Deluge

The COP28 in Dubai last year underscored the urgency of the ongoing planetary crises, with one projection indicates that the Earth’s temperature rise would surpass the critical 1.5°C threshold.

The devastating flood in Dubai serves as a dire warning, mirroring the annual northeast monsoon floods in Malaysian states such as Johor, Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang.

The economic toll of these environmental disasters is immense. The 2024 floods in Johor and Pahang, for instance, affected 5,666 people, forcing them to seek refuge in 41 evacuation centers. The flash flood of December 2021 across eight states incurred damages estimated at RM6.1 billion and 60 recorded deaths. These figures only scratch the surface of the long-term effects on infrastructure, livelihoods and human well-being.

The economic toll of floods in Malaysia is indeed significant, with a World Bank report estimating the potential loss at RM4.8 billion annually. This figure represents a substantial increase in Malaysia’s fiscal deficit by 2.2%.

The report also suggests localized, actionable solutions to mitigate the damage, such as utilizing risk financing instruments like catastrophe bonds and insurance to bolster financial resilience against flood risks, as well as the efficacy of community-based flood early warning systems in Kelantan.

Our current adaptation strategies are inadequate in the face of increasing climate risks. The National Disaster Management Agency (NADMA) has formulated detailed plans by adopting both structural measures (curative approach) and non-structural measures (preventive approach). However, their implementation is inconsistent, often hindered by limited local resources and capacity.

It is clear that extra measures must be considered. Indonesia’s capital Jakarta, which suffers from regular flooding, could offer a pointer. Learning from Jakarta’s comprehensive flood management strategy is crucial, which combines infrastructure development with Nature-based Solutions (NbS) such as wetland restoration and urban greening.

Additionally, innovative approaches such as “sponge city” initiatives, which use permeable surfaces and green infrastructure to manage stormwater, should be considered.

In my home state of Johor, the distress caused by the annual flood crisis is evident. There is a need to prioritize the creation of a robust climate resilience blueprint within the heavily affected districts like Kota Tinggi, Mersing and Segamat.

While federal expenditure for natural disaster adaptation is vital, it is equally important for Johor to establish a more resilient, long-term strategy. Perhaps, the newly established state think tank, the Johor Sustainability Centre (JSC), must take this as a challenge.

Any mitigation plan should be localized, all-encompassing, actionable and rooted in sustainable practices to effectively combat the escalating challenges of climate change. The era of deliberation is over – decisive and collective action is now required to protect our communities and ecosystems from the unpredictable effects of a warming planet.

However, challenges persist, including a deficit in climate leadership, inadequate action from policymakers and fragmented governance, leading to the non-execution of well-intentioned plans.

Smoke

The annual transboundary haze, another component of the triple planetary crisis, continues to afflict Malaysia and the ASEAN region, although the region adopted a roadmap to become haze-free by 2020.

Predominantly caused by slash-and-burn agriculture technique in Indonesia, the resulting haze aggravates respiratory conditions, disrupts daily life and contributes to biodiversity loss by destroying vital peatland and forest ecosystems. Research has estimated that Indonesia’s 2015 fire and haze crisis caused over 100,000 premature deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore with 90% occurring in Indonesia.

The 2015 transboundary haze crisis alone resulted in economic losses estimated at RM10 billion for Malaysia. Whilst in 2019, the transboundary haze crisis led to school closures affecting over 1.7 million students, at least two deaths in Indonesia, and widespread respiratory and cardiovascular health issues across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

Despite the existence of ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP), its implementation has been inconsistent, hampered by a lack of enforcement mechanisms which shows that ASEAN Member States (AMS) are working in silos, each afraid of infringing on another’s domestic affairs.

Malaysia-owned palm oil corporations with operations in Kalimantan and Sumatra have been identified as significant contributors to haze catastrophe in 2019. Even after the establishment of the AATHP over two decades ago, Malaysia has yet to establish specific national legislation addressing this issue. The absence of such regulations can be attributed to a series of unstable political administrations, which have impeded the advancement of pertinent legislative measures at the national level.

The first Pakatan Harapan (PH) government that came into power in 2018 managed to table a bill on transboundary haze. However, when the succeeding Perikatan Nasional (PN) government took over in 2020, they overruled this bill. The PN government’s rationale was that managing transboundary haze should not be solely a Malaysian responsibility – instead, they viewed it as a regional challenge that requires a regional consensus and coordination among all AMS.

Last year, under the unity government, the issue was revisited, but the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) maintained that a strong regional negotiation and a collective effort among AMS are necessary to effectively address the persisting problem.

While regional cooperation is crucial, the lack of progress can be attributed to the divergent priorities and concerns among AMS, often driven by national interest and the principle of non-interference. However, ASEAN recently reinforced the Second Haze-Free Roadmap’s commitment to a collaborative, multi-sectoral approach, emphasizing innovative strategies and stakeholder engagement to achieve a haze-free Southeast Asia by 2030.

In contrast, Singapore passed the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014, which serves as a robust legal framework to identify and hold entities responsible for the haze, thereby demonstrating a proactive and transparent stance on the matter. This prompts the question, should not a similar transparent and decisive approach be also adopted in Malaysia to mitigate this regional challenge?

Degradation

The alarming rate of biodiversity loss in Malaysia is another critical climate crisis in Malaysia, driven by deforestation, habitat fragmentation and unsustainable development practices. Malaysia experienced a reduction of about 8.12 million hectares of tree cover from 2001 to 2019, which is equivalent to a 28% decrease in tree cover since 2000.

This significant loss of tree cover indeed poses a threat to the survival of endemic species such as the Malayan tiger, Sumatran rhinoceros and orangutan, highlighting the urgent need for conservation efforts to protect Malaysia’s natural heritage and environmental resilience.

For instance, the Central Forest Spine Master Plan, initiated in 2019, is designed to connect and safeguard critical forest complexes throughout the country. Its success is contingent upon stringent enforcement, comprehensive land-use planning and incentives for sustainable practices in sectors such as agriculture, forestry and tourism.

Moreover, the rapid pace of development and urbanization has led to the degradation of ecological corridors and wildlife crossings, further isolating and fragmenting wildlife populations. A prime example of this imbalance between development and sustainability is the proposed Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project, which aims to reclaim land along the coast of Penang Island for the construction of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system and related development.

Kuala Lumpur-based think tank Institut Masa Depan Malaysia (Institute of the Future Malaysia – MASA) has advocated for this project with the Network for Ecology and Climate (JEDI) to minimize the damage on coastal communities and preserve the marine ecosystem. MASA also submitted a UPR Stakeholder Report to the UN Human Rights Council last year, highlighting the potential threats to the coastal areas along Bayan Lepas, Batu Maung, Gertak Sanggul, Permatang Damar Laut and up to Balik Pulau. The reclamation and associated infrastructure development could endanger the rich biodiversity of these coastal regions, further fragmenting and degrading vital habitats and ecosystems.

Such instances underscore the urgent need for development processes to holistically consider environmental and biodiversity impacts, prioritizing sustainability and the preservation of Malaysia’s natural heritage. Without a concerted effort to strike a balance between progress and conservation, the nation’s unique biodiversity will continue to be eroded, with far-reaching implications for ecological resilience and the well-being of present and future generations.

Solutions

In combating the triple planetary crisis, the empowerment and engagement of youth are essential. As a Malaysian youth delegate under the Children and Youth Major Group (CYMG) constituency to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), I had the privilege of contributing to the Asia Pacific Youth Environment Declaration at the inaugural Asia Pacific Youth Environment Forum (APYEF) and the Fifth Forum of Ministers and Environment Authorities of Asia Pacificin Sri Lanka last October.

