:29 I just want to say for our listeners, there’s no cheque for us at the end of this podcast. Jay, please save us.

Jay Caldwell [00:26:41]  But so you were talking about the current shift in terms of what does this reportdo. And our role?  I guess. Well, I might leave the role to Dave but I think and a little bit builds off Akka’s point about the timeliness of the report. So we are in a real period of architecture change and have a need for architecture change in the Pacific. So last year and correct me on the wording, Henry,  But the leaders call for a flexible mechanism to engage with issues of security in the region.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:27:09] Was it flexible or robust? One of those.

Jay Caldwell [00:27:12] One of those two, one of those two, maybe actually it might have been both, actually. And so I think if we’re going to go into this period of architecture change, it’s really important to know is what are the purposes we’re actually trying to achieve, what are the risks we’re actually trying to address. And this provides us something of a baseline for this period of time for the conversation, it baselines the conversation that leaders will have throughout the year. So we know that we’re going into a special leaders meeting in the near period, and that’s about the sort of largely about the reestablishment around regionalism. But these issues will be drawn out throughout the year. And so we need that base. And so I think that’s what this does for us in terms of setting up the conversation for architecture. Do you agree with me Akka?

Akka Rimon [00:27:58] I agree totally. I cannot dispute what was just said.  on what you said Jay by saying that I think for me as a Pacific Islander, one thing that really struck me about the the report and you’re asking what makes it different is that it’s a united voice. It’s a united voice, which means that our role as the PSC in all this is important to also work closely with the Pacific. And I have worked in the government in my past life, which involved, you know, some engagements in the Forum Secretariat. And I feel like this document is really a demonstration of how well we work in keeping our house together as one Pacific continent and speaking one voice. So I think for us to align to that is going to be critical.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:28:53] And thanks Akka  and I’ve just checked that wording. So Forum leaders on July 22 called for a flexible and responsive regional security .

Prof Dave Peebles [00:29:02] But to just follow on from Jay and Akka, in terms of the College’s role, the College to me is about three things learning, policy engagement, regional collaboration. And if there’s an underlying goal to all of that work, it’s really to increase Pacific agency in terms of the learning. It’s training programs, it’s workshops, it’s scenario exercises in terms of the policy engagement,  we’re invited to do so, we’re very happy to support Pacific Island countries’ own efforts to develop national security strategies, and we’re keen to support regional collaboration, conversations between governments, officials, peoples across the region through conferences and working very closely with the Pacific Islands Forum. And all of those things are really to increase Pacific agency to allow Pacific Island governments and officials and peoples to to chart the way ahead through all these all these different and difficult challenges and to make the most of the opportunities. So the College is here as a servant to the region to increase Pacific agency. And I think this report really highlights that if you’re a Pacific security policymaker, you have a lot on your plate, you have a lot on your plate. And anything that the College can do to support and assist and provide learnings and training to people with these enormous responsibilities on their plate, that’s what the College is here to do.

Pacific Security College [00:30:43] For the latest analysis on climate, environmental, human and national security trends in our Blue Pacific region, you can read the PSC blog at pacificsecurity.net Our contributors come from across the region and include policymakers, practitioners and academics. If you’d like to contribute, get in contact with our team through our website.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:31:09] And it kind of sets the framework for our work so that we don’t go outside of the remit of the framework that has been set by the Forum leaders. Otherwise, we might be told to, you know, go backwards and go into line with what the leaders have really set out for us to work around.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:31:31] Yeah, I think that’s really important, Henry, because the the College’s mandate very much flows from the Boe Declaration with that sophisticated holistic approach to security from the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. And I think if the College was focusing on one particular security issue, another security issue, it really misses that broader point that the Forum itself, from the leaders representing all the peoples of the Pacific, have said this is our approach to security and we take our lead from the Forum declarations and that is the College’s approach to it.

Jay Caldwell [00:32:07] Can I also say that this will be compulsory reading for a number of courses. So we’re definitely going to be part of expanding that conversation when security officials will actually be drawing on the report itself and using that as kind of a course also.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:32:41] And I am going to be teaching the course for DPA next week. And I’ve saidI’ve already put this on a reading list. I just have to make sure it goes out to the students before I go and teach them. But that brings us to this other question about how does this report inform the key word is inform. How does this report inform Pacific security practitioners, especially in implementing the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent and its peace and security pillar?

Prof Dave Peebles [00:33:59] Well, look, I think firstly, I recommend to your listeners that if you haven’t already read it, I do think the Pacific Island Forum’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent is a fantastic document with the challenges and opportunities before all Forum members and the way forward and, you know, a full, sort of congratulations to Fiji as the Forum Chair for bringing that document together in consultation with all members as a key part of the leaders meeting last year. So I think we’ve got that. We’ve got this fantastic analysis provided by the Forum Secretariat. Now I think the issue and Akka has already touched on it, is now national and community and indeed village leaders need to wrestle with the kind of material and analysis and issues outlined in this report. And think about what does that mean for me and what does that mean in terms of my government’s approach to a particular issue, my my community, my village’s approach to an important issue like food security or gender-based violence. So I think at the regional level, we have this fantastic conversation going. But as Akka has touched on, then it has to become real and meaningful in terms of the national security strategies of individual Forum island countries and subnational gatherings and community gatherings and so on. Akka, now going to you.

