How can pacific island countries meet their nationally determined contributions?

npj Climate Action volume 2, Article number: 23 (2023) Cite this article

296 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Pacific Island Countries (PICs) advocate for greenhouse gas emissions reductions but face many barriers in transitioning from fossil fuels. Despite these obstacles, PICs aim to shift to renewable energy to meet ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Research suggests that this is limited by state and regulatory capacity, market structures, and access to finance. While these problems are salient, this article argues that discussions remain overly focused on technical solutions. We argue that socio-cultural factors also hinder the transition, including international actors conducting program and project development in the Pacific that insufficiently reflect local context. Drawing on recent decarbonisation policy and renewable energy project examples we argue that PICs are more likely to meet their NDC targets if the transition is fostered through cultural practices for deliberative decision making, such as Talanoa, Talanga, and community-based approaches. Such practices will deliver maximum benefits to communities and ensure a just and sustainable transition.

In brokering the 2015 Paris Agreement, state parties devised a new mechanism within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Conference of the Parties (COP) established voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to stabilise the climate system and provide flexibility for states to meet their commitments through domestic legislation, policy change, and sectoral and societal transformation. Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have been highly visible in exhorting states to reduce emissions to remain within ‘1.5 to stay alive’1,2. There are 26 Pacific Island Countries and Territories across Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia3. We limit our focus to the 14 postcolonial states4 because they are identified in the renewable energy transition literature5,6,7 and have NDC data. These are the Cook Islands, Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Kiribati, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, Niue, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Although they contribute negligible emissions8, PIC’s have multiple reasons for articulating ambitious NDCs, foremost is the moral position that ‘to lead is to act’." href="/articles/s44168-023-00059-0#ref-CR9" id="ref-link-section-d238985627e472">9,10.

One way to decarbonise is to shift to renewable energy11. Except for Papua New Guinea (PNG), most PICs remain dependent on imported fossil fuels7. There is also strong moral and political will for the energy transition to occur to enable PICs to thrive and to tackle climate change10. However, PICs have limited ability to provide market incentives for investment in renewables given their small markets, geographical spread, and limited land area, especially as vulnerability to environmental disasters may affect the siting of renewable technology7,12,13. Additionally, PICs suffer from a lack of technology, technical expertise, and accessible and appropriate climate funding14; this includes development financing for renewables from the ADB for example15. However, the focus on technical barriers and lack of finance overlooks how donor-driven initiatives often fail to meet the needs of end users16,17, and have not been sustainable over time due to a lack of capacity, budget, and/or social and cultural uptake by local communities7,18, particularly in rural areas19.

This article argues that culturally appropriate deliberative decision-making such as Talanoa and Talanga, implemented through community-based approaches to project planning and implementation, could increase the likelihood of success of internationally funded renewable energy projects. Pacific Islanders have promoted cultural practices for decision making, in some PICs known as Talanoa20, to build meaningful agreement through for example the UNFCCC 2018 Talanoa Dialogue Platform21. As “a cultural discursive practice”22, Talanoa can inform policy making and renewable energy project design because it is a ‘method by which business and agency leaders receive information from the community, that they use to make decisions’23. Building on oral traditions, Talanoa enables people to ‘story their issues’ to provide ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ information. This requires policy and project development approaches to adopt a different means of “constructing knowledge” by enabling Pacific peoples to share their lived experiences24. Tonga practices Talanga, which is a more interactive and purposeful form of Talanoa. Comprising both speaking and listening, Talanga is often used in local debates to ‘challenge’ and critique assumptions and scrutinise powerful voices23,25,26. It can provide an essential “check and balance,” including to repair injustice23. Meanwhile, situated, grassroots-driven community-based approaches to climate change adaptation are proliferating in PICs27,28,29, and could facilitate culturally deliberative decision making in renewable energy project design and implementation30,31.

The article unfolds as follows. The results section is presented in four parts: Part one examines PIC’s NDCs in relation to the COP’s six reporting requirements. This demonstrates variations in PIC’s decarbonisation abilities and variegated incorporation of community knowledge. Part two examines how culturally appropriate deliberative decision making was used to develop Tonga’s Low-Emission Development Strategy 2021–2050, to show how communities can enhance policymaking. Meanwhile, a lack of local community engagement continues to hinder implementation of internationally funded renewable energy projects. Section three documents the technical barriers PICs face in transitioning their energy use and systems, which tend to dominate the renewables discussion. Part four uses recent examples of renewable energy project failures in Fiji and Vanuatu, to detail the socio-cultural rather than technical nature of the problem, specifically not incorporating community knowledge and needs throughout the project. Part five is the discussion section, which argues that culturally appropriate deliberation can improve project development processes through community-based approaches and principles for internationally funded renewable energy. It concludes with an outline for future research.

Most PICs have ambitious NDC mitigation targets, but they vary widely having been prepared initially under non-compulsory guidelines at COP20 in Lima. At COP21 the Paris Agreement clarified that developing states could move toward reduction targets ‘over time’ depending on national circumstances. According to the Paris Decision, NDCs should provide voluntary information on planning processes, time frames, and reference points, among other issues. In response, PICs have used a variety of sectors, metrics, and timeframes. At COP24, the ‘Paris Rulebook’ standardised communicating NDCs and required more detailed information for the Second NDCs. Parties must communicate mitigation goals, activities, and capacities in accordance with the COP24 package.

