What struck me was the lively discussion around sustainability in the country. Every paper seemed to have plenty of coverage. The country has been hit by a number of natural disasters recently, with heavy floods in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland already this year. The new carbon price, due to be introduced in July, was being heavily covered in the media. And there was ongoing debate about the relative merits of mining, forestry and conservation.

Against this background, it was interesting to see how sustainability was being promoted as a selling point in many parts of Tasmania. This is perhaps understandable in a region blessed with so much open space and natural attractions. But it did indicate that a growing sector of the economy thinks that sustainability is a selling point for their business. This applied to food and drink (e.g. restaurants promoting their fresh food), accommodation (e.g. hotels and cottages promoting their undisturbed location), and travel services (e.g. eco-tours to see dolphins and other wildlife). 

Different studies will give you different figures. But a trawl of the literature suggests that ecotourism is currently responsible for about 7-10% of the global tourism market, and worth around $70 to $100 billion each year. Some experts predict that by 2025 the ecotourism market could represent 25% of all travel, and be worth over $700 billion annually.

A good case study is Freycinet Eco Retreat.  Near the  town of Coles Bay on the East Coast, the 1200 hectare property is  certified at the advanced level under a scheme administered by “Eco Tourism Australia”.  The accommodation comprises two lodges and a shack in the middle of the bush, where we stayed – with lots of wallabies, possums and wombats for company. The houses have a number of interesting features: all water is collected from rainwater catchment; solar panels have been installed, and the building materials are from recycled sources as far as possible. The owners estimate that the overall property absorbs about 2,000T of CO2 each year – a significant amount. All of which gives an attractive ecotourism destination with a negligible impact on the environment.

An encouraging sign that, hopefully, it can be possible to have a successful business and be “low carbon”. And that the move to a sustainable economy is gaining pace across the world, including in sectors like tourism.

But the sporting angle aside, I am really interested in how the Games will be organised this year.   In particular, the aim to make the Olympics a blueprint for sustainable living.

There are a number of really interesting measures that have been adopted. For example, London aims to integrate low carbon fuels and clean technologies into the Olympic Village. All permanent venues were constructed to be 15% more energy-efficient than a 2006 building. The Energy Centre at the Olympic Park includes a 2-megawatt wind turbine and a combined heat and power plant that will capture the heat generated by electricity production and lead to carbon reductions of more than 1,000 tons per year.

In the run up to the Games, London has adopted a strategy to improve air quality and promote energy efficiency in the city. Measures include cleaning up London’s famous taxis by putting an age limit to these cabs starting from 2012. There have also been regular events to encourage people to walk and cycle more.

The organisers have adopted a code of construction practice that seeks to minimize particulate emissions. These measures include transporting at least 50% of construction materials to the Olympic Park by rail or water; and the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel for site vehicles.

Sustainable infrastructure designs are also critical. The Olympic stadium is an 80,000-seat athletics venue, and can be used as a smaller multipurpose site in the future. Facilities such as hospitality suites, toilets and catering outlets were built as stand-alone units that can be reused or recycled after use. These measures on sustainable design are critical to ensure that waste is minimized during construction and deconstruction.

To meet its promise of leaving a legacy to future generations, London will transform the once industrial, contaminated 2.5-square-kilometer park into a new urban park. More than 300,000 wetland plants and around 4,000 semi-mature trees have been handpicked to form the roots of the Park’s green spaces.

The London Olympics offer a very valuable opportunity – to show that major infrastructure projects and entertainment events can be implemented in a low carbon fashion, thereby supporting sustainable living. Now I just hope that Britain wins lots of gold medals to round it all off…..!

Firstly, the temperature rise won’t be uniform across the region. Land areas will heat up more than the sea, seeing perhaps a 5 to 6 degree increase. If you consider the hottest day of the year in a city like Bangkok or Phnom Penh – perhaps 37 degrees – and add 6 degrees onto that, you get an idea of the conditions that will be faced. Tropical storms are likely to become more frequent, affecting areas like the Philippines, and the sea level could rise by nearly 1 metre, which could result in flooding in low lying areas like the Mekong Delta.

But the impacts won’t be just physical. The map shows that agriculture could be severely hit, resulting in reduced rice production in countries like Thailand and Vietnam. Fishery stocks could be reduced significantly, resulting in a lower commercial catch. And health problems, like malaria and dengue, will probably become more widespread. All this will have serious economic and social consequences for societies.