Our contributions underscored the necessity for active participation of youth and children in environmental governance, the urgency to tackle air pollution, the protection of environmental human rights defenders, the democratization of access to information and justice, and the alignment of UNEA-6 draft resolutions with the broader United Nations framework.

Providing equitable platforms for the voices of youth like this, will enable us to utilize our energy, creativity and digital proficiency to drive innovative, locally-adapted solutions. Importantly, climate policies and sustainable development strategies must be designed with the foresight of their impact on future generations. Intergenerational dialogue and the sharing of knowledge are also vital to bridge the gap between generations and foster mutual understanding.

Collaborating with indigenous communities to tackle the climate crisis will allow us to integrate their enduring sustainable practices and traditional ecological knowledge into modern conservation efforts.

The Orang Asli community of Kampung Gumum near Tasik Chini exemplifies effective disaster risk planning. Supported by organizations and government bodies like the Department of Orang Asli Development (JAKOA) and Village Security and Development Committees (JKKK), they have developed a framework that strengthens social and financial capital, enhancing disaster preparedness and response. The village head’s role in information dissemination and community organization is pivotal, ensuring preparedness for potential disasters.

Enhanced regional collaboration and pressure on Indonesia to implement stricter regulations on slash-and-burn practices are essential to mitigate this recurring crisis. Malaysia needs a strong political will to demonstrate a balanced approach through the collaboration with every relevant ministry in strengthening its domestic law, policy and monitoring systems to hold accountable those Malaysia-based agricultural companies that contributed to the haze through major open burning activities in the agriculture areas in Indonesia. Overcoming the transboundary haze challenges will require a balanced approach that acknowledges the sovereignty of each AMS while fostering greater transparency, accountability and a shared commitment.

Community-based conservation initiatives, exemplified by Sabah’s Batu Puteh Community Conserved Area, demonstrate the potential of empowering local communities to protect and manage their natural resources sustainably. These initiatives foster a sense of ownership and pride in our biodiversity, creating a supportive base for conservation efforts that enhance top-down policy measures. It is crucial to question whether we are doing enough to support and expand these grassroots initiatives.

The journey towards a sustainable and resilient Malaysia in light of the triple planetary crisis transcends policy – it is about collective determination and action. Now is the time to rise to the challenge, adopt adaptive strategies and ensure our response to these crises is as dynamic and resilient as the ecosystems we aim to safeguard. By nurturing a culture of climate resilience, embracing innovative solutions, empowering stakeholders to contribute and prioritizing the conservation of our precious natural heritage, we can forge a path to a truly sustainable future for Malaysia.

Introduction

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s (AIIB) 2023 Climate Action Plan (CAP 2023) highlights the institution’s strategy for renewed energy sector aimed at pushing back against the climate crisis.

While such a policy pronouncement projects a confident and convincing narrative, the implementation of this strategy still leaves room for improvement.

CAP 2023 highlights four main commitments. First, AIIB aims to meet the needs of its members for a “Just Approach on Climate Finance” by customizing climate solutions based on individual needs and circumstances. Second, it intends to take a wholesome approach through proposing solutions which “simultaneously mitigate climate change, build resilience, enhance adaptation, and offer cobenefits for biodiversity and nature conservation.” Third, it aims to mobilize funding for climate projects. Lastly, AIIB will promote technological innovation for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The document also highlights specific efforts that will be carried out by AIIB. First, AIIB will not channel funds to coal-related projects. Second, despite stopping funding coal projects, AIIB will still invest in the oil sector to ensure energy provision in remote areas. Third, AIIB will be strictly selective in deciding on projects related to natural gas. Fourth, AIIB will emphasise on climate adaptation and resilience for energy infrastructure, while also further emphasizing on gender equality.

However, from these commitments, AIIB still appears to be hesitant on its anti-climate crisis and sustainability agendas. These two imperatives are interrelated and complementary. When funding goes to projects that do not support sustainability, the climate as a whole will be affected.

This is why it is important for AIIB to align its funding scheme to the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, while also obligating recipient countries to adhere to their sustainability and climate action commitments.

Questions about Commitment to Climate Action

Prior to CAP 2023, AIIB has been seemingly hesitant in investing in clean energy. This is demonstrated from its investment pattern in recent years, where most investments were channeled to “dirty energy” sectors. This is evident in several examples, despite the palpable effects of such projects to the climate. For example, in 2020, investment in fossil fuel still dominated with a 54% share of AIIB’s total funding in the energy sector. This is more than double the 24% share of investment in renewable energy.

AIIB had also indirectly financed such sectors through intermediaries. In 2017, the AIIB backed the IFC Emerging Asia Fund (EAF) in its acquisition of the equity of Shwe Taung Cement to construct a new kiln aimed at increasing cement production. Interestingly, higher cement production means higher demand for coal from a nearby coal mine.

Furthermore, EAF has also channeled funds to Summit Power International, a Singapore-based company, which operates 13 power plants in Bangladesh with fossil fuels. This investment is also considered a high risk, considering the potential implications on land acquisition problems and pollution.

Therefore, CAP 2023 can be seen as an attempt by President of AIIB, Jin Liqun, to temper down such concerns (e.g. no longer funding coal-related projects).

Coal was highlighted because majority of its investments in the coal energy sector goes to Asian countries including Indonesia. Considering the Asia-Pacific region produces the largest volume of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) –  including half of carbon dioxide worldwide – the region is thus vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. This might have been one of the reasons prompting AIIB to transition to renewables across Asia.

While the recent strategies laid out by AIIB is well-intended, there is still a lack of clarity on achieving the desired outcomes. This could lead to questioning the institution’s commitment towards instilling positive changes. For example, AIIB does not have a specific GHG emission reduction target.  Unlike AIIB, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) appears to be more serious, targeting to peak GHG emissions by or before 2030. ADB and other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) have also pledged to channel US$175 billion per year in climate finance by 2025, as announced at the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019. Though AIIB has stated that it will strictly select natural gas projects for funding, without clear oversights, there is a still a possibility of AIIB pivoting largely to funding to gas exploration. Though   

Meanwhile, the AIIB’s commitment remains vague. There is already a concern that its strategy pronouncements will be a half-hearted commitment to stop investment in dirty energy and shift funding to gas exploration, as indicated in its CAP 2023. Though touted as “relatively clean burning”, natural gas itself is not only a strong greenhouse gas but also its production can lead to environmental issues such as water contamination. Notably, natural gas is mainly methane. Methane has the potential to accelerate global warming 86 times more than CO2 over 20 years.

Questions about Commitment to Sustainability

Despite the push for renewables, CAP 2023 still falls short on ensuring sustainability, especially on issues relating to social and environmental commitments. Similarly, there are no specific targets set to address these issues in the funding segment.

AIIB’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) also fails to comprehensively address labor rights and protection.  Furthermore, AIIB’s Environmental and Social Standard (ESS2) does not regulate informal land rights and gender equality, the latter of which is considered a “mandatory” imperative. Moreover, as exemplified in the Mandalika Urban Tourism and Development Project, the people consulted had minimum awareness regarding grievances and compensation mechanism, which are essential to address problems that might arise.

These highlighted issues indicate that the AIIB’s commitment to sustainability still has room for improvement.