Table 1 and two describe PIC’s NDCs, drawing on Paris Agreement information requirements for: (1) the preparation process; (2) renewable energy generation and targets; (3) base years, reference years, and implementation period; (4) implementation approaches; (5) conditionality; and (6) long-term mitigation commitments (Decision 4/CMA.1). In this analysis, States demonstrate a range of abilities to set and meet their targets. Observers note that an NDC Implementation Plan is the most vital instrument for national NDC coordination, which is planned or in force in four of 14 PICs (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu; see GCCA, 2018).

The NDCs include early Intended NDCs submitted in 2016 from the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, and Tuvalu, and second NDCs submitted in the lead up to COP26 in 2021 from Fiji, Nauru, PNG, RMI, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu. The majority prioritise the energy sector (discussed below). Commitments include sector-wide targets, which may specify a certain percentage of renewable energy generation. In some cases, the targets are supported by NDC implementation and investment plans, or sectoral plans and roadmaps (see Table 2 below). The latter include planned projects (e.g., Fiji, PNG, Samoa, and Vanuatu) and capacity building programs (e.g., FSM). Others do not specify institutional arrangements for the implementation process, particularly for PIC’s that have not updated their 2016 NDCs.

Kiribati, PNG, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu demonstrate their capacity to set targets and have progressed their implementation plans, while Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu have detailed but varied NDCs and implementation plans. Vanuatu has a renewable energy target, roadmap plan, and is backed by supporting schemes for implementation such as net metering, which provide a more concrete forward plan than exists in Fiji, which has a renewable energy target backed by feed-in tariffs but no roadmap. However, Fiji has 67 percent renewable energy compared with little data on renewable energy penetration in Vanuatu7. The remaining PICs have (Table 3) considerable work to do to create targets and implementation plans.

This snapshot of NDC targets highlights significant variation in PIC’s ability to decarbonise, and dependence on international assistance even for those with advanced targets and implementation plans. Renewable electricity mitigation is conditional upon receiving international support for grid infrastructure (and storage), data collection, technical support to design inventory systems, training to manage, operate, and maintain energy technologies, and the provision of locally appropriate energy technologies and financial resources (Table 1). Some, such as Samoa and Tonga, offer conditional electricity sector contributions only. Others specify unconditional mitigation actions and enhanced conditional mitigation efforts (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, and Solomon Islands), while Vanuatu and Kiribati do not define conditionality clearly. Meanwhile, only six states provide a long-term mitigation target such as reaching net-zero by 2050. Specifying and quantifying these needs could generate support at the international level32, and capacity-building activities should estimate NDC implementation costs33.

Our analysis also shows divergent practices among PICs regarding the scope and depth of deliberation they report in informing their NDCs. Many NDCs were developed by governments with expert input, absent civil society participation (Table 2). As a result, NDCs run the risk of excluding community co-design, and arguably, of not achieving their anticipated outcomes. The revision of NDCs to common standards provides communities with an opportunity to provide critical input. An example of this is Tonga’s 2021 Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy (LT-LEDS), discussed next, where Tonga adopted a participatory process that combined both technical and cultural knowledge for meeting its NDC.

PICs not only face technical barriers to transitioning to renewable energy (discussed next) but are situated in an international system grounded in a Western worldview. In PICs, traditional knowledge and values shape local understandings of ‘sustainable livelihoods’34. Place-based knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding the relationships between living beings and their environment are passed down through generations24,35. This is overlooked by international actors conducting program and project development, who use standard processes for gathering data, analysing it, and making an assessment24. In a Polynesian context, Vaioleti24 remarks that Western actors:

[A]re unlikely to have values and lived realities that allow understanding of issues pertaining to knowledge and ways of being that originated from the nga waima (spirits) and whenua of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Tuvalu or the other Pacific nations. [Methodologies] that were designed to identify issues in a dominant culture and provide solutions are not necessarily suitable in searching for solutions for Pacific peoples, whose knowledge and ways of being have unique epistemologies…

Traditional knowledge influences perceptions of climate change, not as a hydrometerological event, but as a lifeworld shaping motivations to adapt34. Passing on these worldviews orally and through songs are important aspects of the Pacific way of life36. PIC cultures demonstrate close connections with the past, including ‘shared beliefs and values, strong cultural identities, access to resources through traditional social structures, continuation of agricultural practices and methods of marine extraction, rough equality of material conditions, reciprocity, and a degree of community control over the means of production’37. Dialogical practices such as Talanoa facilitate this cultural transmission of unwritten rules and etiquette.

Talanoa and other forms of cultural deliberation provide participants with an opportunity to interact in a particular local context to synthesise cultural information and are more likely to generate authentic knowledge and possible solutions24. At the core of all Pacific conversational forms is a ‘relational dynamic between self, others, and nature’38,39. Common Indigenous conversational methods have ‘collaborative and dialogic qualities; informality and flexibility; purposefulness; locatedness, perhaps seen through protocol and invested in epistemological and ontological contexts; and reflexivity’38,39. Talanoa emphasises reciprocity and social relationships between people, which is made possible by a desire by all involved to engage fully with the issues at hand40. The project proponent is responsible for creating and maintaining the relationship, or the va, and for advancing the talanoa in an authentic and respectful way40,41.

These practices have an ethical imperative that the interaction benefit Pasifika people and empower participants. Pasifika cultural practices, ethical standards, and values are front and centre42. Vaioleti24 notes that Talanoa is ‘resistant to rigid, institutional, hegemonic control.’ Protocols for undertaking Talanoa are specific to the purpose of the meeting, the Pacific Island, and the composition of the participants23. Talanoa can facilitate a local and contextualised understanding of community energy use and in establishing community driven renewable energy systems. However, Talanoa is predominantly Tongan, Fijian, Tokelauan, and Samoan, and does not resonate with most Melanesian and Micronesian epistemologies43. Indeed, utilising Talanoa as a pan-Pacific methodology could be viewed as colonising approach in itself43.

