A new clean energy definition, without consent
Recent policy changes by the Asian Development Bank and Australia have quietly added nuclear energy to the clean energy conversation for the Indo-Pacific region. These decisions, made in a short span, are influencing future energy strategies for the area. However, Pacific Island nations have not been included in these important discussions about how clean energy is defined.
Pacific Island countries have not developed a shared position on nuclear energy. Their efforts in climate and energy focus entirely on renewable energy sources. The region's only active nuclear engagement is through issues like the legacy of nuclear testing and concerns over Japan's Fukushima wastewater discharge.
Parallel conversations, no convergence
For years, the Pacific has pushed for global attention on climate issues. The region has encouraged the International Court of Justice to address climate obligations and has kept loss-and-damage funding on the international agenda. Despite these efforts, the area has stayed silent on how nuclear energy fits into the clean energy conversation.
The Pacific's identity is deeply tied to being 'nuclear-free' and an 'ocean of peace.' This image stems from the region’s history and the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga, which created the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. That treaty banned nuclear testing and the possession of nuclear weapons in the region, reacting to over 300 nuclear tests conducted from 1946 to 1996. The 2018 Boe Declaration on Regional Security reinforced the region’s commitment to this principle.
Silence risks default acceptance
The ADB's move to include nuclear energy in its clean energy policies was fast and lacked full public discussion. Many groups have criticized the process as unclear and unresponsive to concerns. Surprisingly, the issue of nuclear energy's role in the clean energy framework was entirely left out of these consultations.
Fiji is the only Pacific nation currently showing interest in nuclear technology. The country has begun the process to acquire a micro modular reactor for its 'Ocean of Peace' initiative. While this indicates some openness to nuclear-related developments, there is no unified regional stance or agreement on the issue.
Australia is about to take the lead in COP31 negotiations, a key moment in global climate talks. The outcomes of these negotiations could establish a definition of clean energy that the Pacific has not had the opportunity to shape. These decisions will be made by external forces, not by the region itself.
There are arguments in favor of classifying nuclear energy as clean. The 2023 COP28 Declaration, supported by over 20 countries, recognized nuclear energy as a major source of clean energy. Studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also suggest that nuclear capacity needs to triple by 2050 to meet climate goals. The ADB's new stance reflects real demand, as seen in the Philippines' request for nuclear energy support.
India's nuclear energy growth, partly supported by Australian uranium, is framed as a way to reduce coal use. These points are valid but need to be considered carefully. The current path seems to be one of default acceptance rather than active decision-making.
The Pacific Islands Forum, which represents the region's main voice, has said nothing about the role of nuclear energy in their future. As Australia gains influence in global climate discussions, it is in a unique position to shape outcomes. This power is not being used through pressure, but through a lack of attention to the issue from the region.
The way forward is uncertain. While views on nuclear energy in the Pacific are diverse, no clear consensus exists. Fiji's efforts to explore nuclear options show some interest, but broader regional engagement has not followed. Without meaningful dialogue and representation, the region risks being left out of major energy decisions again.
The issue remains open for the Pacific to address. With Australia preparing to lead COP31, the region has a chance to voice its perspective and shape the future of energy in a way that reflects its history and values. Failing to do so could lead to outcomes the region did not have a chance to consider.