In a way this perhaps isn’t surprising. A 2009 study by the Asian Development Bank showed that South East Asia is very vulnerable to climate change for three main reasons. Firstly, most of the population and economic activity is along the coastline, which is more vulnerable to physical impacts like storms and sea level rise. Secondly, the economy is quite closely linked to natural resources, particularly in sectors like agriculture, forestry and fisheries, which will be negatively affected by deterioration in climatic conditions. And finally the relative level of poverty in the region is high compares to the world average, making it harder to adapt to climate change.

All of which reinforces the need to deal with climate change now – to adapt to the physical impacts we can already expect, and reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions to contain the problem as far as possible.

NOTE – You can also view the map in Google Earth, which includes a series of video clips of scientists explaining what the physical impacts will involve. Click here for more details.

That may sound a very technical subject. But it is critical to the region’s development and prosperity.   South East Asia supports more than 70% of the planet’s biological diversity.  And a lot of the region’s human population (often the poorest people) depends on these resources to provide food, medicine, shelter, clothing and other needs. 

The scenario is fairly obvious. A developer comes to a Government with a proposal to develop an area of forest, or wetlands. “This development will create 150 jobs, and generate $20 million in revenue”. Put like this, the proposal seems attractive. But – the problem is we can’t properly assess what would be the benefits if the forest, or wetland, stayed as it is. What would be the social and economic benefits in terms of fruit collected and delivered to market; fish stocks that would flourish in the area, to be caught later and eaten or sold; health benefits, in terms of pollutants removed from the atmosphere? To make an informed decision, we need to see both sides of the equation. That is what this project, and the TEEB project in general, are trying to do. To give policy makers the tools to put an accurate valuation on their natural resources.

At the meetings I gave an outline of the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment.   This groundbreaking report analyses the economic value that natural systems provide in the UK and includes recommendations for actions that can be taken, to ensure that these economically valuable systems are maintained and developed.

The process will continue with a training workshop in Hanoi on 29/30 March. This is a crucial area for South East Asia – and other countries in the world. Hopefully, it will help us build a future that is more prosperous – and also more sustainable

The recent floods in Thailand have had not only profound impacts on people’s livelihoods, but also caused lots of damage to their houses and properties, affecting over 2.5 million people nationwide. Hundreds of thousands of residents became internally displaced almost overnight. The prolonged floods since late July have ravaged 30 provinces in the North, Northeast and Central regions, including Bangkok – the capital city of Thailand. In Bangkok, 36 districts out of a total 50 were hit by the floods. The level of floodwaters ranged up to three metres deep in heavily flooded areas.

The news has reported that these are the worst floods in 50 years in Thailand with a mass -movement of over 100,000 people – the biggest displacement in the country since World War II. Initially, many flood victims in rural provinces moved into Bangkok to live with their relatives and friends. Then, when the floods reached Bangkok many inbound and outbound roads and highways were closed or became difficult to access, and hundreds of thousands of Bangkok residents had to evacuate to other flood-free areas. Some people chose to stay at evacuation centres whereas others moved away to the provinces. Others who were financially able rented a condominium or a hotel room within the city. At the height of the floods, all outbound flights to regional cities were fully booked, and highways to these regions were jammed for six to ten hours.

The floods put great pressure on internal migration. Not to mention a shortage of housing, food supplies, and drinking water as factories became flooded and supply chains disrupted. About 30 local Embassy staff living in severely flood-hit districts had to evacuate their houses and a few of them are still unable to return home, over a month after they left.

The massive floods are very much in line with the findings in the UK’s Foresight Report on “Migration and Global Environmental Change.” The report states that ‘the impact of environmental change on migration will increase in the future’. It examines not only global migration trends, but also internal migration trends. In particular, “environmental change may threaten people’s livelihood and traditional response is to migrate.”

The report also points out that individuals who experience the impacts of environmental change may need extra financial resources to move. But these people may be unable to move away from locations in which they are extremely vulnerable to environmental change. This can be seen as a ‘trapped population’ and is a real concern for well-planned migration policy.

The Bangkok floods are a good case study. The government reports around 800,000 people became trapped in the city with little access to daily necessities and food supplies. The floods have also affected communities of Burmese migrant workers outside Bangkok. Factories where many of them work became submerged, leaving many workers unemployed and homeless. Around 100,000 of them chose to return back home, and wait until the situation is back to normal before returning to Thailand.

Recently the floodwaters have generally receded. Yet, there remain 9 provinces in the Central regions, and another 11 districts in Bangkok where the floodwaters have not subsided.

It is highly evident that Thai people have become more aware of environmental and climate change impacts on their livelihoods. The massive floods are a real wake-up call, as nobody wants a repeat. In particular, the government agencies engaged in flood management are now working together to discuss what actions and policies need to be implemented.

Kanyasorn Tansubhapol is Climate Change Officer at the British Embassy in Bangkok

To give you a few examples. Nerida Lennon is a young Australian designer who is promoting the use of sustainable practices in the fashion industry. With its high turnover of designs, and encouragement to buy the latest “in thing”, the fashion industry is probably not the most sustainable activity around. Nerida is tackling this by promoting the use of natural fabrics; discouraging the desire to buy the “latest” designs ; and supporting the use of local materials, to reduce emissions associated with shipping. Nerida will shortly be working with a high profile designer to create a fashion garment that adheres to sustainability best practice. More of her work can be seen here. 

Hiromi Morimoto is a young Japanese fashion designer who has adopted an intriguing business model – she take second hand ties and scarves and recycles them into new designs. This reduces the need for new production, saving on energy use. In her words, “Tie for Change (TFC) aims to help us change our perception and behaviour from a position of ‘looking at what we don’t have’ to one which ‘realizes and embraces the richness of what we already have’. The wonderful ties, cufflinks and brooches that she produces are testament to the creative way that old fabrics can be used. (And even I couldn’t resist buying a pair of cufflinks). More information on this work can be found here 

Finally, Stephen Mushin has combined Australian and Japanese practices by designing ’Origami Farms’, which are like pop-up market gardens. The project aims to kick-start urban food production by empowering local communities to build small urban farms. Hopefully this will develop into an affordable micro scale vegetable production system which can be supplied to communities experiencing food security issues resulting from climate change and other environmental and social impacts. More information can be seen here .

I was truly inspired by the creative and innovative work that so many people from around the region have put into this programme. If you would like to find out more, visit the e-ideas website.

On 26 September 2009, the Philippines made international news when Supertyphoon Ondoy (international name: Ketsana) hit Metro Manila and 16 provinces. Ondoy’s wrath affected over 900,000 families, resulted in 464 deaths and brought damage to infrastructure and agriculture at an estimated cost of £160 million. It was recorded as the worst flooding the metropolis had seen in nearly 40 years. 

The UK Government has allocated £2.9 billion to a new “International Climate Fund” for the period until 2015. The Fund is designed to support international poverty reduction by helping developing countries adapt to climate change, take up low carbon growth, and tackle deforestation. As part of this, the UK is supporting the Climate Development and Knowledge Network (CDKN) over the period 2010 – 2015. CDKN offers developing country decision-makers advice, technical assistance, research, strategic knowledge sharing and partnership building to make long term policy and investment decisions that are resilient to climate change and consistent with low carbon development.   

Ros Arayata is the Climate Change Attaché at the British Embassy in Manila. 

So many people write on climate change these days that I was puzzled when John asked me to contribute to his FCO blog.  What could I say that might be of interest for readers? But let me first introduce myself; my name is Yoona Jo and I work as Climate Change Director at the British High Commission in Singapore. However, I am not Singaporean, but Korean. Before coming to Singapore, I worked two and half years at the EU Delegation in Seoul on economic and climate change policies.

While I was attending a public lecture organized by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore recently, whose guest speaker was former Korean Prime Minister Han SeungSoo, I realized that there is a lot of interest in Singapore – and indeed the rest of the world – in the Korean experience. This gives me an opportunity to contribute to this blog. 

In my view, a key factor in the evolution of national climate change policy in Korea was the country’s involvement in international organizations and initiatives, in particular the OECD and the G20. For instance, one reason behind Korea’s low carbon green growth initiative, that was announced a in 2008, was the belief of President Lee Myungbak that Korea had to accelerate its transition towards qualitative growth. However, Korea’s  G20 Presidency also  raised the country’s profile on the international stage, leading to increased attention on climate change policies. Korea has been also actively engaged in the UNFCCC process, for example, at COP 15 in Copenhagen Korea announced its plan to establish the Global Green Growth Institute in Korea – which made a presentation of its remit last month in Singapore.

I was involved in this area in a number of ways – for example, I organised several conferences and public events on the issue of climate change (including with the British Embassy in Seoul). It was very interesting work, given the fast moving policy environment. I believe a key factor was that the Korean authorities saw the potential of green growth for economic transformation, and their willingness to get Korea ready to catch future growth opportunities. I believe the Korean case could be an example for other countries too: demonstrating that a proactive climate change policy can raise a country’s international profile and result in closer economic ties with the UK and other European countries. Green technologies can be a growth engine.

After two months of contacts with Singaporeans on climate change, I see actually a growing interest in Korea’s low carbon green growth initiative and how it is being implemented. Looking at recent announcements in Singapore on more research and development money going to low carbon projects, it seems that there is also keen interest in the opportunities that Green Growth represents.  I intend to follow closely these developments.