We argue that culturally appropriate deliberation can improve policy processes and increase the likelihood of success of internationally funded renewable energy projects in six ways. First, culturally appropriate deliberation can play a key role in decolonising development processes, ensuring PIC cultural contexts, values, and meanings remain centred. This has the potential to promote programs and projects that are ‘owned’ by PIC communities and align with local sustainable development visions. Secondly, this approach is more likely to generate authentic information grounded in experiential local knowledge. The result is a wider scope of considerations when constructing and evaluating projects, as well as a better understanding of community energy needs, and the ability to establish community-driven energy systems. Thirdly, culturally appropriate deliberation can improve the problem-solving capacities of policy and project development processes, foster mutual learning, and enable these processes to mobilise and respond to relevant information in determining how to achieve renewable electrification. Fourthly, it provides a method to integrate technical analysis with culturally led dialogue. Additionally, it facilitates the development of complex policies and projects in resource-constrained environments through extensive collaboration. Finally, deliberation can facilitate links between local communities and local, national, and international governance that facilitate renewable energy transitions. Attempts to ensure policy participation in meeting their NDCs is underway in Tonga, as detailed next.

The Paris Agreement invites states to formulate a ‘long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategy’ (LT-LEDS) through a nationally determined process that goes beyond the 5-year NDC cycle. Tonga has institutionalised cultural deliberation through national dialogues to implement its Low Emission Development Strategy 2021–205044,45. After legislating its commitment to renewables in 2008, Tonga established LT-LEDS to increase its engagement and long-term strategic planning capabilities across sectors through strengthening and extending existing dialogue processes (see Table 2). Strikingly, Tonga used deliberative process based on oral traditions and cultural values in a comprehensive effort to engage all Tongan society. Assisted by New Zealand, Tonga convened a series of facilitated strategic dialogues based on the oral tradition of Talanga, or ‘an interactive dialogue’ with a ‘purpose between two individuals or groups or communities’46. Throughout the process, Talanga was used to ‘weave’ together the ‘principles of traditional culture and knowledge, family, community and religion, autonomy and independence’46. Cultural metaphors and motifs, centred on the key metaphor of ‘threading the Alamea,’ were incorporated into tools and methods as visual storytelling aids to promote understanding within and across the workshops, respect the local context, and carry the dialogue45,46,47.

Threading the Alamea enabled the participants to develop a “sophisticated and meaningful identity for the final LT-LEDS report”45. Three dialogues were convened in 2020 and 2021 with a wide variety of stakeholders45. All stakeholders were able to imagine ‘the desired future for Tonga and the pathways to get there,’ which was ‘rooted in Tongan culture and values.’ Taking a participatory and qualitative approach also demonstrated that LT-LEDS can be developed in resource constrained contexts47. Robertson47 further remarks that:

By encouraging participatory dialogue, this project shows that a consensus-based approach… supports government decision-makers to successfully plan for a low-carbon future, by considering uncertainties and evaluating trade-offs and benefits…Governed by principles of traditional knowledge, education, inclusivity and autonomy, the weaving together of tradition and technology has produced a powerful result – one which Tongans are proud to be able to take to the table, and launch at COP26 in Glasgow.

Tongan officials observe that the LT-LEDS illustrates how “participatory processes can be robust” and furnish decision makers with strong qualitative data, while showing that the “process of considering the future, its trade-offs and benefits, is just as important as the final document”48. The LT-LEDS also provides momentum for developing long-term strategies for decarbonisation that can be adapted by other PICs45. Next, we detail PICs technical challenges to transition to renewables, which tend to dominate energy debates before showing how socio-cultural barriers also prevent implementing renewable energy projects.

Apart from oil and gas in PNG, PICs rely on imported petroleum products15. Energy demand and use in PICs are primarily for transportation, electricity generation, and cooking5. While transport represents the largest energy demand given dispersed populations over some 3000 islands15,49,50, PICs are targeting the electricity sector for renewables to meet their NDCs. Without specifying, IRENA identified general “cost, policy, technical, [and] sociocultural” barriers that impede the shift to renewable energy in the transport sector, recommending the electricity generation sector as a more fruitful option for demonstrated and “near term impact”6. However, most PICs are working from a low base of installed renewable energy capacity and face a range of barriers to deployment. We outline some of the impediments to shifting to a range of renewable technologies, before looking at project design and implementation.

PICs with renewable energy penetration (see Table 4) typically derive this from hydropower (Fiji, PNG, and Samoa), which is limited to large, mountainous islands with high rainfall50,51. In both Fiji and Samoa, around 50 percent of grid electricity is hydropower, while in PNG hydropower accounts for approximately 25 percent of electricity generated from the grid. Yet, hydropower has “Zero potential in low-lying countries”50.