Impact on Indonesia

Indonesia has been a part of AIIB since its establishment in 2015. In fact, the Vice President and Chief Administration Officer of AIIB today is Luky Eko Wuryanto, an Indonesian.

Since 2016, there have been 11 projects funded by AIIB in Indonesia. Of these 11 projects, the most problematic is the aforementioned Mandalika Project worth US$248.4 million in 2018. On this issue, AIIB is considered negligent in conducting due diligence to avoid and minimize the risk of involuntary resettlement and eviction of affected indigenous peoples. Even before the project was greenlit, land disputes were rampant in Mandalika, West Nusa Tenggara.  

Based on a survey from the Indonesian Infrastructure Development Monitoring Coalition (KPPII), as many as 98% of respondents were not asked for their consent regarding the Mandalika project – only 6% had ever attended consultation meetings held by AIIB. The survey involved 105 respondents from affected communities.

This is despite the requirement in AIIB’s ESF for its clients to consult affected communities and provide evidence of support from indigenous peoples. The survey results strongly indicate a possible violation of AIIB’s ESF itself, due to the institution’s lack of due diligence.

KPPII also reported that affected women have been ignored in consultation meetings with the Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) and AIIB. Many families are forced to live in unhealthy conditions for more than three years in temporary shelters. Children are also not spared. These children have limited access to schools due to the remote location of their permanent settlements. All of these indicate that AIIB-funded project has caused socio-economic difficulties to the surrounding communities.

The above case reflects that AIIB’s sustainability standards are still inadequate, which is also exacerbated by the Indonesian government’s ineffectiveness to anticipate this problem and supervise the project properly. Thus, there is a need for all stakeholders to continue to supervise/monitor AIIB’s investments in the country.

In addition, in the context of supporting the energy transition agenda, AIIB might be seen as a more “lenient” investor as it imposes no strict conditions and requirements when it comes to social and environmental protections, compared to Western-led funding schemes such as the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). However, the implication is that the implementation of its projects often results in social and environmental problems, such as the Mandalika Project above.

Regardless, the Indonesian government should not solely rely on AIIB as an investor, considering the institution’s ongoing struggle to become “greener” in its financing schemes. The government should look at other funding opportunities from Western countries and most importantly, it needs to encourage AIIB to properly implement CAP 2023 to ensure destination countries can fully benefit from the projects it funds. While investment in infrastructure projects would certainly be beneficial economically to countries like Indonesia, the sustainability aspect of such projects should be considered, so that it could assist the countries in meeting its commitments in the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) sphere.

Introduction

Climate pledges are being used more than ever by businesses to demonstrate their commitments to combating the climate crisis and transitioning to a more sustainable society.

However, these terms may frequently cause confusion among consumers and could be misused for greenwashing purposes. It is, therefore, essential for individuals to accurately understand what such terms represent in order to be informed consumers. Businesses, on the other hand, should effectively align their sustainability goals with marketing strategies.

Climate Pledges

According to the Global Sustainability Study 2021, there has been a substantial global paradigm shift in consumers’ perspectives on sustainability and willingness to pay for sustainable products and services.

Globally, 85% of consumers said they had changed their purchasing habits to be more sustainable in the last five years, while 60% said sustainability was an essential purchase criterion.

As the demand for sustainable products and packaging rises among consumers, so does the need for companies to update their codes of conduct. At the time of writing, more than 400 corporations have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040, indicating that the private sector is under increasing pressure.

With that said, businesses have started to incorporate “climate pledge” into their advertising strategies. The goals are to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable business practices and attract consumers who are environmentally conscious.

The samples listed below are those that are typically found in regular business communication, such as on a product label, a company’s website, or an advertisement.

Carbon-neutral

The concept of carbon neutrality revolves around achieving a balance between the amount of CO2 emitted and the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol recommends assessing a company’s carbon neutrality across three scopes (direct and indirect emissions from operations, supply chain, and product use) as demonstrated below.

Carbon-offset

Similarly to carbon-neutral, carbon offset involves compensating for one’s carbon emissions by investing in projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This could involve supporting renewable energy initiatives, reforestation projects, or improving energy efficiency.

Net-zero

Net-zero is tied to the 2015 Paris Agreement: in order to meet the 1.5°C global warming target, global carbon emissions should reach net zero by mid-century. Every five years, countries are expected to publish their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which must outline their long-term plans for achieving net-zero emissions and their emission reduction targets.

Climate-positive

Climate positivity goes beyond carbon neutrality by actively removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than is emitted. IKEA, for example, has pledged to be climate positive by investing in renewable energy and carbon capture projects, and emphasizing sustainable practices throughout their supply chains.

Eco-friendly

The Natural Step Framework (TNS) is a sustainability framework that aims to create a more balanced relationship between human activities and the natural environment. The ideas and goals of TNS can be seen in eco-friendly products, which are made to have as minimal a negative effect on the environment as possible by using fewer resources, employing renewable materials, or applying non-toxic production methods.

Recycled materials

Products labeled recycled are made from waste material or previously used items. It is closely related to the “Circular Economy” model, which aims to reduce resource waste and maximize resource usage by reusing and recycling materials. Both of these concepts aim to encourage responsible resource management as well as less waste generation.

Sustainably-sourced

This refers to goods that are obtained in a way that has little impact on the ecosystem, preserves natural resources and promotes social responsibility. Consumers who value sustainably-sourced products may also consider fairtrade options (i.e., fair prices, no child labor, gender equality, community development and sustainable farming practices) to support both environmental sustainability and social fairness. Both sustainably sourced products and fairtrade place an emphasis on responsible and ethical practices throughout supply chains.

Those pledges are excellent attempts to encourage responsible consumption and production, which is central to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 12, “ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns, [..] sustaining the livelihoods of current and future generations”.

Things to Consider

While it is encouraging that businesses are adjusting their objectives, goals and labels to support the climate movement, there are some issues that must be addressed.

A recent report released at the COP27 climate conference raises concerns among citizens, consumers, environmentalists and investors around the possible use of net-zero pledges for greenwashing purposes.

One example would be the advertisement that HSBC ran prior to COP26. This advertisement promoted a tree-planting initiative as well as its net-zero goal, but it failed to mention that the company also sponsored fossil fuel projects at the same time. As a result, the advertisement was banned since it failed to include important information.

Another example, the fast-fashion retailer H&M was sued for “false” and “misleading” marketing because its closed-loop recycling campaign gave consumers the illusion “that old clothes are simply turned into new garments or that clothes will not end up in a landfill”, which indeed “would take H&M more than a decade to recycle what it sells in a matter of days.”

The examples above suggest that marketing professionals working for such organizations may lack sustainability literacy as well as transparency in sharing information. On the contrary, businesses may simply want to capitalize on this hype in order to appear more appealing and confuse their consumers with half-baked promises.

Whether intentional or not, brands that are exaggerating or falsifying their sustainability credentials need to be put under public scrutiny and even challenged legally to hold them accountable and stop the violations.

Practice Makes Perfect

As there is a potential that these climate-related terms could be employed deceptively, what can we do to bring them back on track and increase our trust in sustainable marketing campaigns?

Thankfully, there are climate action tracking organizations around the world serving as watchdogs for climate pledges and initiatives, such as Climate Action Tracker (CAT), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Carbon Trust, to name a few.

Yet, it is necessary to have some understanding of those climate pledges in order to exercise sound judgment. As customers, we have learned that when a company claims to be net-zero or carbon neutral, it must include not only the company’s direct CO2 emissions but also its carbon footprint in other indirect paths.

If a product is labeled “recycled” or “eco-friendly,” our awareness of the circular economy might prompt us to follow the product’s supply chain to verify how it was sourced and recycled before we can completely trust it.

We can also look to third-party certification for validation. Certifications such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for responsibly sourced wood products or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for sustainable seafood are reliable indicators that a product is sourced sustainably in its industry.

We can always do a bit more to discover the true meaning of the marketing claims on the goods we buy. The bottom line is to be critical of green statements and educate ourselves on the various ways to become informed consumers and avoid falling victim to greenwashing.

On the other hand, companies may make mistakes during the process, but when there are too many meaningless slogans and marketing blusters, it will demotivate and undermine companies that are actually striving for the protection of the planet, as well as raise doubts about the integrity of these climate pledges in general.

The COP27 report proposed the following five guidelines for corporations to follow in order to maintain the integrity of their commitments: 1) having a reduction path towards 2050; 2) aligning commitments with actions and investments; 3) sharing relevant, non-competitive, comparable data on plans and progress; 4) being based on science and third-party accountability, and; 5) honoring equity and justice in all actions.

Best practices can be identified through implementation and continuous improvement. The more corporations that make true, meaningful efforts to aid the global fight against climate change, the more likely the business world will gravitate toward sustainability and the more trust customers will have in them when it comes to promoting their commitments.

Brunei’s Aim for Greater Influence

A welfare state since before its independence, Brunei has possessed a unique political culture even on the standards of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as it has relatively excelled in preserving the interest of most citizens despite its solid top-down approach to governance. 

In the World Government Effectiveness Index 2021, Brunei ranked 19 worldwide in terms of government effectiveness. On average, Brunei also scored considerably high in nearly all of the survey’s indicators compared to its neighbours in the East Asia Pacific region and those in Europe and Central Asia. This shows there is an international recognition of Brunei’s governance practice. 

On the regional level, Brunei ranks first as a minor power country in Asia thanks to its diplomatic influence during its 2021 ASEAN Chairmanship and its engagement on global issues such as the Myanmar coup and climate change. 

As ASEAN Chair, Brunei announced that it would host ASEAN Centre for Climate Change, which is currently awaiting approval from other countries in the regional bloc. The Centre – aimed to be the knowledge hub, strategic coordinator and integrator of climate action initiatives and activities in the ASEAN region – has propelled Brunei into a critical role in mediating climate change issues in ASEAN, especially in the agenda of Sustainability. Brunei has set aside US$2.1 million to fund and maintain the Centre, which will also receive support from New Zealand of NZ$500,000.

Given this fact, Brunei can now be considered an important player in regional climate change governance at local and regional levels. It comes with significant challenges and risks but also opportunities.

Overcoming challenges is necessary to prove Brunei’s capabilities as a small nation and break through its internal challenges by capitalising on its global influence for national agenda, such as its economic diversification efforts and, at the same time, maintaining the status quo as a country that hosts a potentially important ASEAN centre that looks into ongoing climate crisis.

Sustainably Influential 

It is important to note that framing “sustainability” in this article goes beyond environmental sustainability and includes social and economic sustainability, as the discourse is often fringed towards ecological protections. There is an assumption that tackling environmental targets rather than social and economic targets is easier due to the complexity of the issues sometimes. 

Realizing other aspects of “sustainability” needs a reframing of the issue that incorporates a more holistic view of the concept, which is promoting environmental sustainability as a way to ensure the survival of our society and economy, which are inherently dependent on natural resources. The intertwined relations of all three aspects should not be separated by any means and it should be realized by all individuals and institutions on how they would build a discourse on “sustainability”.

Regarding economic sustainability, Brunei is currently diversifying its economy beyond oil and gas sector in order to achieve a more resilient business ecosystem. The abundance of its oil and gas reserve as well as a small population provide plenty of welfare for its well-content residents. In 2021, the oil and gas sector (both upstream and downstream) contributed to more than 50% of its entire gross domestic product (GDP). 

Until 2014, the Bruneian government has consistently had a fiscal deficit due to an oversupply of crude oil in the global market, negatively affecting the country’s overall GDP and government revenue. This economic pressure has pushed the government to look outside and push for private sector development or economic diversification, as communicated by the government through its various iterations of the National Development Plan. This also ensures it can provide a relatively same level of benefit to its citizen and maintain the political stability it can enjoy for decades.

One of the ways Brunei could maintain its status quo is by adopting the green economy. Green economy recognizes that the economic, social and environmental systems are complementary and not in conflict with each other. It is complementary to each other and mutually reinforce these three areas of sustainability’s bottom line. By embracing the green economy, Brunei is taking an integrated approach to foster its economic development, which aligns with its existing essence of a whole-of-nation approach to development, where national development requires all actors in the country to contribute to the systemic changes envisioned by the government.

According to World Bank data, the Brunei forest area has remained intact at around 72% between 2010 and 2020. However, it does not indicate that Brunei is in any way an environmentally-friendly nation, as where this high coverage is only possible as a result of its abundant oil and gas wealth. 

However, the fact that Brunei struggled with fiscal deficit in 2014 but managed to increase its GDP afterwards – without expanding its reliance on oil and gas which could result in environmental degradation – suggests that Brunei can steer around systemic challenges and embark on economic diversification. This shows Brunei has the ability to build a more resilient business ecosystem that does not depend on its oil and gas wealth.

This small economic success, which has involved several economic experimentations should be studied extensively and be shared regionally. Hosting the ASEAN Centre for Climate Change will provide Brunei with an outfit to share its economic wisdom regionally. At the same time, it would increase its domestic knowledge capacity through the Centre’s engagement with local think tanks such as the Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies (CSPS), the Universiti Brunei Darussalam Institute of Policy and Studies (IPS), as well as Council for Research and the Advancement of Technology and Science (CREATES). This think tank ecosystem could collaborate to develop mechanisms or strategies for developing countries to tackle the climate crisis and adopt a more sustainable economy. 

Furthermore, the Brunei Darussalam–Indonesia–Malaysia–Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) is another platform through which Brunei could exercise its regional influence. 

Brunei is the only country in the BIMP-EAGA region whose entire territory is situated within the growth area. By using that geographical advantage, Brunei’s adoption of Sustainability-based policy – inspired by the knowledge gained from the upcoming ASEAN Centre for Climate Change – could improve its domestic outlook and serve as basis to inform and influence neighbouring Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia on sustainable development.

This is especially pertinent as Indonesia’s upcoming new capital Nusantara could potentially emerge as Brunei’s competition in drawing investment, especially in the field of green economy. Brunei thus must take and clarify its position in this matter today, before it is too late. 

Political Culture and Good Governance

Brunei’s political culture, too, is an advantage on the social side of the spectrum in promoting sustainable development. Brunei’s whole-of-nation approach to development functions well due to the continuous welfare and benefits enjoyed by the subject of the states, resulting in a politically stable environment that is vibrant for the emerging sustainable business environment.

Leveraging on this stability and Brunei’s historically top-down approach to governance, implementing sustainable public policy shall be strived for and included in its good governance objectives. The ASEAN Centre for Climate Change could significantly influence other ASEAN Member States (AMS) on these potentially excellent governance practices, such as transparency which is a component in sustainability as well. 

Brunei in itself could not easily influence the complex political structures and differences of each AMS. However, the contribution by Brunei on sustainability knowledge and practice – again facilitated by the ASEAN Centre for Climate Change – would be incredibly beneficial for the people of ASEAN. The Centre could be a new forefront instrument to emphasise ASEAN’s commitment to combat climate crisis in the region which affects every aspect of the economic and social layers. 

Brunei’s recent introduction of open consultations between the government and the grassroots could be a good example in boosting transparency. These include the Youth Townhall series or policy consultation the government has with Brunei Darussalam National Climate Change Policy (BNCCP). Various topics are freely discussed with the public, providing a much more positive understanding of its whole-of-nation approach to governance, incorporating people’s ideas in state planning and policy formulation, especially in sustainability.

As indicated in initiatives like the above, Brunei has already practiced some forms of good governance principle (participatory and consensus-oriented) but there is still some space for growth. BNCPP, for instance, does not produce reports from the consultation process it had before the policy was formally introduced to the public. This is important to ensure the public can assess to what extent the policy considered public opinion in its formulation and the depth of the procedure before it is introduced and adopted as a law. 

Hosting this ASEAN Centre for Climate Change would compel Brunei to embrace the positive principle of sustainability like transparency. It is an opportunity Brunei should adopt to transition its economic state away from oil and gas, to build an attractive green investment destination and resilient economy as well as to maintain a stable political environment. 

Conclusion

Overcoming these challenges is crucial for Brunei to establish regional influence and contribute to sustainable development in ASEAN. Brunei’s unique political culture and top-down governance have enabled it to excel in preserving the citizens’ interests. Its high scores in good governance indices and recent engagement in regional and global issues have solidified its role in mediating climate change in ASEAN.  Brunei’s push for sustainable development – such as by hosting the ASEAN Centre for Climate Change – could benefit it domestically as it would spur economic diversification and strengthens its claim of internal political stability. Moreover, embracing sustainable development would also leverage its position in ASEAN and build its reputation among the AMS, hence elevating Brunei’s influence in the region.

Introduction

Climate change poses serious threats to economies and industries. Physical climate risks such as extreme weather (e.g. storms, floods and droughts) can cause infrastructure damage, disruption to trade and supply chains and lost productivity (e.g. agricultural production). In addition to the impact on economic activities, there are environmental and social costs of emissions that the public pays for, such as health care costs from heat waves and droughts, and loss of property from flooding and sea level rise. In fact, the increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentrations as a result of human activities is identified as the main driver of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20^th century. As projected, global warming would exceed 2°C in the 21^st century unless Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) and other GHG emissions are brought under control in the coming decades. It is pertinent to ensure that the rise in global average temperature is kept to well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels circa 1850 – 1900 as this is the threshold when the implications of global warming become serious. Hence, deep emission reductions are needed.

Leaders in many countries, including those most vulnerable to climate change impact and the world’s biggest carbon emitters, have already set ambitious targets for minimising GHG emissions. Notably, while striving to minimize GHG emissions, Malaysia is both vulnerable to climate change impact and is a large CO₂ emitter. In 2021, Malaysia was found to be the fourth largest CO₂ emitter in the ASEAN region, with a total of 256 million tons of CO₂ released in 2020 (Figure 1). Additionally, Malaysia is one of the most vulnerable economies in the region to the potential impact of climate change (Figure 2). These indicate a dire need for Malaysia to significantly decarbonise its economy.

Figure 1: CO₂ emissions among ASEAN countries

Figure 2: Climate Economics Index: mid-of-century

Opportunities in Transiting to a Low-Carbon Economy

In combating climate change, Malaysia is committed to reduce its carbon intensity (against GDP) by 45% in 2030 compared to the 2005 level. Moreover, the country planned to become a carbon-neutral nation and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Achieving these goals require transitioning to a low-carbon economy and mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. However, there are significant challenges to such transition given the enormous capital needed to transform Malaysia’s fossil fuel-dependent economy. It is estimated that 94.6% of Malaysia’s energy is derived from fossil fuel. Therefore, the main challenge is transforming existing energy system to one that is cleaner, smarter, more efficient, and reflective of the environmental costs of GHGs. For this purpose, the application of clean energy technologies is needed which might come with some cost disadvantages relative to fossil fuels in the short- to medium- term.

However, the transition to low-carbon economy can also present new business opportunities to increase the range of products for renewable energy, green technology, green buildings, biotechnology and climate-smart agriculture. Malaysia’s economy can benefit from it through technological innovation, sustainable investment, new export markets for climate-friendly goods and services (e.g. renewable energy facilities), and a dynamic private sector. Furthermore, the transition to a low-carbon economy is expected to lead to a creation of jobs in a range of existing sectors including manufacturing, construction and agriculture, as well as in new and emerging sectors such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.

There are also opportunities for more regional and international collaborations. Multilateral energy cooperation and regional networks can create an enabling environment for proper energy policies at the national level. For instance, regional energy policy cooperation among ASEAN countries provides technical assistance and monitoring around implementation of energy efficiency directives, embeds in energy policy decisions, and provides a platform to share knowledge on low-carbon technologies and investment opportunities.

Moreover, the transition to a greener economy can be done in a way that creates value and preserves competition in the marketplace. Carbon pricing, one of the important instruments of the climate policy package, can be an effective economic solution. This is an instrument that captures the external costs of GHG emissions and links them to their sources by a price. In other words, carbon price provides an economic signal to polluting businesses. They can decide to either transform their activities and turn to lower-carbon alternatives, or continue emitting and paying for their emissions. The main environmental goal is therefore achieved in the most effective, flexible, and low-cost way to society. Putting an adequate price on GHG emissions internalizes societal costs of emissions in businesses’ economic decision-making process and perhaps incentivizes clean energy development.

Malaysia plans to assign a price on carbon in the form of carbon tax or emission trading system (ETS). These schemes are key policy instruments in climate change mitigation. Although the development of carbon pricing policies and framework in Malaysia is in its early stages, and participation is voluntary, it provides a platform for Malaysian companies to minimise carbon emissions and stay competitive, especially in the global trade markets.

Carbon pricing, in most cases, can also be a source of revenue for the government, which can be used to enhance green spending, as well as compensate adversely affected businesses and communities. The carbon tax revenues can be used to decrease labour charges and increase job creation, which would in turn protect employment levels. This revenue can be redistributed to low-income households in order to protect their purchasing power against price increases. These are key measures to ensure the acceptability of climate action and a national price on carbon.

Though transiting to clean energy is gaining momentum, fossil fuels are not going away any time soon. Notably, based on Malaysia’s energy transition plan (2021-2040), no new coal plants will be built and there will be early retirement for existing capacity. However, the increasing global supply of renewable energy is still lower than the rise in overall global energy demand. Despite owning the 14th largest gas reserve and 27th biggest proven crude oil reserve in the world, Malaysia is continuously coping with high domestic and international demands which make the nation vulnerable to energy security issues.

How Companies can Benefit from Carbon Pricing?

Carbon pricing would help establish a market signal that will prompt companies to factor  GHG emission costs into their operating and investment decisions. This would in turn help level the costs of the generally pricier low-carbon and green technologies, as well as provide better incentive for capital to flow towards innovation and scale-up. Pricing in fact functions as a risk mitigation tool that prepares companies both for climate-related physical risks, including resource availability and supply chain disruptions, as well as for risks associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy such as policy and market. Thus, such mechanism is long-run positive as it would push companies to use cleaner energy, develop automation and enhance efficiency, which would therefore support margins in the long-term.

Moreover, carbon pricing makes companies’ sustainability efforts more visible. This mechanism would expand their products to a broader market, including Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)-conscious clients that would not consider emissions-heavy products.

Additionally, carbon price can inform long-term investors how a company is managing the transition from high-carbon to low-carbon activities. By applying carbon pricing, investors would be able to assess the potential impact of climate change policies on their investment portfolios, which would help them review investment strategies and reallocate capital toward low-carbon activities and perhaps zero-carbon technologies. This means that carbon pricing can shift investment to low-carbon options, innovations, and search for new market opportunities that can enhance a company’s competitiveness.

Way Forward

Malaysia is still at an early stage of a transition from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon economy. Scaling up GHG emission reductions and reducing the cost of mitigation are important in achieving the goal of decarbonising the economy. Although carbon pricing schemes are essential for decarbonisation, they may not be enough to achieve this transition and should therefore be accompanied by complementary public policies. Government policies play a significant role in encouraging innovations for break-through technologies. In addition, public-private partnership is essential, especially when it comes to funding and coordinating research and development. Public involvements are also crucial, especially to transform existing infrastructure such as electricity and transportation system.

Where are We?

The closure of COP 26 in Glasgow was more disappointing compared to the pomp and pageantry leading towards it. The Glasgow Climate Pact expresses alarm and utmost concernthat human activities have caused around 1.1 °C of warming to date, that impacts are already being felt in every region, and that carbon budgets consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal are now small and being rapidly depleted. Unfortunately, the response is simply the monitoring of carbon equivalent emissions or the global warming potential (GWP) that is measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). Such measurements exclude the overall environmental impacts including parameters such as ozone depletion, carcinogens, toxicity, acidification, etc. Thus, this supposed solution to climate change may instead pose higher risks in other ways to the environment and eventually humans. A case in point is nuclear energy which will see a good score under GWP and is readily accepted as a transition and future energy solution. However, the negative impacts of nuclear energy life cycle are ignored under GWP.

It was also disappointing that the COP 26 gave in to the demand to introduce a carbon market as such solution does not solve climate change issues. This is due to the reduction in emission by a party is traded for monetary value by those who do not want to reduce emission or participation in such a market is for aesthetic reasons. What will happen when poorer nations trade their emission savings for monetary value that may not even trickle down to their hardest hit communities? On top of that, the media also reported that emission pledges were made based on flawed data and such report also put in jeopardy the Paris Agreement clauses that promised proper tabulation and reporting. The dust may not settle soon as there is no clear transition path yet to reach Net Zero 2050.

What is Ahead?

Before even a real solution comes in, more transition solutions will flood the market. This is mainly due to the still evolving technologies that are not ready to take over traditional resources that has brought us to where we are now. Natural gas will continue to play a significant role as a “climate friendly” partner to lead the world to Net Zero. Meeting the transition that has smart homes, electric vehicles, batteries and many more, will require expansion ofthe mining sector. Vague terms such as “sustainable mining” and underwater mining are already influencing opinions to justify harvesting the vast resources need.

Utilisation of Renewable Energy (RE) will also be ramped up. In order to phase out fossil fuel, we need a replacement and at the moment RE gives us that option. Hydrogen is another fuel that will shape the future, however, its current availability also uses considerable amount of energy. Thus, a transparent energy balance must be done to ensure resources are put in right places and reach end users at equitable cost.

This chaotic situation will also see phasing out of products, services, businesses and jobs that are tagged with higher GWP. However, all of these come with considerable amount of risks which all of us must face moving forward.

What are the Risks?

Intermittency

Fossil fuel-backed technology as well as its base load demand are becoming more undesirable. Consequently, coal technologies will find it harder to get financing. As the world finds a replacement to such technology, it will continue to face intermittency issues. The recent global energy crunch is induced by few factors including higher RE blend in fuel mix, liberalised electricity market, cartel play by OPEC+ (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries-OPEC and non members) as well as unclear transition path. This uncertainty will cause an unwanted crisis and disrupt day-to-day operation globally. A small disruption in supply chain like the monsoon season that disrupted coal supplies from Indonesia to the global market also causes serious harm globally. Collectively, these situations have proven the inability of RE to step in the gap left by fossil fuel.

Loss of Natural Capital

Replacing and retrofitting all the gadgets, industrial tools and vehicles will need vast amount of resources. Battery technology will play a very important role to bridge the gap left by fossil fuel as well. These resources need to be mined and converted into useful materials to catch up with demand growth. This step will cause huge damage to the existing forest and landscape as well as pollution. There are also proposals for underwater mining that will destroy sea ecosystem, thus, affecting the reliability of sea produce. Forest clearing will significantly impact climate adaptation and mitigation as water scarcity and floods will render huge economic impacts.

Poorer Nations will be left out

Many mining zones will be developed in poorer nations to meet the demand of richer nations. Globally, almost all the nations are geared towards Net Zero target by 2050. Thus, the demand for technological solutions will soon be met with a “policy induced” bottleneck. Increase in demand will eventually increase the cost of technology. Cheap components as well as seamless supply chain are also vital in keeping cost of production low. The recent Covid-19 which triggered supply disruption of chips leading to production delays and cost escalation for electronic products demonstrating the fragility of the situation. Increase in transition and Net Zero technologies will cause the poorer nations to be left to the mercy of low-quality products which was clearly evident during the phase-out of non-energy efficient products that begun more than a decade ago.

A Toxic Tsunami

Electronic waste (e-waste) production surge is already happening. In Malaysia, Association of Water and Energy Research Malaysia (AWER) discovered this issue and suggested a holistic e-waste management a decade ago. The transition and Net Zero phases will multiply the surge of e-waste and other forms of waste as more non-climate friendly operations and technologies will be discarded. Failure to capture the surge of e-waste will lead to probable exposure of these wastes to water and produce harmful leachate that may contaminate the water and food chain. The vast amount of e-waste generation is a serious issue that will further aggravate the dumping of such waste to poorer and developing nation under the disguise of “recycling”. The leachate or wastewater will eventually reach the sea, directly compromising the reliability of sea produce for the global market. Will a Minamata disease type of situation be a new norm post-2050 due to current Net Zero foolishness?

Is There a Solution?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the key to solve our resources need. The LCA database can evaluate resource input, waste generation, by-products and waste disposal in a facility. Alternatives, optimisation and resource recovery can be developed via LCA in the same facility and this is known as “gate to gate” approach. When we combine many “gate to gate” approaches from resource to final disposal, it then becomes a “cradle to grave” approach. Finally, when we link Design for Environment (DfE), resource recovery and waste to resource, a “cradle to cradle” solution is born. Via “cradle to cradle” solution we create a cycle in our consumption pattern.

DfE is vital to ensure products are designed to meet usage needs. The type of material utilised as well as assembly and disassembly planning will improve recovery of resources that we need. Similarly, identification of wastes that we generate and how it can be resource to another industry or operation is also vital to increase the success rate of the “cradle to cradle” solution and creation of “symbiotic” industrial operations. AWER has proposed regional facilities at the ASEAN level to convert wastes into resources over a decade ago. If ASEAN member states have answered our call, there is a lot of revenue and technological advancement for new product development. Perhaps, they were too busy focusing on the ASEAN grid so that poorer ASEAN members can sell electricity to their richer counterparts.

Equal Voices for Facts

While GWP is a fact that we need to take into account, it is not ethical to use only GWP as a measurement to solve climate change crisis and downplay other global environmental problems. It is vital that an aggregated data and evaluation is done (like the LCA process) to develop holistic views of solutions that are coming forward. This will assist in identifying more reliable and sustainable solutions to reach Net Zero targets that will also contribute to solve other environmental problems.For example, the attempt to qualify nuclear energy as green energy is scientifically flawed.There are technology owners and nations that support this technology now using “Low Carbon Technology” as a platform to qualify not only nuclear but also natural gas as green energy. Unfortunately, the negative impacts to environment of nuclear spent fuel, nuclear disaster (eg. Fukushima Daiichi)and decommissioning process are largely neglected under GWP. Therefore, a holistic view of technology and its environmental impacts based on science and data is vital to ensure unscrupulous entities do not misuse the fight against climate change.

Weed out Transition Fleas

Transitioning to Net Zero is a very critical phase and many old and newer technologies will try to qualify to be a transition flea to benefit from the existing situation. One clear example is nuclear power trying to make a major comeback by adopting terms such as“low carbon.” This is similarly observed for fossil fuel powered natural gas technologies. Additionally, other technologies or solution will resort to quick fixes like carbon trading and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Recently, the Malaysian government introduced Green Energy Tariff (GET) where qualifying companies will be given carbon certificates that they are utilising green energy from solar and hydropower. About 82% of the annual available RE generation is allocated for this purpose. This move will cause existing users’ electricity GWP to increase as they will be left to consume ahigh coal power energy mix that will make electric vehicles a useless solution in Malaysia. Connection to grid by power generation companies are done via proper tender process and the benefits of such technologies should be shared to all users for every kWh (kilo.Watt.hour). The Malaysian grid is also facing a high reserve margin that is double the required reserve margin for a developing nation due to an ineffective regulatory agency. Thus, adding more RE generation capacity is not cost efficient and pass on a heavy burden to consumers. Is it ethical for agovernment to impose a “levy” and allows some richer businesses to steal this environmental benefit from others? This sort of carbon scam schemes will mushroom during and after the transition period so that those involved will be able to make money out of nothing. It is also interesting to note that a good number of international companies are drawn to join such environmental scam.

Conclusion

While the idea of reaching Net Zero target is well intended, it is equally important to reach that target by not creating a new environmental crisis. A global push to urge world leaders to come to their senses is needed and they must not to be too focused on Net Zero without looking at the issue holistically. The burden of developed nations to ensure developing and poorer nations can enjoy a fair treatment to mitigate climate change and other environmental risks is a pledge made in the Paris Accord. They should not shy away from the promises they have made.

“When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.” – Confucius

Introduction

It is proven that climate change effects are interconnected with the many environmental issues that humans will eventually suffer from. In recent decades, climate change has become one of the major global security problems as it is known to cause human and social insecurities such as poverty, floods, endemics, transboundary haze, pollutants, deforestation, etc. These challenges are often categorised as non-traditional security threats that this region is especially prone to. However, as a small state, Brunei is more vulnerable to these challenges. The law of unintended consequences is real, and if Brunei is slow in tackling climate change and its associated challenges with full conviction and in the near future, it will be severely impacted with environmental vulnerabilities particularly in ecosystem vitalities and environmental health.

With Brunei chairing the ASEAN Summit this year and as part of its agenda, the country has been at the forefront to tackle climate change that is in accordance with the Paris Agreement. The ASEAN Member States (AMS) adopted the Bandar Seri Begawan Joint Declaration on Energy Security and Energy Transition, which reaffirmed the shared commitments and responsibilities of ASEAN member states to pursue alternative and cleaner low-carbon energy footprint in the region. This initiative which includes mitigating environmental issues has to be a collective effort from the AMS; with a people-to-people approach that ranges from individual, community, state actors, nonstate actors, and big companies, among others. In fact, the potential impacts of environmental degradation caused by climate change should not be understated. According to the UN, climate change has been recognised as a ‘threat multiplier’, which necessitates the urgency to integrate it into the existing security policy agenda.

Brunei’s Looming Threats: Geography and Increasing Urbanisation

Brunei’s 7^th ranking in the 2020 World Risk Report is indicative of its high risk of exposure to climate change uncertainties. This would be exacerbated by the increasing urbanisation. Unfortunately, it appears that those living in urban areas are often the most affected by natural disasters. In 2019, the total population of urban areas in Brunei was 77.94%. This means that a majority of Bruneians are now dependent on the easy access to amenities such as clean water, electricity, internet services, and roads. However, some of these areas are prone to issues such as flash floods, open burning, and intermittent access to clean water.

Brunei’s geographical location such as its long coastline exposes the country to many environmental issues. Alarmingly, the occurrences of flash floods have recently spiked due to the rise in sea level and a gradual increase in the temperature. Additionally, in August 2021, the unpredictable weather condition saw several low-land areas such as in Belait and Tutong districts affected by flood.

Conversely, global warming has caused a longer spell of dry season that led to forest fires, especially in the middle of the year. In 2020, over 500 hectares of land were destroyed by forest fire due to the extreme heat which contributed to the haze problem and air pollution. In a related issue, Brunei’s peatlands are also at risk due to forest fires, poor management, lack of knowledge, and drainage issues. The irreplaceable peatlands play an important function in the maintenance of global biodiversity. Currently, 10% or about 32.94 million hectares of the world’s peatland is found in this region. If Brunei’s peatlands are not protected, its pristine rainforests will be at further risk of destruction.

Collectively, these warrant Brunei to rethink its overall environmental and human security policy. It is, thus, timely to now include non-governmental organizations to mitigate this existential crisis.

The Answer: Whole of Nation Approach, Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and Climate Change Mitigation

A whole of nation approach is essential in mitigating climate change. This people-to-people approach engages the society, especially non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to participate in building national policy. Additionally, environmental NGOs (ENGOs) are arguably the backbone of the government in mitigating climate change as they work closely with the government, grassroots level, and other NGOs. They often inspire government activities and support relevant government agencies in mitigating environmental issues. Brunei is currently adopting this holistic approach to mitigate climate change by engaging society and other concerned organisations. This includes the government educating the society to be environmentally aware through cooperation, collaboration, and by empowering them to work and collaborate with relevant government agencies.

There are several notable instances of such an approach being put into practice in Brunei. One of the best examples is when ENGOs voluntarily, actively involved in efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The national review report presented at the 2020 UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development is the best example of people-to-people interaction in the country. In the report, ENGOs were highlighted to be assisting the government achieve SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 14 (conserve and sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources), and SDG 15: (life on land). The national review report also revealed that the Brunei Climate Change Secretariat (BCCS) and Green Brunei, an inspiring ENGO towards green movement and sustainability, were working together to address SDG 13. Through such endeavours, NGOs can also help the government in educating the society to be more environmentally good citizens in the future.

Brunei’s Commitment at National and International Platforms

At the state and regional level, the narrative of becoming good environmental citizens was developed by the government’s initiative in the Sustainable Development Program which started in 1991. Since then, Bruneian’s environmental awareness has heightened, and Brunei’s national and international environmental initiatives have been solidified.  One example is Brunei’s international commitment in the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), an international initiative to combat environmental issues. These agreements include Brunei’s membership in the Montreal Protocol in 1993, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2007, Kyoto Protocol in 2009, and Paris Agreement in 2015. The challenge for Brunei now is to find solutions at the state level to overcome climate change vulnerabilities that can impact the country’s future development. Since 2007, Brunei has invested in achieving the Brunei Vision 2035. However a question still lies—can national climate change be mitigated with this vision? The solution lies in educating and working together with its society.

The Paris Agreement is one of the most important agreements Brunei is affiliated with as it allowed ENGOs to work closely with the government. According to the Ministry of Energy in the opening remarks of the Paris Agreement in 2016, while Brunei only contributes 0.016% of total global emissions, it is still obliged to be part of mitigating climate change. Brunei as an oil-producing country is, however, suspected of consuming more energy than others. This inevitably makes the country a significant contributor to the progression of climate change. Additionally, Brunei has experienced various social and economic developments. Urbanisation, physical infrastructure, construction, and strong GDP per capita have led to higher consumption and operational activities. Consequently, Brunei has recorded the highest number of cars in operation in Southeast Asia with 721 per 1,000 cars in 2020. Also, Brunei’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are higher than average in 2020, with 15.2 metric tons per person.

Conclusion

The establishment of the BCCS in 2018 was part of Brunei’s solution to mitigate the aforementioned environmental vulnerabilities. The BCCS is believed to be capable of evaluating climate change and other human and economic activities. However, similar with many other developing economies, Brunei’s resources are still of high economic interest. Fossil fuel, oil, and gas remain the best economic alternative to generate power to the state. Of these resources, fossil fuel is primarily used by Brunei to generate electricity. Though this is sustainable economically, but will it be sustainable to mitigate climate change?

Unfortunately, with the current COVID-19 development in Brunei, the demand for electricity skyrocketed especially for home users as the population works from home. This reinforces Brunei’s dependency on electricity as its main power resource. Nevertheless, Brunei is aware of the current magnitude that global warming has brought towards the tiny state. The disproportionate effects of climate change are disconcerting as it affects the earth’s natural systems that are attributed towards global warming such as the incidence of tropical storms or delays in wet seasons. As part of the initiative to reduce carbon emission, Brunei has developed a practical national strategy that corresponds with its economic development. As part of its strategy, Brunei is committed to reducing carbon emission largely generated from power utilities by at least 10% in the year 2035.

Introduction

While Brunei only accounts for about 0.025% of global carbon emissions, it is susceptible to several environmental effects due to climate change. The major threats are air pollution in the cities, rising sea-level, and loss of biodiversity. A rise in sea level is a major issue to this small nation of around 470,000 due to Brunei’s low-lying terrain. Brunei is also heavily reliant on fossil fuels, both as a major exporter and as a main source of energy within the country. If the rest of the world moves away from fossil fuels, especially crude oil, Brunei Darussalam will lose over ⅔ of its gross domestic product growth.

Brunei Darussalam’s carbon dioxide emissions have hovered around 17 million tons of CO₂ in the past decade. Under a Business-As-Usual scenario, Brunei would emit 30 million tons of CO₂ in 2035. Equally concerning is Brunei’s per capita emissions of about 16 tons per person while neighboring Malaysia’s per capita emissions is at 4 tons per person. Brunei, however, has made great strides in protecting its forests, with 44% of the country’s land area is protected forests, including two National Parks and 47 forest reserves and wildlife sanctuaries.

Brunei Darussalam’s approach to climate change in the early 2000s was minimal despite ratifying UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol in 2009. In the 2010s Brunei’s government began taking larger steps towards climate action including establishing the National Council on Climate Change in 2011 and creating the Brunei Darussalam National Climate Change Policy (BNCCP) in 2020. This article elaborates on Brunei’s current climate change plans and the roles of civil society.

Comprehensive National Plan, Effective Implementation

Brunei Darussalam’s climate policy fits into its larger national development plan, the Wawasan Brunei 2035 (Brunei Vision 2035). The Wawasan Brunei 2035 works to build the nation, from reducing poverty to increasing the quality of life. In protecting its quality of life, a clean and healthy environment must be guaranteed. Sustainable, balanced economic growth will ensure environmental and ethical protections while creating better lives for its citizens. The plan combines top-down and bottom-up approaches to change, which provide a more well-rounded approach to social, economic, and environmental change. A recent incorporation is the BNCCP.

The BNCCP contained several key strategies for a sustainable Brunei:  1) reduce overall industrial emissions, 2) increase forest cover by planting 500,000 new trees, 3) increase electric vehicle ownership by 60% by 2035, 4) increase renewable energy capacity to 30% of total power generated, 5) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% through better electricity management, 6) create a carbon pricing model, 7) reduce municipal waste, 8) mandate monthly and annual carbon reporting, and 9) increase awareness and education on climate change. The BNCCP also establishes three working groups for Mitigation, Adaptation and Resilience, and Support Framework. These working groups can focus on their respective issues as part of a more comprehensive network of climate action. With such a comprehensive and well-rounded plan, Brunei is likely can not only effectively implement the ten key strategies but also honour its commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2030. This includes reductions in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions.

Additionally, Brunei Darussalam is over 71% forests, giving it a unique position to preserve wildlife while reducing the effects of climate change. In 2018 alone, 11.4 Mt CO₂ emission was absorbed by the country’s forests. If Brunei was to continue to protect its remaining forests, it can protect biodiversity, reduce net carbon emissions, and mitigate against the effects of climate-related natural disasters.

Thriving Civil Society Engagements in Brunei

There are many non-governmental and grassroots organizations within Brunei that work to achieve climate action; Sustainable Development Goal 13. Hearteningly, Brunei’s environmental initiative is largely run by young people who are looking to build a better Brunei. Additionally, as with any nation, many Bruneians have taken individual action to combat climate change, from participating in beach clean-ups to planting trees or reducing food waste.

Schools and youth groups are also helping to build on Brunei’s BNCCP that included climate change education in its plan. For example, local schools create projects to study the impacts of climate change and individual action. Collectively, these contribute to providing an academic structure for students to be involved in climate change mitigation.

Given Brunei’s small size, there is a heavy dependence on imports for nearly every sector. Additionally, as most of Brunei is covered in forests, it does not produce enough food to support its own population. To address this issue, there is a growing sustainable food movement in Brunei. One example is Kilang ReRoot.

Kilang ReRoot is a zero-food waste project that works to develop and implement sustainable practices for farming in Brunei. While it is part of a larger eco-friendly lifestyle movement, Kilang ReRoot supports the BNCCP and Brunei Vision 2035. The founders of Kilang ReRoot were inspired into action after the COVID-19 pandemic revealed Brunei’s dependence on global food chains. Food-based activist groups like Kilang ReRoot address the critical need for a more diverse food economy in Brunei.

As climate change mitigation also requires community involvement, non-profits such as Hand4Hand Brunei and Society for Community Outreach and Training are focused on community development. By inculcating a spirit of volunteerism, Brunei will have a ready base of passionate citizens working together to overcome this existential threat. However, while Brunei strives to be more self-sufficient, it must continue to work closely with neighbouring nations.

Looking to the Future

Brunei Darussalam is currently in a unique position to combat climate change. The country’s wealth and stability allow for the possibility of great change though the country will continue to remain vulnerable to climate change and its associated issues. The country’s dependence on fossil fuels for income and for energy also means that it is vulnerable to global shifts away from fossil fuels. Additionally, despite Brunei’s comprehensive national climate plans, the country needs to address its dependence on behaviours that contribute to climate change. This can be bolstered by Brunei protecting most of its natural resources. This would help the country meet its new emissions goals. Lastly, civil society engagements in Brunei, especially from youth-led groups, will not only bolster the actions taken through the BNCCP but also empower future generations.