Comments

I’m struggling to reconcile how Australia can “emerge as a global climate leader” when our domestic activities provide no such evidence. On the domestic front, Australia has approved the closure of several major coal-fired power stations (e.g. Liddell (2023), Eraring (planned 2025), and Yallourn (planned 2028)). However, these emissions reductions are being exceeded by the approval and advancement of new fossil fuel projects such as North West Shelf oil and gas project, Scarborough gas, Barossa gas, and Mount Pleasant coal expansion which will add tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂-equivalent annually, and billions over their lifetimes. Even with our push for EVs, promotion of RE and adaptation finance, our domestic emissions cannot be ignored. Is the bar so low for global climate leadership?

Really enjoyed your article Robert, working with a small NGO for a lot of years, the team decided that rather than 'making the best of things' in reporting they were going to say things how they really were for a range of donors. None of them wanted to hear it. Big programs that did not address the actual fundamental issues continued because the lack of trackable change was neatly attributed to outside 'unavoidable' problems, not to the fundamental things the program could not change. The disjoint where aid is primarily about soft power and carrots, for which you really need to be nice and friendly, I can't see how it could really change? Genuine co-design that can design projects to work around or in spite of systems could be a way forward, but are not going to be popular with government donors. Very interested to understand more. We gave up and started a social enterprise, useful for farming but not going to shift the dial at scale.

Thank you, Miranda, for offering some hope in what seemed to be an appalling situation.

Thanks to you both for the analysis. I wonder if there is another aspect to strengthening security that requires the Pacific to increase its financial independence. Pacific nations have long been marginalized in global finance, reliant on donor-driven aid and external systems that ignore their unique challenges. As you state, geopolitical rivalries, particularly between the US and China, and worsening climate crises underscore the urgent need for financial sovereignty. For example, the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) emerges as a transformative solution, promoting regional ownership with an initial US50 million capitalization, aiming for US50millioncapitalization,aiming for US1,500 million by 2030. Unlike traditional aid, PRF will seek to integrate diverse funding sources and disburse through national systems, ensuring sustainability. Governed by Pacific leaders, it can prioritise local needs like climate resilience and sustainable energy. Beyond PRF, the Pacific must challenge outdated global finance structures that foster dependency and divert resources. By embracing innovative, Pacific-led models, the region can address vulnerabilities, balance mitigation with adaptation, and extend self-determination to trade and security, securing a resilient, autonomous future on their terms.

am really interested am from Papua new guinea I wish I could get a chance in farming

Really a great post, thanks

It would be good if more significant/substantial partners reviewed us say Vietnam and/or Indonesia but then there’s the risk of being afraid of biting the hand that feeds. The other option is to have major players who don’t have an interest such as India or South Africa.

An important step forward to see Thailand included as an observer in the DAC peer review process. The Pacific Islands Forum adopted a similar peer review model between 2014-2017, with inclusive peer review teams featuring development partners, PIF members, and a regional CSO. Australia and New Zealand were the only two partners at the time who were peer reviewed under this model. Though short-lived, it offered valuable lessons on locally adapted, inclusive peer review on the effectiveness of development partner ODA in the Pacific, from a broader lens of actors and partners.

Good evening Sebastian, I was managing another new AusAID project that ran concurrently with the Land Titling Project. The team leader of this project became a good friend. I could contact her to see if she would share her reports. Would this contact be of interest? I also know the First Secretary (Aid) from this period very well. He has spent many years working in the Pacific. Again, he might be a useful contact. Regards, Bill

Hi Bill, thank you for taking interest in our piece and making the connection between our work and the urban land management plan from the 1990s. It’s always important to contextualise our work, which includes earlier efforts to navigate these complex issues. Are you talking about the Vanuatu Land Use Planning Project? If so, we are aware of this but have yet to track down a copy. If you have one, please share it if you can! Were you involved in this work in the 90s? It would be great to understand more about how the land use planning from that era might inform the current situation for current customary tenants. Would love to hear your thoughts either here or over email: sebastian.antoine[at]unimelb.edu.au

Thanks Theo, It's a good point: as well as evaluations, time needs to be made available to to design a project carefully, or at the very least, to make it adaptable if things aren't working. As you say, the superficial political incentives don't seem great. Although, given the PNG's proximity and instability, you'd think a politician not suffering from severe short-termism might want to take action.

Thanks Terence. If you are evaluating a project that has been designed poorly and is fundamentally flawed from the outset - hedged into the impossible four year implementation cycle and crafted by inexperienced consultants - the evaluation is going to follow suit. There are few political incentives within the DFAT apparatus and Australian government to actually invest in long-term change in PNG, or elsewhere for that matter. Not much of a chance for a handover and a Facebook post when you’re involved in the long process of research and consultation to actually design a program with some chance of impact.