Solar is the “most readily available renewable energy resource in the region”50, and solar photovoltaic (PV) technology installations have significantly expanded across the Pacific. However, these projects are small with little impact on installed capacity51. As IRENA states, solar “can be installed easily almost anywhere where there is sunshine, has low maintenance requirements, is cost effective for a wide range of sizes and is socially acceptable in rural and Table 5 remote communities”6. However, solar PV systems face maintenance issues, including corrosion from seaborn salt, electricity issues due to coral dust and moisture, and being exposed to tropical cyclones. Notably, “[E]xperience suggests where the community have been responsible, the quality of maintenance has usually not been very good”52. While this could be addressed through increasing operations and maintenance capacity, given PICs’ size any technical fix will be temporary due to the reliance on outside expertise2. The primary issue is therefore institutional, which requires a greater understanding of local culture: “If the system fails for any reason, villagers tend to simply abandon it and go back to the older ‘alternatives,’ even if they are inferior”50. Foreshadowing our discussion below, we argue that capacity issues are a contextual rather than technical problem53,54. As we show in section five, incorporating culturally appropriate decision making into project design and implementation could improve the chances for renewable energy project success.

Siting for renewables remains problematic. Wind power and geothermal energy have potential as market niches (e.g., geothermal in PNG’s Lihir gold mine), in addition to ocean energy technologies. Like solar, environmental conditions limit wind use, given that it either is “too little (gentle sea breeze) or too much (cyclone),” making site selection crucial50. Suitable wind turbines for the PICs are small scale, ranging between 100 kW and 300 kW. Existing cyclone-proof turbines are too big for installation in the Pacific, although some small (cyclone-proof) systems are in use in Fiji, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu6,55. Moreover, projects trialling off-grid small-scale systems “have generally not been successful”50. Meanwhile, ocean energy technologies are not yet commercially viable55.

By 2020, installed renewable energy capacity totalled 619.612 MW, of which 67 percent was from hydropower (Fig. 1), while electricity generation totalled 2 130 GWh, comprising 70 percent hydropower in 2019 (Fig. 2). Although the uptake of solar PV is rapidly increasing in every PIC, it largely operates at the household rather than utility scale and therefore has a limited impact on overall installed capacity. Consequently, “in 2015 hydropower and biomass still represent over 89% of installed [renewable energy] capacity”51.

This figure demonstrates the shift in cumulative installed capacity for renewable energy in Pacific Island Countries. The Y Axis is indicative of Megawatts of cumulative installed capacity and the X axis is broken down into years between 2000 and 2020 and each bar demonstrates (represented by colours) the relative amounts of electricity generation–including Onshore Wind, Geothermal, Biogas, Liquid Biofuels, Solid Biofuels, Solar PV, and Hydropower.

This figure demonstrates the shift in electricity generation in Pacific Island Countries. The Y Axis is indicative of Gigawatt Hours and the X axis is broken down into years between 2000 and 2019 and each bar demonstrates (represented by colours) the relative amounts of electricity generation—including Onshore Wind, Geothermal, Biogas, Liquid Biofuels, Solid Biofuels, Solar PV, and Hydropower.

An impediment to hydropower and biomass adoption is that the region’s size creates diseconomies of scale, which is exacerbated by the dispersed population and distance from major markets. This “limits the financial return available to investors” in renewable energy, thus reducing the flow of private investment for projects5. However, these geographical factors also have advantages: Deploying new renewable energy systems including power plants and grids in isolated small islands can allow for an analysis of new technologies with shorter feedback loops for correction than for mainland power grids. Smaller islands with short distances are also attractive for electric vehicle transportation6.

In sum, the small size and geographic isolation of PICs make achieving economies of scale for renewables a difficult prospect, coupled with concerns of ensuring the capacity of communities for maintaining renewable energy. Nevertheless, there is opportunity to deploy new energy systems. However, sociocultural barriers to renewable energy projects can impede the sustainable transition, which we argue could be overcome through incorporating culturally appropriate deliberative decision making into project design and implementation.

While culturally appropriate deliberation can feed into national policy processes, a lack of community engagement continues to hinder internationally funded renewable energy initiatives16,56. Donor-led funding schemes often do not involve deep consultation in their design and implementation and therefore often fail to meet the needs of end users16,56. These initiatives have not been sustainable due to limited capacity, budgets, and/or social and cultural uptake by communities7,18. Two recent examples illustrate this, with significant consequences for energy users and for achieving NDCs. They also challenge the notion that energy policy is the domain of state-owned, centralised, and vertically integrated utilities dispatching energy via utility-owned energy infrastructure. While some urban regions have access to energy grids, rural areas lack access17. Consequently, donor projects increasingly target rural electrification.

Electrification projects require understanding both the technical and cultural context to be planned, developed, implemented, and maintained effectively. In the first example, Anantharajah57 illustrates how community integration is vital for Fiji’s renewable electrification. Her ethnographic research describes ‘Community A’s’ experience as proximate to an industrial hub, but only recently electrified. Anantharajah focuses on the significance of aligning community interests with project outputs to implement successful development58. Community A were recipients of an electrification initiative aiming to bring greater economic opportunities. A large proportion of young men in this community were divers who, due to the lack of refrigeration, were forced to sell their produce to ‘middle-men’ at lower prices. If the divers could freeze their goods, they could sell directly to hotels for a significantly higher price.

A consultation process that was grounded in culturally appropriate knowledge sharing could have identified how the community intended to use their power. Instead, the community received ‘a level of electrification that was too low to power freezers’58. The community were only consulted in relation to receiving the infrastructure. It was assumed that the knowledge held by technicians was more valuable in determining a project’s success, which is typical in rural electrification. As Anantharajah states, these outcomes are a ‘product of knowledge practices that construct Pacific communities as objects, not owners of energy development, and that disconnect energy from its diverse social, cultural and historic meaning’57. The lack of consideration for local experience in decision making reinforced and reproduced inequalities despite progressing regional electrification59. In overlooking the social and cultural context of energy, the project design failed to meet basic community requirements and, once it became apparent that the infrastructure design was insufficient for their needs, there was no incentive to comply with ongoing payments57.