Akka Rimon [00:35:41] Thank you, Dave. No, I guess I want to pose the question back to you, Henry, and say, how do we get the report off the shelf? Because we don’t want this to be just a report that sits on the shelf. So to communicate, it means, you know, those things that I said earlier and I’m sure the Forum has touched on this, but how do we also get the strength of the ‘Pacific Way’ out as we communicate it? Because when when I heard about a security report, I panic and say, well, what are the crises we are confronting in our region today? And I read through it and yes, yes, yes, all these are happening. But how do we also build in resilience of our Pacific solidarity and to the things that Dave has said earlier, we congratulate the report and the chairmanship of Fiji for producing this during its time, and that is so very valid at this time. I would like to see that it’s not just a report of threats. I want it to be a celebration of the Pacific resilience, the Pacific way, which have helped us to to put the document together, but also provide what we like to say in the Pacific. You know, our best practices, what are our best practices to address some of these unique and often foreign imposed on us challenges. And something that I wanted to say just went off my mind. But how do we factor that in too. There’s a lot of talk about including indigenous voices. How do we make sure that as we design the policies or solutions to some of the problems that we’re reading in this document, how do we engage the people, the locals, the indigenous voices so that they are a part of the decision making?

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:37:33] Yep. Very important points there

for the report. To have any practical impact, it has to be, you know, elaborated  For people to understand and appreciate. Resilience is important in this. And I note that the words threats and risks. Is there anything in there that the report says, anything about peace. Harmony

Jay Caldwell [00:38:03] You know, it is touched on in small part, but again, you’re right as that security lens, we tend to kind of look for those highlights and threat, etc.. But you’re right, there is elements of that, but there is a potential in unpacking that to make that  an important part of the conversation.

Akka Rimon [00:38:23] that, Henry, is because during the COVID-19 lockdown, we found our strengths.

The borders were closed, we couldn’t do anything, and we stepped up because we couldn’t have TA come into the countries. And we were able to play some of the roles that we thought we couldn’t. And so that is my point in saying that maybe the security would, you know, alarmist to some of the crises and the risks that we’re facing today. You know our, very dynamic, very diverse region. But how do we also build on our strengths to address it? And as we communicate the document across.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:39:03] Not step up in the Australian step up way, but step up in the Pacific way, Where, you know, they don’t depend on anybody. As COVID demonstrated, as Akka points out, To know when to look within ourselves to be able to care for ourselves and be able to exist. I think we’ll go now to a topic that’s, you know, central to the Pacific, one of the key topics of the Pacific, and that’s about climate, the climate security is consistently highlighted as the preeminent focus of the region with the climate crisis multiplying the impacts of other challenges facing Pacific states. How has the inclusion of climate change in the domain of security actors impacted the way Pacific states and partners respond to this issue? It’s an open question and open to all three of you.

Jay Caldwell [00:40:11] I guess, Akka should be first.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:40:14] Akka is the expert

Akka Rimon [00:41:51] So I’m coming from a small island country, Kiribati barely three meters above sea level. A lot of the discourse that we’re reading on climate change tells us that this is a future event, but it’s not. We’re living with it today. My research is in looking at how to help Kiribati inform its future options. How do we help a country address a gap in international protection? Because that’s something that that is lacking in our security system in the world. But what about what’s happening today? We have a prolonged drought. My children have gone through drinking salty water. We are unable to grow food because already our land is very unique, our geography is unique. And for those people who are not aware of Kiribati, it’s very small in that and the agriculture is also very poor, the land is not very fertile. So any marginal increase in sea level will impact our livelihood. So look, I think the the document is vital in highlighting that this is something that needs to be addressed. But one thing that scanned through the document and could not find, and I know this is a work in progress, is how does it connect to finding options, finding solutions. You just say something happens tomorrow. It doesn’t describe options on how we can deal with it. I mean, we would want to be informed, right? We just spoke about communicating the document, but living in Kiribati and having to have listened to announcement on the radio, that says, you know, communities of location A, B and C prepare  there’s a spring tide coming. But what do you do for a country where there is no higher ground? You can’t just give an announcement that tells them that there’s a sea level rise event that’s happening this afternoon because there is no alternative for us. What do we do? Where do we go? And so this morning when I listened to Minister Conroy announce the Pacific Engagement Visa again, I was thinking how does this provide a pathway for people from Kiribati and other Pacific Islanders who would want to inform their futures and not live with the impacts that they are living through now?

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:42:44] So let’s go to the last question. The report highlights the necessity to create an enabling environment to facilitate open dialogue and strengthened information sharing. What are the challenges and opportunities in creating this environment to respond as a unified region to the threats identified in the report. Very quickly, we don’t have much time anymore. So one minute question answers.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:43:17] Henry, as we touched on earlier, I think the College is a servant to the region. We are here to facilitate learning policy engagement and regional collaboration, and I think those are some of the things that will be very helpful to the region. We’re here. Feel free to contact any of us on this panel, including Henry. But here as a servant to the region. I think that learning policy, engagement and regional collaboration will be terrifically important.

Akka Rimon [00:43:47] Okay, Henry, I’m sorry, but I want to ask that we look beyond enabling the environment, because for me, enabling the environment has really been about increasing awareness and information sharing. But how do we translate that to empowering people to actually be informed, to do something about their futures? I think that’s the gap for me that, you know, I want to address. It’s something that PSC would want its body of researchers to be involved in. How do we align to what the Forum and the rest of the Pacific is doing? How do we complement those efforts? I think it would be a potential area for us to be involved.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:44:27] We need to go more than just enabling environment. We need to empower people to act. People to take action.

Jay Caldwell [00:44:36] You know, I’d agree, Henry, in terms of empowering, and I think that’s particularly key at the national level when we’re dealing with these kind of complex risks, it actually requires an interdependence of working together. And that actually takes a lot of energy. So I guess one thing that I’m a little concerned about is the potential for people at a national level to be able to work outside of their silos, share information outside of their silos that will actually help in the management of that. And we’re going to have to get creative for ways to do it. We were lucky enough to work with the Forum around the Pacific Regional Law Enforcement Conference last year, but I think it’s going to take innovation in terms of both creating forums at a national and regional level that actually support people to be able to share under all the demands that they’re carrying, like Dave was talking about before. Like it’s a bit overwhelming for security leaders, particularly at a national level. So how do we actually support and support them to be able to do that cross sharing and working together for the management of complex issues?

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:45:35] Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for a very fascinating insight from yourselves on this episode on The Pacific Wayfinder.  Tenkyu Tumas.

Dr Henry Ivarature [00:45:58] That’s it for me.

Jay Caldwell [00:45:59] Thank you, Henry.

Prof Dave Peebles [00:45:59] Henry, that was magnificent.

-END

Podcast EP 24

Title: What does the future of climate negotiations look like?

Running Time: 45 mins

PSC [00:00:03] Yuma all and warm Pacific Greetings. Welcome to the Pacific Wayfinder, a podcast by the Pacific Security College. This episode is a conversation between members of the ANU’s Pacific and First Nations delegation to COP 27 in Egypt last year, with Australia’s newly announced bid to co-host COP 31 alongside Pacific Island countries and much anticipation for the outcomes of COP 27 to come to fruition, this conversation provides a firsthand insight into the mechanics of a UN climate cop and analyses what the future of Pacific climate negotiations could look like. PSC would like to acknowledge that this podcast was recorded on Ngunnawal and Ngambri Land, and we pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging.

Brianna Gordon [00:00:59] I’m Brianna Gordon. I’m a first year Ph.D. student at the Fenner school. So I went to cop completely blind. Really just going in to learn from global indigenous people and to be a mouthpiece for Indigenous Australians. But also as a scientist working in an area that is related to climate change but doesn’t get a lot of attention on the global climate change platform to try and get some more attention on it.

Mahealani Delaney [00:01:29] Thanks, Brianna. And hi, everyone. My name is Mahealani. I have just graduated from my Masters of Environmental Management and Development here at ANU and I currently work at the Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, where I coordinate a project to communicate IPCC findings with different stakeholders across the Pacific. And I went to cop, I guess kind of similar to Brianna really for a learning experience and to understand how these processes actually work, how international climate policy is made, and particularly as well to connect with other fellow Pacific Islanders who work in the climate change space.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:02:14] My name is George Carter. I’m a research fellow with the Department of Pacific Affairs, but also the director for the Pacific Institute. This year I attended COP as part of the Pacific Scholars with other lecturers here from the university, as well as Ph.D. and Master’s candidates to COP. But my main role, as well as a researcher, is working with Pacific regional organisations. So under the mechanism called the One Crop or the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific, where we provide technical and political support for Pacific Island countries leaders who participates within negotiations and this year supporting the countries from the Pacific on the agenda and climate change. Mahealani being your first COP this year at Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt, what was your key takeaway from this year?

Mahealani Delaney [00:03:13] Oh, it’s really hard to, I guess, choose from three weeks, which is a really intense and awesome learning experience. But it’s hard to choose. The one thing that was a key takeaway, but one thing that really stood out to me when observing the negotiations was the consensus approach to negotiations. And I didn’t really understand that before going into COP. But the fact that consensus, which makes sense when you think about it, but it’s not by a majority, it means that everybody in the room has to agree to whatever the proposal is and. It. To me, that’s such a great thing because it allows. It’s the only way that I think every nation would come to the table and participate in these sorts of negotiations. But at the same time, I feel that it is kind of remiss for making true progress on climate change when the countries who are actually experiencing the impacts and the most impacted are getting the same, say, as the companies up there, not the companies, countries and their companies who are actually exploiting the environment, benefiting from it and causing these impacts. So that was something that I guess stood out to me and I as well just did some research into it and realise and maybe George, you could speak to this a bit more. But in the initial rules that were drafted for COP, there was an article that said consensus would there was an option for consensus, and then if that couldn’t be reached, that would be done by three quarters majority voting. But that has never actually been adopted at any cop in the last 27 years. So maybe George or Brianna, if you had any comments or thoughts on that.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:05:00] I’m yes, it hasn’t been utilised. The the option to use as a voting mainly because you only need one country to say no for it not to be used. And consensus has been, as you said, the way in which decisions are made within the UN policy as well as other U.N. bodies. But it’s the way to be more inclusive and the sort of part of my fascination and my key takeaway from it is continuing to study strategies around getting to consensus where, you know, in my study has been building and influencing and reaching consensus and the role of Pacific Island countries in partnerships with other coalitions, such as the alliance of small island states or coalitions with G77 or even working across the board in working with Australia in trying to form that consensus. And so it’s well, it is an endeavour that is frustrating, frustrating, laborious. It takes time, but it’s also is a process that’s of huge fascination. And that’s why I go in as a scholar to study the strategies, especially strategies of small island countries in which they employ to create this climate consensus.

Mahealani Delaney [00:06:18] So, Brianna, I think we were focusing on slightly different agenda items across the three weeks. So what were your key takeaways from COP?

Brianna Gordon [00:06:26] I think my general sort of key takeaway was just feeling very disillusioned by the whole process. It’s, for one thing, just extremely overwhelming being there. There’s so much going on and so many people. And definitely I think we can probably attest to this. It felt like, you know, things are sort of being held together by staples and duct tape. But going from the I ndigenous perspective, it really feels like there wasn’t a lot achieved in terms of tangible outcomes to help Indigenous people right now. And even within Australia, it is Indigenous people that are impacted the most by fires and floods. So it just feels like, you know, I probably built up, you know, the U.N. in my head is this big, magical, smart process where, you know, things happen. This is where the global decisions get made and they get made now. But like having seen the reality of it, things are a lot more it’s a lot slower and there’s a lot there’s a lot more like red tape and processes, which if we, you know, we kind of need immediate action given that we have this very definitive 2030 timeline, it feels a little bit like for me just going in not as a negotiator, but essentially as just a regular citizen, just kind of being like, what are we doing? Like, it feels like we weren’t really making fast, tangible action.

Mahealani Delaney [00:07:55] So George, you were there for the entirety of COP. We left a few days earlier, so can you share with us what the outcomes were in those final days?

Salā Dr George Carter [00:08:03] If you look at the news that came out after COP and even to now, there’s a lot of talk about the loss and damage fund. But the devil’s in the detail of what actually has come out of that. While there is an announcement of a loss and damage fund. And this is something that Pacific Island countries and G77, the Global South, have been pushing for for almost 30 years, that there must be some sort of a facility or a mechanism that can address the needs of communities or countries with communities that have gone beyond adaptation. Any sort of strategy beyond adaptation is not enough. And that’s what we got into the loss and damage. So it’s taken almost 30 years for something like a facility to come through. However, we must be vigilant that during the negotiations it was a very much a hard fought fight to try and even get it on the agenda. But at the same time gets where it is. So the outcome does not precisely give you a fund. It gives us the beginning of the discussion into making a fund to looking for what it would look like, getting resources, the institution, or even start talking about how much money should be there or how it should be used. So at the moment it’s an announcement now and that’s what we saw throughout the whole outcomes as well. Even the mention of 1.5 was even put aside because many developing countries such those from the BRICS were trying to bring forth language around two degrees. Now, for the Pacific, this is detrimental. So to remove any sort of mention of 1.5 means we are decreasing ambition or even action from different countries. So you even have that fact of even keeping 1.5 alive. Even discussions around carbon markets and even mitigation efforts were watered down to, you know, language that was about we will try and do something next year. And so while it’s hugely disappointing that the actions that come out of COP 27 give us work agenda for one year and not a work agenda for the next 5-10 years, it gives us more, you know, I guess, strength to come back next year in Dubai because the work in Dubai will all be about what was not finalised. And this is the area of global adaptation in terms of finance. And of course, the other areas which we all want to elevate from the Pacific and First nations, such as the work agenda around oceans, around local community, indigenous issues as well as gender. These are the other areas which we look forward to in this year and taking full into Dubai.

Mahealani Delaney [00:10:59] I just had a quick question on what you were saying, George. Do you think one of the risks for the new loss and damage fund could be similar to the 100 billion funding that was meant to flow to developing countries for adaptation and mitigation where that finance has just never been realised since the commitment was made.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:11:18] I mean, during the negotiations, a lot of interventions that were made by parties in doing this was the example of the Green Climate Fund that it was an announcement was established in 2010, but it came to fruition in 2018. It took almost a decade just to get such a fund from announcement to being operationalised to actually communities using it. Now what we’re also finding with GCF and it’s something that that was talked I mean pursued within the negotiations is simplifying the access for not just countries from the Pacific who have very low capacity or have capacity constraints to put forth big applications. But if these grants or finances are to reach our local communities is even much harder. So it’s about simplifying access so that not only small island governments, but even their communities are able to access some of these. I think you have something similar around that.

Brianna Gordon [00:12:26] Yeah,  I spent a lot of time the local communities and Indigenous people’s platform and that was a big criticism of current finance models that as they exist now, they are going to NGOs. And what that effectively looks like for local communities is that they’re going to white people to help these indigenous local communities and implement these platforms or programs or what have you. But they aren’t actually going directly to Indigenous people in their communities. And part of that is capacity issues, especially for historically very underserved communities where you do have, you know, lower  literacy education rates, less access to technology and just less access to put forth these sort of big, complicated multimillion dollar proposals. But it is usually indigenous knowledge that is often, you know, being stolen or being misappropriated by the people who are getting the financing and the people in the communities. The big criticism that I was hearing was that they aren’t seeing the outcome of the finances as it was promised.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:13:38] One area I heard and also saw in a lot of side events and conversations within COP was the importance of indigenous and traditional knowledge. And this, of course, is. A basis around the work of the IPCC. Now, Mahealani, you did some work on that earlier with the IPCC and the potential of indigenous and traditional knowledge to inform such reports.

Mahealani Delaney [00:14:04] Yeah, absolutely. And agree with what you’ve both said that in almost every side event that I went to and maybe I was selective in which ones I was attending, but that was mentioned. And in the IPCC in the most recent reports, they do acknowledge the importance of indigenous, local and traditional knowledge. But it’s still at the point where they’re just acknowledging that it’s important, but it still isn’t foundational to these reports. And so something that we’ve been discussing and looking to for the next cycle of IPCC, which is the AR7 reports, is how particularly we can bring in more Pacific Islander representation into those reports, more research that’s relevant to the region, and also elevating Indigenous voices all across these reports. So it’s not just mentioned and acknowledged, but actually forms the basis of the knowledge we’re using to take into these climate negotiations.

PSC [00:14:59] The Pacific Security College aims to strengthen capacity, collaboration and policy making for a stronger Pacific security. You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn and find our library of research, blogs, podcasts and videos on our website pacificsecurity.net. Our podcast, The Pacific Wayfinder brings together leading voices on our shared security challenges. Stay up to date on the latest thinking on Pacific security and subscribe to the Pacific Wayfinder wherever you get your podcasts.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:15:36] So part of COP 27 or any conference of the parties is on one side you have the negotiations. But on the other side, you also have the exchange of knowledge through the various different side events. I mean, I was part of this exchange of knowledge. You would have witnessed so many different side events for the Pacific alone in the Pacific Moana Pacific Pavilion. There were over 71 different site events. But that’s, you know, part of the other thousands of side events. For you, what were some key takeaways or key events that came out for you from these events?

Brianna Gordon [00:16:23] Like Mahealani, I was very selective in the kind of side events that I attended. I typically stuck to indigenous led or youth led events. But I did go to like a really excellent side event on climate justice. And it was in particular there was a gentleman from Port Arthur in Texas, I believe not, not our Port Arthur. That threw me for a loop the first time I saw it. But basically talking about how as a African-American man, his community in the area was massively impacted by corporate pollution and how in his community they’re fighting for justice from and, you know, essentially reparations from this corporation. I forget it was a multi-billion dollar corporation, but I forget exactly which one. But just getting to be able to hear from people that I would never normally meet, you know, in Australia in my day to day life and talk about their own experiences and talking with indigenous people from Africa about how their fire management techniques differ to Indigenous fire management techniques in Australia, and that really highlighting that the importance of Indigenous knowledge to that specific region because our ways of managing fire was much different and how it is important to put those knowledge holders in a platform like this where they have the opportunity to speak freely and openly and have a receptive audience. How about you, Mahealani?

Mahealani Delaney [00:17:53] Thanks, Brianna and George. So as you mentioned, there were so many side events happening at one time. So to paint a picture of what it’s like at COP, you have the negotiations happening at at any given time and there are several meetings happening towards maybe, you know, exactly how many. And then on the other side, you have the pavilions where there are about, I think, you know, almost 100 different pavilions and booths and they all have events going at the same time. So every morning you’re kind of trawling through the agenda and seeing what sticks out to you and what to attend. And it can be definitely quite overwhelming because you constantly have this feeling like you’re missing out on something. But I guess you just have to go to the one that is most interesting and be grateful you’re there. And for me, it was quite similar to Brianna, where I spent a lot of my time at the Indigenous pavilion, at the Australian Pavilion, the youth Pavilion and also the Moana Blue Pacific Pavilion. And just there was so, so many aspects that stood out to me, but one that came up a lot at the Indigenous pavilion was around carbon markets, which is something that I have an interest in so I was really keen to hear different views on this, and there was a lot of concerns from Indigenous communities across the globe on the efficacy of carbon markets and the unintended environmental and social negative consequences of these. That I think is really critically important to be discussing because carbon markets form such a big part of how nations are planning to meet their NDC, so their mitigation targets. And there was a, you know, a few people who called it out as another false market solution. And really a lot of conversations about refocusing solutions away from economic and market based approaches to one that really put first the needs of environment and society as opposed to prioritising the economy to make these changes and to, yeah, create the solutions to tackling climate change.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:19:59] That’s certainly one of the big areas that we do see in the pavilions are climate solutions, you know, climate innovations. We see it in the technology around renewable energy, you know, that’s been showcased. But something that’s when I look at across all these pavilions and just see what comes out from especially our part of the world. Remember, this was an African cop and there was a lot of activity around water, around food security and food systems and agriculture. But we find that. From our part of the world is that where we come out strongly is climate justice. That link of human rights to climate change, of course, because we have many great campaigns coming through from the Pacific, such as the Fossil Fuel.

Mahealani Delaney [00:20:49] Proliferation Treaty.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:20:50] Non-Proliferation Treaty on fossil fuels, as well as the ICJ, you know, led by Vanuatu. These these are just some of the many different initiatives borne out from the Pacific, including Australia, initiatives that are driven by not not just governments, but are driven by individuals and local community. And what we saw also this time around is that it wasn’t just the youth there or local communities pushing this. They were actually teaming up with philanthropy such as the Bloomberg group from New York, you know, or banks from Switzerland. You saw the diversity of these initiatives coming through. And that’s something that I think when we look forward to now that the bid has been announced of Australia and the Pacific, that, you know, what else can we see from our part of the world when we come to that, you know, COP hosted by us. And that’s something that I’m looking forward to. Yes, we continue on the key work of pushing mitigation, pushing finance and pushing adaptation. But the other area which is sidelined in the negotiations is climate justice. Now, of course, it’s very hard to bring that in the negotiations. Yet this is the platform of which we are able to tell that story, the initiatives and actions that need to happen. And yeah, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts as well on where this can be progressed, especially in an Australia Pacific COP.

Mahealani Delaney [00:22:28] And I think as well, if we look within Australia like in the Torres Strait, the Human Rights Committee found the Australian Government to be violating their rights, their cultural rights, by failing to adequately act on climate change. And so climate justice, as you mentioned, George Pacific Islanders have been leading and spearheading a lot of the movement for climate justice and COP 31 is a really great opportunity for Australia to partner with them and really listen to them and have a, yeah, collaborative process on how that COP should be run. But just going back to what you were saying, George, I was curious as to whether in formal negotiations and in any formal texts climate justice has been referenced yet?

Salā Dr George Carter [00:23:11] Well, no. In fact, climate justice hasn’t been adequately addressed. One way in which this has been undertaken, of course, is through the Vanuatu, which is a great example of I’m going to segway a little bit here. Remember, this is a movement that was started by Masters sorry, Bachelor of Law Students. They were not initiated by government. They were initiated by a class a classroom of law students who said in their class, what can we do? You know? And they found this instrument called the International Court of Justice – an opinion. And so what they did is these students wrote letters to the individual governments, to eight governments, and one government wrote back and said, yes, we will spearhead this initiative. So it was actually started by university students. I look forward to when our ANU students think of something creative such as this. So take it all up. And one instrument that has been undertaken is through that ICJ, but also through other means. And now we have here within a new the special repertoire of climate change and human rights, which is through Dr. Ian Fry, who is actually listening throughout this whole idea, trying to collect as much as possible to create a report and various initiatives which will be elevated up to the Human Rights Council to try and find this link and affirm this link of human rights and climate change. And hopefully there we have ammunition for it to be discussed within the main climate change UNFCCC.

Mahealani Delaney [00:25:01] And just just going back to what you were saying earlier, Brianna, about, you know, cop definitely has flaws and the fact that Egypt were having human rights issues when we were there with their climate activists. It’s also encouraging to know and we saw this a lot at COP with the civil society organisations that were there, that there are other means and other so many other actions that people are taking to progress action on climate change, like the ICJ advisory opinion, which I believe is going to the UN General Assembly sometime in the near future so would encourage listeners to advocate their government to approve this going through the General Assembly.

Brianna Gordon [00:25:43] Now, I do think I agree that civil society really is the one that sort of spearheads a lot of the innovative discussions that we need to be having and should have been happening having for a long time. And it’s in those community led organisations outside of states and governments that I think are really on the forefront of these things. And a lot of the time the official avenues who actually doing the negotiations are playing catch up because of course these discussions of climate justice have been going on for years and years and years and loss and damage, you know, it’s been, as you said, fought for for 30 years or only now just getting something. But that also like, you know, maybe it makes me quite disappointed in a lot of states where, you know, you should be more proactive in climate change and not so reactive to issues that have already, you know, be rising and are already causing havoc in people’s lives and causing deaths. A lot of the Australian Indigenous people that went were from civil society or from universities. And the Australian Government really did take advantage of that. They had a lot of strong Indigenous people speaking in the pavilion and, you know, giving various events. But the Australian Government didn’t monetarily support that in any meaningful way. So, you know, quite happy to have us talk and have us there as representatives and it’s great. I want them to encourage us and give us a platform to use our voices, but they aren’t necessarily so great at actually facilitating that.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:27:21] One of the question that has been asked is whether Pacific Island countries will support Australia’s bid. We’ve heard with the proliferation of fossil fuel treaty countries like Vanuatu and Tuvalu are supported and there was a comment from the Climate Change Minister that support was conditional. Now, of course, yes, I mean that is the view of Vanuatu, that it is necessary, the support is conditional on what it can work to, and I think that’s what the work will be in the next 2 to 3 years because hosting COP is not you show up and you organised a meeting and you know, and you see hopefully you get a consensus at the end. It actually takes at least 2 to 3 years before you get to a COP and when it does happen you have another year or two. So it’s a big enterprise. I think when the French took the presidency was $1,000,000,000 exercise. So it is quite a lot of investment because it’s not just the facilities, it’s actually the diplomacy, the way in which a country like Australia and its partners from the Pacific will work together to provide some form of diplomatic practice or stage or process that can lead all 200 parties of the UN F.C.C. to create a consensus. Now what that looks like, I’m looking forward to the work around studying indigenous or local or knowledge from the Pacific about how you create that consensus, because that will be one way in which to showcase the world the type of diplomacy that’s found on this side of the world. You know, when presidencies do host, they bring in their own form. Like when South Africa hosted the Durban presidency, they introduced whats called an Indaba formats, which is clearly meant for chiefs of villages. And they brought in that and that still continues to be a part of the process. So there is that cultural aspect of of diplomacy that’s brought in. And so we’re looking forward to having those discussions leading up where not only Australia but all countries from the Pacific organisations and institutions can be a part of that conversation to create that diplomacy. Of course there’s also the resources and the funding, there’s the training for people, the capacity for because it’s not just one or two people, it’s actually facilitators in each meeting. You saw that at UNFCCC there’s 50 meetings going on at the same time. You need to have a representative of the president in every meeting. It’s the shuttle diplomacy of flying to individual countries or working with other countries to try and leverage out disappointments before you get I mean, disagreements before you get to those final two weeks. So it is a lot of work that comes through. But it’s something that cannot you know, that’s not impossible. It is possible, but it’s also that brand of diplomacy, the work behind the scenes, but also the capacity that will come through. And then as I said again, where I’m very, very much looking forward to is the showcase of the diplomatic culture from Australia and from the Pacific island countries. What that looks like, I think that will be an exciting space because I think we have a lot of great research here at a venue for First Nations, but also areas such as oceanic diplomacy and the area around Indigenous diplomacy that’s now starting here. And so it’s a way of building that type of innovative way of of building and reaching consensus leading up to COP.

Brianna Gordon [00:31:22] A fairly similar approach for what I would like to see for Indigenous Australians. You know, I obviously can’t speak for all Indigenous Australians, but in my perspective and sort of what are the vibes that I’ve been picking up, is that again, the, the support of Australia hosting COP 31 is conditional. I think it’s not something that it’s been typically done in the past, but there’s been talks around it of a like a specific diplomatic position for the Australian Government to Indigenous people. And the way that we work diplomatically with Pacific Islands is how we should focus on working with our individual language groups and actually and treating them almost like, you know, like nations within a nation and giving them the respect of, you know, having a say on how things run rather than just telling them, telling us, you know, this is how we’re going to do it and you can come or you can’t. Because you know, this is an amazing opportunity. We could have elders and representatives and pretty much almost every language group in the country and have them be like, I would like to see it build almost as co-host. So, you know, it’s a cohosted cop between Australia, the Pacific and Indigenous Australians and have Indigenous Australians voices and viewpoints on climate change, not just be an extra accessory or something that is, you know, spoken about it pavilions, but really be part of the presidency and have that big, you know, in the underlying messages of all of the work that we do if we were to host it. And it’s also just a beautiful opportunity to showcase our culture at, you know, at COP, I got to speak with Indigenous people from Lands that, you know, I’ve never been to and I’ve never spoken with anyone from there before. And you get to share, you know, amazing culture and we can talk about the individual. We have such a wide variety of practices and languages. We can really showcase that with people. And because I think, you know, Indigenous Australian history is not something that’s widely discussed around the world. And I even met some, you know, lovely American people but used the word Aborigine, which really I’m just like, Oh, and then what? It’s like, it’s not them, you know, being offensive. That’s a word that they’re taught to use. COP can Have us, you know, be elevated onto an international stage. Like we got to see like, like with other indigenous groups and become a world leader in terms of climate change and how we manage things like fires and forests.

PSC [00:33:47] For the latest analysis on climate, environmental, human and national security trends in our blue Pacific region, you can read the PSC blog at PacificSecurity.net. Our contributors come from across the region and include policymakers, practitioners and academics. If you’d like to contribute, get in contact with our team through our website.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:34:14] But of course, I mean, to be on the international stage, you got to have climate action. You’ve got to have ambitious action on the ground. And it’s not just for Australia but also Pacific Island countries to have those ambitious actions and what they can be. Maybe Mahealani you can comment on what those ambitious actions could be.

Mahealani Delaney [00:34:33] Big question there. There’s I mean, I think first and foremost is for the Pacific the priority of mitigation because like keeping 1.5 alive. And I think, you know, the fact that there is still time to keep to 1.5 by the time COP 31 happens will be past 2025, which is the year that emissions need to peak. But still keeping the ambition there, you know, even if we have overshoot of emissions so we temporarily surpass 1.5, there is potential to bring it back down. And that is the temperature goal that the Pacific will continue to strive for, even if it does go above 1.5. And I think there is just no room to let go of 1.5, because once you let ambition slide above that, then you know, if we’re saying, oh, we’ll aim for two, then it goes to 2.5 with two being ideal. So I think one priority will definitely be holding to the 1.5 degree target. And as has been mentioned, loss and damage as well, ensuring that the work programme for that keeps up and that we establish the finance for that to start flowing as soon as possible, because it is very much the case that Pacific island nations are experiencing the impacts of climate change now, and ten years for a fund to be set up is just not adequate to deal with the reality of what is being faced at the moment. So I think those are two key areas. I mean, there’s a whole lot of different agenda items that need progressing. And just on your points before about the presidency, that was something I didn’t realise at COP was how much power the presidency has to dictate the agenda of a cop. And I just really didn’t understand that before. Was that something, Brianna, maybe you had realised or observed as well?

Brianna Gordon [00:36:24] It was sort of something that I definitely don’t think I realised going in, but once I was sort of there, the way that people spoke about it and, you know, the different countries. And I also spoke with some people who had worked for the British, for the UK presidency who were in ALSIP and speaking to them about their role, that I do think it is a you know, there’s a reason countries want to host because obviously it’s very expensive If you didn’t get something out of it, you know, not a lot of countries are going to put their hand up to be like, Yeah, well, we’ll sacrifice that. So I think there is definite political ambitions and power that comes with with being the country that’s the presidency, because you do get to dictate what happens and even like really intangible things that you are in charge of as the presidency, like whether or not it’s deliberate. But with the ALSIP, I think our conversations were really hampered by the administrative situation that we were under and the sort of resources and rooms that we were provided. And, you know, things like even though if it’s not deliberate or it’s not like an actual this is that this is what we’re going to be discussing, but by hamstringing certain conversations or just making it difficult for, you know, real conversations to flourish, that’s an element of power that you have in controlling what gets discussed at COP and how successful those discussions are.

Mahealani Delaney [00:37:40] And I think that’s also why it will be important with the COP 31 in partnership with the Pacific that they have a very prominent role in the actual presidency of it, and that it’s not tokenistic.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:37:53] But also something that has been suggested. And I really do believe in, you know, working within the gender program and then the climate negotiations. One of the things that came through in those discussions was that, why don’t we have a male and a female president, why can’t we have two, you know, so that to bring that sort of balance. So these are suggestions within that working group and it’s something that we need to think about. Well, the gender programme within climate change negotiation is about gender balance, about equal numbers of men and women at the table. But we also need to be more transformative. Go beyond that. We need to look at gender equality.

Mahealani Delaney [00:38:33] Absolutely. I actually saw a graph and maybe it would be different for COP27, but a graph from COP26. And it was showing the difference between men and women, the speaking time they had in plenary sessions, and it was still 75% men that was speaking in plenaries. And this was just last year. So yeah, absolutely. So many different avenues for making change in small but very significant ways. I think for COP 31 and all future COPs.

Salā Dr George Carter [00:39:01] What are you going to do this year leading up to Dubai?

Brianna Gordon [00:39:04] Well, whether or not I end up going to Dubai, What I think is a really key thing that we can implement is to increase the capacity for more Indigenous Australians to go and have it through the government, have it funded, have the individuals funded as well as their trip, as well as building up capacity in terms of actually understanding the UN process, you know, it’s complicated, it’s labelled in jargon and legalese and all this sort of stuff and you can’t just pick up a random citizen and pop them in and expect them to understand it. So, you know, we’ve got a year to look to build up capacity in people, and I think it’ll be a great opportunity for the Australian Government to really demonstrate that they are on board with forefronting Indigenous Australians in the climate change discussion. And I’d love to see more Indigenous Australians at COP. How about you, Mahealani?

Mahealani Delaney [00:39:57] I don’t know if it’s necessarily in the lead up to to Dubai per say, but just more broadly in climate change engagement. One thing I heard from a fellow youth advocate, at COP was just the kind of responsibility to use your voice or my voice in this case, and to put aside your inhibitions and reservations of, you know, how you’re going to sound, or if you’re going to say the right thing and just stand up and show up for the causes that you know are really important. And so that was something that stood out to me and I’m going to try and carry out over the next 12 months. And for example, I was talking about, you know, doing some advocacy, maybe even within ANU, seeing if there would be potential to endorse the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty within the circles here. So just different routes of advocacy. And I think that was really just inspired from all the incredible people at COP, particularly civil society and fellow Pacific Islanders. And how about you, George, from the negotiation side?

Salā Dr George Carter [00:40:58] Well, well, the work leading up to Dubai is great. I mean, so much to do, but I can think of it in different ways. So through my research and the research in collaboration with others is progressing that work around climate security, the progression of the work and supporting climate change agenda. Focal points have been because we were working with the negotiators around gender. We’d like to be able to continue that support and the work that be not only do for countries, but also in the way that they negotiate in these negotiations. Part of that also is thinking bigger and broader. And so having some form of initiatives or program that supports Pacific and Australia diplomacy in working together in the bid leading up to COP31. The university has a responsibility in that space. And so to us as researchers, we have the great network of being researching in this place, having the network within the Pacific. This is an opportunity that we should all be working together. And beyond that, it’s also continuing on working with students like we have this great opportunity of going to COP and bringing along First Nations, but also Pacific scholars who are currently here at ANU and we’d like to continue this. As you know, we can hear from analysts what the interactions and your comments about what you saw at the negotiations. I mean, you all were pulled in to speak at various different events, even at the very, you know, 30 minutes before it begins. You became those voices for those who could not be there or, you know, you were able to make that representation. And it’s important that we continue to empower our students here at the Australian National University to be able to do that. And we can do that through our learning about the structure or the theories of what happens during negotiations or actually taking our students there, because that continues on. What we’re hoping to build is this alumni of climate scholars from this part of the world in understanding, but also to have confidence to speak in these process, whether it be in negotiations, whether it be inside events and of course, the many people from this university that become leaders and have to speak with authority and climate change. This is one way to do that. So I’m looking forward to taking on that further throughout the year leading up to Dubai, Key issues to look out for this year. It’s climate finance because it’s halfway through the global stocktake. We look at what has been not only implemented or where the work has been since the Paris Agreement leading up to 2025, 2023 is very essential to that. And so there’s a big focus on climate finance, but that does not undermine the other work that we need to elevate in. Gender, ocean and Indigenous policy which needs to be elevated. Climate justice that needs to be at the same platform as mitigation and adaptation and finance and loss and damage. So yeah, a lot to do this year.

Mahealani Delaney [00:44:28] Thanks everyone for the great chat and thank you to the Pacific Security College for having us here today.

-END