Anantharajah argues there is increasing recognition in Fiji of the connection between community consultation and ongoing success of electrification projects57. Talanoa, as a collaborative knowledge construction process centred around lived experience, has the capacity to level how knowledge is valued even in technical design discussions57. This allows recognition for local voices in how a project will be used and, therefore, designed. Culturally appropriate deliberative decision-making can reinforce integrating context into the project design process. Renewable energy project proponents are forced to engage with the place and people they are developing for and build decision-making processes that reflect the unique culture and customs of the community. In this case, the grounded nature of culturally appropriate deliberation would have provided an avenue not just for consultation, but meaningful engagement with end users that builds co-benefits throughout the project’s life. Processes such as Talanoa and Talanga are situated in place and cannot be transferred between or across different cultural contexts. As such, this process may be slower than a more generalisable approach. However, the failures of projects such this demonstrate that without a whole of project, deliberative approach, it is unlikely that developers will receive the requisite community buy-in for long-term success.

The second example, the Vanuatu Rural Electrification Project II (‘VREP II’), demonstrates the complexities of siting renewable energy projects on customary land, which is widespread in the Pacific60. The project shows how standard land donation and leasing processes employed by international proponents can fail to obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of communal landowners and create a risk of both community distrust and energy injustice61. VREP II aimed to increase renewable energy access for rural off-grid households, community facilities, and businesses and contribute to Vanuatu’s National Energy Roadmap (2016–2030)44. The project consisted of a solar home system and microgrids, and the development of five mini grids in five rural communities. The mini grid component was funded largely by the World Bank and followed its environmental and social policies62. However, multiple factors led to zero mini grids installed or operated under the VREP II project and project termination63.

Communities were selected based on expressions of interest but were not involved in the initial mini grid design63. This is problematic because culturally appropriate deliberation and co-design at project inception is crucial in bicultural spatial governance64, that can provide a sense of ‘self-defined energy identity’51, and ultimately genuine co-production of renewable energy initiatives65.

After communities were selected, they were invited to donate land through Voluntary Land Donations (VLD) for the mini grid and distribution infrastructure development in exchange for electricity. However, the VLD process did not reflect the realities of custom land ownership in Vanuatu. Under Vanuatu’s constitution, all land belongs to Indigenous custom owners, under communal land title, with community members holding both land ownership and possessory rights52. Arguably, gifting custom land through a VLD in exchange for electricity would bind all custom landowners to transfer property rights for the duration of the mini grid project66. However, the compensation processes established under the VLD failed to reflect this transfer process and failed to implement safeguards provided under the World Bank’s policies. Specifically, the project triggered the requirement for the proponent to develop a Resettlement Stakeholder Engagement Framework on custom land63, under which ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent’ (FPIC) had to be afforded to all custom owners before they leased, sold, or gifted communal land67. However, the VREP II VLD proforma did not provide collective compensation or secure the FPIC of all custom landowners before land donation. Arguably, these outcomes could have been avoided if the mini-grids and VLD processes had been co-designed through culturally appropriate deliberative processes that included project consultation, respect for custom land rights, and FPIC principles to avoid energy injustice and project failure60.

Throughout we have argued that culturally appropriate deliberation can help PICs meet their NDCs. Talanoa, Talanga and other dialogical practices can enhance policies for renewable electrification as evidenced in Tonga’s Long Term Low Emissions Strategy. While there remain technical barriers to the transition to renewable energy, both Fiji and Vanuatu exemplify how socio-cultural barriers can impede renewable energy projects. Using culturally appropriate decision making throughout the project process can contribute to internationally funded project success. This is because Talanoa and Talanga require commitment from all stakeholders, which is fundamental to removing roadblocks because they centre all actors’ needs, from remote off-grid communities, to state owned utilities in urban centres, to international donors. Engaging in culturally appropriate deliberation can promote projects that are ‘owned’ by PICs and align with local sustainable development visions. This requires donors to justify project specifications for end-users in the case of Fiji and inform siting and compensation processes for solar PV on customary land in Vanuatu. Project success is potentially increased because deliberation is more likely to generate authentic information grounded in local knowledge and mobilise relevant information for achieving renewable electrification. For example, in resource constrained contexts like Vanuatu, energy systems will need to provide co-benefits for energy users. Culturally appropriate decision making provides the means to integrate technical analysis with socio-economic conditions to facilitate complex projects through extensive participation. Deliberation can facilitate links between communities and the various levels of local, national, and international governance for the renewables transition.

To achieve culturally appropriate deliberation for renewable energy projects in PICs, principles from community-based approaches to project design, planning, and implementation could be used. Within the planning literature, community-based approaches advocate for processes that are built on foundations of participatory justice and place-based adaptability68,69. In the climate change adaptation and natural resource management literature, community-based approaches are bottom-up, people-centred, human right-based strategies to put local communities, their knowledge, and perspectives at the core of seemingly technocratic projects, which nonetheless rely on local communities to succeed. For example, as local communities have accumulated a wealth of knowledge to deal with climate variability over generations, NGOs and donors have increasingly promoted community-based adaptation as important for empowering communities to respond to climate change29,70. By acknowledging and incorporating communities’ priorities, needs, capacities, and traditional knowledge throughout all stages of project planning and implementation, community-based approaches are anchored locally but require embedding across governance levels and sectors70. Consequently, we argue that community-based approaches’ principles for the planning and implementation of renewable energy projects could contribute to culturally appropriate deliberation in PIC’s transition.

Currently, the effects of community-based adaptation remain under researched in PICs29,71,72. However, it provides an opportunity to pair the mobilisation of resources with traditional governance systems and knowledge73, particularly in relation to land and place74. Its effectiveness in improving the adaptation capacity of communities in response to climate change remains poorly understood but is promising29,70. In exploring the local perspectives and experiences of twenty beneficiary rural communities of community-based adaptation projects across Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, and Vanuatu, McNamara et al.29 identified common factors supporting the success of initiatives, including local approval and ownership, shared and equitable access to the initiative and its benefits, and integration of local realities. These factors were interdependent and reinforced each other, fostering participation and community engagement in decision making and improving the sustainability of the initiatives once funding ended. As these factors are also crucial to improve the transition towards renewables in PICs, we argue that community-based approaches, which foster participation throughout project planning and implementation, have potential to address the shortcomings of conventional top-down, technical approaches that have predominated in renewable energy. More research is needed to identify how deliberative approaches can be integrated at different levels of renewable energy governance. These lessons could also inform the integration of loss and damage assessment into PIC’s NDCs75.

Although they contribute little in the way of GHG emissions, PICs have articulated ambitious NDCs. Our evaluation highlights NDC variation and reliance on international assistance for the transition, with variegated incorporation of community input into implementation plans. This article analyses the potential for PICs to meet their targets given the significant technical barriers to renewable energy. While the literature recognises that PICs suffer from a lack of technology, technical expertise, and accessible and appropriate climate funding, we argue that culturally appropriate deliberative decision-making including Talanoa, Talanga, and community-based approaches could enhance policy and renewable energy project success. Continuing to promote renewable energy projects designed and delivered by donors but disconnected from local contexts does not acknowledge ongoing failure to meet the needs of end users and sustainability issues due to lack of capacity, budget, and/or social and cultural uptake by local communities. Culturally appropriate deliberative decision-making processes could ensure that communities can work with technologies and donors in a sustainable way to improve policy and project success. Further research is needed into how PIC’s and international partners can build culturally appropriate decision making throughout their policy and project process, from NDC implementation plans to renewable projects to ensure a sustainable and just transition.

This paper uses qualitative, descriptive research to describe the phenomena of Pacific Island Countries Nationally Determined Contributions and their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through shifting to renewable energy. The paper uses examples throughout the policy and renewable energy project process to demonstrate the potential for increased policy and project success through culturally deliberative decision-making. Counter-factual reasoning is employed in the project examples to demonstrate how failed projects may have been improved with culturally appropriate deliberation.

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

All data used is drawn from publicly available information.

Carter G. ‘Pacific Island States and 30 years of Global Climate Change Negotiations’, in Betzold, C., Castro, P., Weiler, F. & Blaxekjær, LØ. (ed.), Coalitions in the Climate Change Negotiations, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon, Oxon. 2021. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.4324/9780429316258.

Corbett, J., Veenendaal, W. & Connell, J. “The core executive and small states: Is coordination the primary challenge?” Public Adm, vol. 99 no. 1: 103-117. 2020a.

Small, D., Nicholls, A., & Jeffries, T. ‘Energy Resilience in the Pacific Islands Countries and Territories, Background Working Paper’, Sydney, UNSW, 2021.

Fry, G. & Tarte, S. (eds), The New Pacific Diplomacy, Canberra, ANU Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.22459/NPD.12.2015.

Dornan, M. ‘Renewable energy development in small island developing states of the pacific’. Resour 4, 490–506 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

IRENA, ‘Pacific Lighthouses Report Renewable Energy Roadmapping for Islands’, 2013, https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2013/Pacific-Lighthouse-Roadmapping.pdf accessed 10 September 2021.

Lucas, H., Fifita, S., Talab, I., Marschel, C. & Cabeza, L. F. ‘Critical challenges and capacity building needs for renewable energy deployment in pacific small island developing states (Pacific SIDS)’. Renew Energy 107, 42–52 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Betzold, C. ‘Fuelling the Pacific: Aid for Renewable Energy Across Pacific Island Countries’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 311–318 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, ‘Fiftieth Pacific Islands Forum Communique. Funafuti, Tuvalu’, 2019, accessed 1 November 2020, <forumsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/50th-Pacific-Islands-Forum-Communique.pdf>.

Owens, K., Park, S. & Viney, G. Unsettling Resources: Renewables in the Pacific, Sydney, Sydney Environment Institute, 2021.

IEA, Net Zero by 2050, Paris, 2021. www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050.

Keeley, A. ‘Renewable Energy in Pacific Small Island Developing States: the role of international aid and the enabling environment from donor’s perspectives,’. J. Clean. Prod. 46, 29–36 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Madlener, R. & Wohlgemuth N. ‘Financial support of renewable energy systems: investment vs operating cost subsidies’, NAEE Conference ‘Towards an integrated European energy Market’, Bergen, Norway, vol. 31, 2000.

Anantharajah, K. & Setyowati, A. ‘Beyond promises: Realities of climate finance justice and energy transitions in Asia and the Pacific,’. Energy Res. and Soc. Sci. 89, 1–11 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

ADB, Pacific Energy Update 2020, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, 2021.

Atteridge, A. & Savvidou, G. ‘Development aid for energy in Small Island Developing States’. Energy, Sustain. Soc. 9, 1–16 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Dornan, M. Access to electricity in Small Island Developing States of the Pacific: Issues and challenges’. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 31, 726–735 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Dornan, M. & Shah, K. U. ‘Energy policy, aid, and the development of renewable energy resources in Small Island Developing States’. Energy Policy 98, 759–767 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Nunn, P. D., Aalbersberg, W., Lata, S. & Gwilliam, M. ‘Beyond the core: community governance for climate-change adaptation in peripheral parts of Pacific Island Countries’. Reg. Environ. Change 14, 221–235 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Enari, D. & Jameson, L. V. ‘Climate Justice: A Pacific Island perspective’. Aust. J. of Hum. Rights 27, 149–160 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

UNFCCC, 2018 Talanoa Dialogue Platform, 2022.

Anantharajah K. ‘”But our lights were still on”: Decolonizing energy futures emerging from climate finance regulation in Fiji’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 72, pp. 1-10, 2021b.

Vaioleti, T. ‘Talanoa: Differentiating the talanoa research methodology from phenomenology, narrative. Kaupapa Maori and Feminist Methodologies,’ Te Reo 56-57, 191–212 (2014).

Google Scholar

Vaioleti, T. ‘Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research’. Waikato J. Educ 12, 21–34 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Ofanoa, M., Percival, R., Huggard, P. & Buetow, S. ‘Talanga: The Tongan Way Enquiry’. Sociology Study 5, 334–340 (2015).

Google Scholar

Vaka’uta, N. ‘Tālanga: Theorizing a Tongan mode of interpretation’. Alternative 5, 126–139 (2009).

Article Google Scholar

Hay, J. & Mimura, N. ‘Vulnerability, risk and adaptation assessment methods in the Pacific Islands Region: past approaches, and considerations for the future’. Sustain Sci. 8, 391–405 (2013).

Article Google Scholar

McNamara, K. E. ‘Taking stock of community-based climate-change adaptation projects in the pacific’. Asia Pac. Viewp. 54, 398–405 (2013).

Article Google Scholar

McNamara, K. E. et al. ‘An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands’. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 628–639 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Ensor, J., & Berger, R. ‘Community-based adaptation and culture in theory and practice’, in Adger, N., Lorenzoni, I., and O’Brien, K. (eds), Adapting to Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.

Kirkby, P., Williams, C. & Huq, S. ‘Community-based adaptation (CBA): adding conceptual clarity to the approach, and establishing its principles and challenges’, Clim. Dev 10, 577–589 (2017).

Google Scholar

Pauw, W. P., Castro, P., Castro, J. & Bhasin, S. ‘Conditional nationally determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: foothold for equity or Achilles heel?’. Clim. Policy 20, 468–484 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA), ‘Climate Ambitions: An Analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the ACP Group of States’, 2018.

Granderson, A. ‘The role of traditional knowledge in building adaptive capacity for climate change: Perspectives from Vanuatu’. Weather, Clim. Soc. 9, 545–561 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Systems. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2008.

Robinson, D. & Robinson, K. ‘Pacific ways of talk – hui and talanoa’, Social and Civic Policy Institute, Wellington and Council on Public Policy Education, Ohio, 2005. http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/formidable/robinson4.pdf.

Gough, K., Bayliss-Smith, T., Connell, J. & Mertz, O. ‘Small Island sustainability in the Pacific: Introduction to the special issue’. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 31, 1–9 (2010).

Article Google Scholar

Kovach, M. ‘Conversational method in Indigenous research’. First Peoples Child Family Rev 14, 123–136 (2010).

Article Google Scholar

Sanga, K., Reynolds, M., Houma, S. & Maebuta, J. ‘Tok stori as pedagogy: an approach to school leadership education in Solomon Islands’. Aust. J. of Indig. Educ. 50, 377–384 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Otunuku, M. ‘Talanoa: How can it be used effectively as an Indigenous research methodology with Tongan people?’. Pacific-Asian Educ. J 23, 43–52 (2011).

Google Scholar

Fa‘avae, D., Jones, A. & Linitā, M. ‘Talanoa'i ‘A e Talanoa—Talking about Talanoa: Some dilemmas of a novice researcher’. Alternative 12, 138–150 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Suaalii-Sauni, T. & Fulu-Aiolupotea, S. M. ‘Decolonising Pacific research, building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The case of the talanoa and the faafaletui in Samoa’. Asia Pac. Viewp. 55, 331–344 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Tunufa’i, l. ‘Pacific Research: Rethinking the Talanoa ‘Methodology’, N. Z. Sociol., vol. 31, iss 7, 227–239, 2016.

Government of Vanuatu, ‘Updated Vanuatu National Energy Road Map 2016 – 2030’, 2016a. https://www.nab.vu/vanuatu-national-energy-road-map accessed 13 July 2021.

Relative Creative, ‘Designing culturally-led facilitated dialogues with the Government of Tonga as they plan their commitment to lower emissions’, 2023, https://relativecreative.com.au/design/tonga-lt-leds/.

Government of Tonga, Tonga Low Emission Development Strategy 2021-2050, Nuku’alofa, Tong, 2021, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/TON_LTS_Nov2021.pdf.

Robertson, D. ‘Tongan culture and technical analysis come together for a stronger long-term low emissions strategy’, ClimateWorks, 22 September 2021, 2021, https://www.climateworkscentre.org/news/tongan-culture-and-technical-analysis-come-together/.

Fifita, A. ‘An Opportunity for Transformation: Experiences from Tonga’, Department of Climate Change, Kingdom of Tonga, GGGWeek 2021 – NDCs, Green Growth Strategy Index, Presentation, 2021.

Goundar, A., Newell, A., Nuttall, P., Rojon, I. & Samuwai, J. ‘King canute muses in the south seas: why aren’t pacific islands transitioning to low carbon sea transport futures?’. Mar. Policy 81, 80–90 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Weir, T. ‘Renewable energy in the pacific islands: its role and status’. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 94, 762–771 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Michalena, E. & Hills, J. M. ‘Paths of renewable energy development in small island developing states of the South Pacific’. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82, 343–352 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Paterson, D. ‘Some Recent Interesting Cases Relating to Land in Vanuatu’. J. South Pacific Law 2019, 90–106 (2019).

Google Scholar

Jugl, M. Country Size and Public Administration. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Sarapuu, K., & Randma-Liiv, T. “Small States: Public Management and Policy-Making.” Edited by G. Baldacchino and A. Wivel, Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 55-69, 2020

ESCAP, Pacific Perspectives 2022: Accelerating Climate Action, 2022, accessed 14 June 2023, https://www.unescap.org/kp/2022/pacific-perspectives-2022-accelerating-climate-action.

Westoby, R. et al. ‘Locally led adaptation: drivers for appropriate grassroots initiatives’. Local Environ 26, 313–319 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Anantharajah, K. ‘”But our lights were still on”: Decolonizing energy futures emerging from climate finance regulation in Fiji’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 72, pp. 1-10, 2021b.

Anantharajah, K. ‘Racial formation, coloniality, and climate finance organizations: Implications for emergent data projects in the Pacific’, Big Data Soc., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-7, 2021a.

Ray, V. ‘A Theory of Racialized Organizations’. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84, 26–53 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Taylor, M. & Taylor, S. ‘Applying energy justice principles: A case study of solar. Energy in Vanuatu,’ J. World Energy Law Bus 15, 193–211 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

O’Neill, L. et al. ‘Renewable energy development on the Indigenous Estate: Free, prior and informed consent and best practice in agreement-making in Australia’, Energy Re. Soc. Sci., vol. 81, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102252.

Government of Vanuatu, ‘Vanuatu Rural Electrification Project (VREP) II’, 2021, https://doe.gov.vu/index.php/projects-2/item/2-off-grid/6-vanuatu-rural-electrification-project-vrep-ii accessed 10 October 2021.

World Bank, ‘Rural Electrification Project Stage II’ (P160658), 2022, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099215006292213560/pdf/P16065807d3dca0b9092020167df8fbfab3.pdf accessed 12 July 2022.

Dionisio, R. & Hikairo, M. A. ‘Tikanga rua: Bicultural spatial governance in Aotearoa New Zealand’. N. Z. Geogr 55-62, 55–62 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Galende-Sánchez, E. & Sorman, A. ‘From consultation toward co-production in science and policy: A critical systematic review of participatory climate and energy initiatives’. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73, 1–15 (2018).

Google Scholar

http://prdrse4all.spc.int/sites/default/files/281216_vrep_ii_resettlement_policy_framework_final.pdf (2021). Government of Vanuatu, ‘Resettlement Policy for the VREP II Project’, 2016b accessed 12 August.

Taylor, M. ‘Consultation or Free, Informed, and Prior Consent?’ in Colbourne, R. and Anderson, R., Indigenous Wellbeing and Enterprise (Routledge), 2020.

Alwaer, H. & Cooper, I. ‘A review of the role of facilitators in community-based, design-led planning and placemaking events’. Built Environ. 45, 190–211 (2019). no. 3, pp.

Article Google Scholar

Malone, L. Desire Lines: A Guide to Community Participation in Designing Places, London, London University Pres, 2018.

Reid, H. ‘Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management’. Clim. Dev. 8, 4–9 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Clissold, R. & McNamara, K. E. ‘Exploring local perspectives on the performance of a community-based adaptation project on Aniwa, Vanuatu.’, Clim. Dev. 12, 457–468 (2020).

Google Scholar

Hills, J. M., Μichalena, E. & Chalvatzis, K. J. ‘Innovative technology in the Pacific: Building resilience for vulnerable communities’. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129, 16–26 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Nalau, J., Becken, S., Loehr, J. & Parsons, M. ‘The Role of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge in Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Review of the Literature and Case Studies from the Pacific Islands’. Weather Clim. Soc. 10, 851–865 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Dacks, R. et al. ‘Developing biocultural indicators for resource management’. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, 38–n/a (2019).

Google Scholar

Toussaint, P. & Martínez Blanco, A. ‘A human rights-based approach to loss and damage under the climate change regime’. Clim. Pol. 20, 743–757 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Download references

We would like to thank the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney for their support and Simon Bradshaw from Climate Council for his feedback.

University of Sydney, Discipline of Government and International Relations, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Susan Park, Ana Maria Ulloa & Gemma Viney

University of Sydney, Law School, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Katherine Owens

University of Sydney, Discipline of Political Economy, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Oliver Summerfield-Ryan

Macquarie University, Macquarie Law School, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Madeline Taylor

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Each author contributed to the main argument and provided evidenced used herein.

Correspondence to Susan Park.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Park, S., Owens, K., Summerfield-Ryan, O. et al. How can pacific island countries meet their nationally determined contributions?. npj Clim. Action 2, 23 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00059-0

Download citation

Received: 27 January 2023

Accepted: 04 August 2023

Published: 22 August 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00059-0

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative