Knowledge Hub

As Asia’s energy transition accelerates, philanthropy is beginning to play a more visible and strategic role in helping unlock change. But in a region as diverse and complex as Asia, the challenge is not simply funding good ideas, it is understanding where the bottlenecks are, what kinds of institutions and coalitions are missing, and how catalytic capital can help shift systems and markets at the pace required.

In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Aviva Imhof, Program Director, Regional, at Tara Climate Foundation about why Tara was established, how it approaches strategic philanthropy in the region, and where she sees the biggest opportunities to accelerate a just and practical clean energy transition across Asia.

SIPET Connect: To begin, could you tell us a bit about the Tara Climate Foundation, and what are its main objectives in the area of climate and energy?

Aviva Imhof: Tara Climate Foundation was established in 2021 and is headquartered in Singapore. At its core, Tara was set up to help build a more sustainable and prosperous future for Asia, with a strong focus on accelerating the energy transition.

The foundation was designed to fill a very clear gap. For a long time, relatively little philanthropic capital was flowing into the wider Asian region. Climate philanthropy had focused heavily on China and India, given the scale of energy use and emissions profiles in those two countries.  But much less attention had been paid to the rest of Asia, despite the region’s importance in terms of population, economic growth, and the role it will play in shaping the global future.

That was the rationale for creating a foundation that is locally based, regionally headquartered, and largely staffed by people from the region. Our main objective is to support a just energy transition across Asia, with a particular emphasis on the power sector, because decarbonizing power is central to decarbonizing every other part of the economy. We also work on related areas of clean industrialisation, particularly in sectors such as heavy industry and textiles.

SIPET Connect: Could you say a little more about Tara’s footprint in the region? Where do you work, and the kind of partner network do you support?

Aviva Imhof: We have a fairly diverse network of around 400 partners across 12 Asian geographies. We do not just work in Southeast Asia. We also work in Japan, Korea, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

Our three biggest programmes are Japan, Korea, and Indonesia, because of the scale of those markets and their importance in global emissions terms, regional influence, and future emissions trajectories, in the case of Indonesia.

At the same time, countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan are also very important. Their emissions are relatively low, but they have very large and rapidly growing populations, so decarbonising those countries is also critical from a global perspective.

Our partner base is very diverse. It includes think tanks and research institutes, civil society organisations doing policy work, and corporate alliances. We try to build a broad ecosystem of partners who can work together to help deliver what is, ultimately, a very difficult task: transitioning at the speed required to meet global climate targets and avoid runaway climate change.

SIPET Connect: What does that support look like in practice, both in terms of the scale and the kinds of grants you make?

Aviva Imhof: Last year, Tara disbursed around $65 million in grants. Grant sizes range from around $20,000 to half a million dollars, and in some cases up to a million dollars. It really depends on the partner we are supporting, the nature of the collaboration, and the kind of project involved.

Our grantmaking works through an invitation-based process. That is because we are a regranting foundation. Funded by over a dozen major global and Asian philanthropic foundations, we channel that support into climate work across Asia. That means we're accountable for ensuring our strategies are robust, locally grounded, and aligned with our funders' priorities. So we carefully curate our network of grantees across the countries where we work.

SIPET Connect: Tara often talks about strategic philanthropy. What does that mean to you in practice?

Aviva Imhof: For me, it means trying to look at the problem from that 30,000-foot level, understanding what the barriers are to the clean energy transition, and then figuring out how to address those barriers while avoiding the risks associated with them.

Once you understand where the barriers are and what needs to happen, the next question is: how do we make that happen, and who are the partners we need in order to do it? So strategic philanthropy means assembling and supporting the right network of actors.

In many countries, because this region was so underinvested for so long, we have actually had to help build the ecosystem. That can mean incubating new organizations, or helping organizations that may have started with just a few people grow into larger, more professional institutions. So rather than simply funding projects here and there, we are looking at the broader change that needs to happen in order for clean energy to flourish at the pace and scale we know is necessary.

SIPET Connect: How do you assess what kinds of support or ecosystem building are needed in a given country?

Aviva Imhof: It is usually a combination of different things. We have a fairly clear strategic framework that looks at both supply and demand.

On the demand side, we ask: how do we create demand for clean energy? That could mean supporting corporate alliances and helping companies commit to 100% renewable energy, so that they create stronger demand signals for new renewables. It can also mean working with consumer groups or rural communities.

On the supply side, we ask: what are the barriers? If the barriers are policy-related, then we look at what research and analysis is needed to show the benefits of the transition and to map out the pathway toward it. We ask what policies need to be unlocked, what procurement mechanisms should be in place, and how the cost of clean energy can be reduced through things like reverse auctions and other reforms.

Then we think about who is needed to make that case. Do we have organisations that can do the technical research and policy engagement? If not, how do we help build that capacity? Do we have people who can engage constructively with energy ministries and utilities? If not, how do we support them? And do we have the right demand-side actors, including corporates, organised in a way that can push for enabling policy conditions?

There is no fixed formula, but we do use a strategic framework to assess each of those pillars and figure out what is missing.

SIPET Connect: Could you share an example of how Tara puts this approach into practice, particularly where philanthropy has helped catalyse a new actor or coalition?

Aviva Imhof: One example is the Asia Clean Energy Coalition. Some corporates came to us and said they saw a clear gap. They needed a regional corporate alliance that could work collaboratively to push for better policy conditions for renewable energy, but they were not able to make it happen on their own.

From our perspective, that is exactly the kind of catalytic role philanthropy can play. We helped fund the initial scoping work, which was led by partners including WRI, RE100, and GWEC. That work looked at what kind of coalition infrastructure was needed, where the gaps were, and how a regional alliance could help fill them.

From there, a structure and governance model was developed, and we helped fund the first iteration of the coalition. That included staffing and national-level advisory support. The coalition is now moving toward becoming an independent entity headquartered in Singapore, with a governance structure that is representative of its membership.

Importantly, we have always seen philanthropy’s role here as catalytic, not permanent. Our position from the beginning has been that corporates also need to contribute and take ownership. Otherwise, it will not work in the long term.

SIPET Connect: In Southeast Asia and elsewhere, many energy markets still have entrenched interests, political bottlenecks, and institutional inertia. How do you think about that political economy challenge?

Aviva Imhof: It is an excellent question, and one that our country teams are dealing with every day.

I would say it has become somewhat easier to make the case for renewables because they are now cheaper than fossil fuels. And with the current turmoil in the Middle East, there is also a growing opportunity to frame renewables not just as cleaner and cheaper, but also as a source of energy security. If countries want secure energy that is not dependent on imported fossil fuels, then homegrown solar and wind are clearly part of the answer.

That does not mean the political economy barriers are gone. Entrenched interests remain a reality. Part of what we try to do is identify which actors are best placed to help shift the dynamic. That is one reason we place real value on corporate engagement. In many of the places where we work, corporates that are serious about renewable energy have been able to move things in ways that civil society alone cannot.

At the same time, in some countries the political will to transition is actually there, but you still have a kind of inertia in utilities and among planners who do not yet understand that intermittent renewables can be managed with storage, flexibility, and better system planning.

So another important role is providing technical support. That might mean helping energy ministries and utilities learn from countries that are already integrating larger shares of renewables. We have also supported organizations that can work hand in glove with government and utilities, to improve auction design, bankability, grid planning, and overall system readiness.

SIPET Connect: Could you share an example of where that kind of inside-game support has been useful?

Aviva Imhof: One example is the Philippines, where we have supported the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC) over many years. They have built trusted relationships with the energy ministry over time, and they also work with former senior utility executives who understand the system from the inside.

That means they are able to engage directly on issues like renewable energy auctions, making sure that the rules are designed in a way that leads to bankable projects, and also on grid planning and system stability as renewable penetration increases.

That kind of support can be incredibly important, because sometimes the challenge is not opposition to renewables as such. It is simply that institutions are still operating with a 20th-century orthodoxy and need help understanding how a more flexible, modern system can work.

SIPET Connect: Beyond policy and institutional reform, have there been examples in the region where market or consumer behaviour has driven change more organically?

Aviva Imhof: Pakistan is a fascinating example because it shows what can happen through very grassroots action.

Because of a whole set of systemic issues in the power sector, very expensive electricity, unreliable supply, and broader market dysfunction, people essentially started taking matters into their own hands and buying solar panels off the market. Over the last few years, that has led to extraordinary growth in solar deployment. Based on the latest data, we estimate that cumulative solar panel imports into Pakistan are now upwards of 50 gigawatts.

One of our partners, Renewables First, has done really important work on this, including policy engagement and data analysis. Partners have helped ensure that import taxes on solar panels remain low and that net metering remains an option for consumers. Renewables First has helped track the growth of solar panels, including through satellite-based assessments with other organisations.

And the visual evidence is remarkable. We have seen footage from cities in remote areas where virtually every rooftop is covered in solar panels. It is an extraordinary reminder that decentralised, consumer-led action can transform an energy system when the economics are right, and when people are given room to respond.

SIPET Connect: Tara also talks about a just transition. From your perspective, what does that mean in practical terms?

Aviva Imhof: It is a term that can mean everything and nothing at the same time, because it gets used so often. But for us, it means making sure that the transition takes account of affordability, jobs, and community impacts.

In the context of coal phaseout, that means thinking seriously about how coal-dependent communities are supported—whether through retraining, just transition funding, or broader efforts to help local economies move in new directions.

But it is also about how renewable energy is deployed. If renewables are built in ways that damage local communities or natural ecosystems, then we will see backlash, and rightly so. We have seen that in other parts of the world. So we see it as central to our mission to try, as much as possible, to ensure that renewable energy projects are developed in ways that genuinely consider local impacts and, ideally, deliver local benefits.

There is also a distributive question. If generation costs are coming down, how does that translate into consumer prices? And if prices are still rising, what safeguards are there for poorer communities? These are all part of what a just transition needs to address.

SIPET Connect: Looking ahead, where do you see the biggest opportunities right now for strategic philanthropy to help accelerate clean energy adoption in Asia?

Aviva Imhof: I think one of the biggest opportunities right now is around distributed solar, especially in markets where consumers are exposed to high power prices and are actively looking for alternatives.

The current moment has created much more interest in solar. In places like the Philippines, we are seeing a real uptick in imports of solar panels and growing consumer interest. That tells us people want solutions, and they’re willing to take matters into their own hands where they can.

So what can philanthropy do? First, we can support efforts to lower the barriers. That includes things like temporary reductions in import taxes on solar panels, cutting red tape, and streamlining permitting.

In some places, the permitting process is still cumbersome. In the Philippines, for example, there are multiple permits required across different agencies, and that can take months. We have partners working to push for a much simpler process, including the idea of a one-stop online system, with much shorter approval periods.

Second, we need to look at financing. The payback period for rooftop solar can be very short, especially in high-price markets, but many people still cannot access the upfront capital. So there is a real opportunity to support the growth of financial models and fintech solutions that can help households and small businesses adopt solar more easily.

Third, there is a need for much more consumer-facing communication. People need to know what their options are, how much solar costs, how the installation process works, and where to go. That kind of practical public education is important for this to work.

Overall, I think things could change quite quickly over the next 6 to 12 months. The energy crisis has, in some ways, sped up the transition. And if we can unlock some of the smaller policy barriers, I think we could see much faster growth.

SIPET Connect: Finally, what gives you optimism at this moment?

Aviva Imhof: What gives me optimism is that the economics are increasingly undeniable, and that people are responding.

The Pakistan example is one illustration of that. The growth in distributed solar interest in places like the Philippines is another. Once people see that solar can provide cheaper, more reliable energy, they move quickly.

So while there are still major barriers, in the areas of policy, institutions, and finance, I do think there is a real sense that things are shifting. And that gives us a strong opportunity to be strategic, targeted, and catalytic in how we use philanthropic capital.

As energy systems across Asia and the Pacific become more complex, the need for credible, grounded, and practical planning tools is growing. For many economies, the challenge is not only understanding long-term energy pathways, but also using those insights to inform real-world policy choices amid technological change, market uncertainty, and shifting geopolitical conditions.

In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Robert Tromop of the Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) about APERC’s role within APEC, the value of its Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, and why the real strength of scenario work lies not only in the final report, but in the process of building, debating, and testing assumptions with economies themselves.

***

SIPET Connect: Could you start by briefly introducing APERC and your role to our readers, and explain how your work supports energy transition planning across the region?

Robert: Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) is a 30-year-old regional energy research institution whose mandate stems from the APEC Economic Leaders’ Summit in Osaka in 1995, where leaders recognized the need for stronger insight into energy trends and policy across the region.

Our role is to help foster understanding among APEC economies of global, regional, and domestic energy demand and supply trends, infrastructure development, regulatory reform, and related policy issues.

Our flagship publication is the APEC Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, which utilizes scenarios to project energy trends for each of APEC’s 21 economies and for APEC as a whole. We also publish the APERC Energy Overview, which is an annual update of each APEC economy’s progress in energy use dynamics, policies, and actions.

A second major part of our mandate is to support rational energy policy formulation and strengthen capacity building in energy research. Each researcher at APERC supports research both focused on their home economy, as well as on broader APEC topics. In addition, APERC runs training exercises in energy statistics, modelling, and energy security for officials from APEC economies.

The third major plank of our work is around energy security, economic growth, and environmental quality. We produce annual reports on coal, oil, and gas production and trade dynamics, and we are now adding a hydrogen report to that series. Our Oil and Gas Security Initiative also looks at security-of-supply challenges and includes tabletop emergency response exercises with economies.

SIPET Connect: APERC is closely linked to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)’s energy architecture. How does that shape the way you work?

Robert: APEC is a consensus-based entity, so good ideas can certainly be put forward, but they need support from member economies in order to move ahead. That means the work is considered collective by design.

We also operate within an enduring ecosystem of expert groups under the APEC Energy Working Group. The main ones are the Expert Group on Energy Data and Analysis, the Expert Group on Energy Efficiency and Conservation, the Expert Group on New and Renewable Energy Technologies, and the Expert Group on Clean Fossil Energy. Those groups provide a strong technical foundation for exploring policy options.

There is continuity in the relationships. People change, of course, but these communities persist over time, and that matters. At the end of the day, relationships are what hold a lot of this together.

A key part of APERC’s longevity also comes from the consistent support of the Japanese government, which has funded APERC since its founding. That sustained commitment is a big reason we are able to keep doing this work year in, year out.

SIPET Connect: APERC’s Energy Outlook is widely referenced across APEC economies. Beyond the report itself, how do you see it functioning as a practical tool for policymakers and planners?

Robert: For me, the strength of the Outlook is that we conduct individual analyses for each of the 21 APEC economies, examining historical and projected energy demand, transformation, and supply across multiple scenarios.

We usually develop two main scenarios. One is a reference or baseline scenario — what will occur if current energy-related policies are maintained. The second is a scenario that reflects some kind of accelerated change, whether that is stronger electrification, a lower-carbon pathway, or some other policy objective.

What matters most is the engagement of officials from each economy throughout the modelling and production process. That engagement is itself a core deliverable. By testing modelling inputs, assumptions, and policy settings, and debating what is realistic, we can have greater confidence that the resulting scenarios are robust and credible.

The process also builds shared understanding and shapes how officials think about the range of available policy options.

SIPET Connect: One of the region’s big challenges is moving from long-term scenarios to near-term decisions, especially in a period of geopolitical volatility and energy insecurity. In that context, how can governments use outlooks like yours more effectively?

Robert: It is important to be realistic about technology change rates, economic potential, and the costs and benefits of each option.

I like to think that the narrative around the graphs is what really matters. The report can help inform what is possible, and it can encourage realism and balance across a portfolio of policy options.

At the end of the day, our role is to inform. Ultimately, our role is to inform. Political leaders will act according to the mandates and pressures they face, but our responsibility is to provide information and analysis that supports informed decision-making. So I would say the Outlook is most useful when it is treated not as a prescription, but as a grounded decision-support tool.

SIPET Connect: You also mentioned the Energy Outlook roadshow. Could you walk us through how that works in practice, and what makes it effective?

Robert: In practice, it is simply a series of visits to economy governments — and sometimes local research institutes — where we take officials through the modelled work.

We sit down with a broader group of officials than just those directly involved in reviewing the report. Often that includes more senior officials or ministers. We walk them through the analysis, answer questions, and talk through the implications.

While everyone looks at the plots, I think the real value lies in the narrative and the discussion around why and how different technologies and policies are driving change. That is where the key insights often are.

It is also a useful feedback loop. We hear what is front of mind for officials, and that often helps shape what we need to think more carefully about in the next round.

SIPET Connect: In your experience, where do economies typically struggle when using energy outlooks or modelling outputs?

Robert: I would not necessarily say they struggle. They make choices, and we add to the range of tools they may or may not use in making those choices.

The bigger challenge, in my view, is making sure the modelling remains realistic and grounded in actual economy conditions. That requires good insights into the driving forces behind change, the state and prospects of technologies, and the policy context in each economy.

It also requires enough resolution in the modeling for changes to be visible. If things are too aggregated, you lose a lot of practical insight.

So I think the issue is less about economies struggling with the tool, and more about making sure the tool itself is as credible and useful as possible.

SIPET Connect: Southeast Asia is especially diverse in terms of energy systems, policy conditions, and development pathways. How does APERC tailor its analysis to remain relevant across such different contexts?

Robert: The Outlook’s strength is really in the discussion and debate as we develop individual analysis and modelling results for each APEC economy.  That is what helps ensure we are reflecting actual issues and realities on the ground.

We do temper extremes of ambition in discussion, because realism matters. But working economy by economy gives us a much better feel for what is going on.

That is particularly important in Southeast Asia, because the region is so diverse. That diversity is also where there may be opportunities for greater collaboration. One obvious example is the ASEAN Power Grid. The region can potentially gain a great deal by sharing more effectively across borders, and one of the things the Outlook helps highlight is that regional value. APERC also benefits from the presence of visiting researchers from many Southeast Asian economies. Those researchers bring insights from their home economies and also have the networks to draw on specialist expertise and perspectives when needed.

SIPET Connect: How do you see APERC’s approach as distinct?

Robert: Different organisations are often looking at different parts of the elephant, so to speak. They may be trying to explore different issues, using different assumptions, or applying different methodologies.

What distinguishes APERC’s work, I think, is the degree to which we build it from the bottom up, economy by economy, in direct discussion with economy experts. That gives us a pretty good check on whether we are broadly getting it right.

We also benchmark our scenarios against others. That is useful because it helps us reflect on our own process and identify where we may want to improve. But I do not think it is necessarily helpful if all scenario work lines up perfectly. Different perspectives can expose different insights.

SIPET Connect: What modelling platform does APERC use, and what are the key ingredients that make this kind of outlook-driven planning process work?

Robert: We are currently finalising a transition to Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) as our main modelling platform. We had used different tools over time, depending on researchers and their backgrounds, but bringing things back to a common platform has been important for consistency.

LEAP is a very good platform for what we do. It is not a black box, and it is widely used by many others working in the space. Using a consistent platform also helps shorten our cycle time and lets us spend more time on what really matters — getting the assumptions and driving forces right.

To make this kind of process work, I think there are three main elements.

First, you need a consistent modelling platform.

Second, you need good insight into the driving forces, technology options, costs, benefits, and policy contexts in each economy — with enough detail for change to be visible.

Third, you need ongoing discussion with economy focal points. That back-and-forth is essential. Good modelling does not happen in isolation.

SIPET Connect: APERC is also known for its capacity-building role. How important is that dimension to your work?

Robert: It is very important. Building capacity is one of our key outputs.

We have around 18 researchers at APERC, including modellers, statisticians, and researchers with economy and sector expertise. People come and go quite quickly — often every couple of years — but that is part of the model. Researchers come here, learn a great deal in a well-connected international context, contribute to the work, and then often go on to bigger roles back home.

That is something we value. It means APERC is not only producing analysis, but also helping build capability across the region over time.

SIPET Connect: Finally, if another institution or economy wanted to adopt a similar approach, what would be most important to get right?

Robert Tromop: I would come back to the same fundamentals.

You need a consistent modelling platform.

You need strong insight into the state of technologies, the driving forces behind change, and the policy context in each economy.

And you need real discussion with economy focal points.

If I had to add one more point, it would be realism. As soon as you start fooling yourself, or assume something is right just because someone said it, you lose the value of the exercise. It is really about trying to get the equilibrium of insights right — getting the balance right, and getting some realism into the model.

That, in the end, is what makes the process useful.

As the energy transition accelerates, questions of inclusion are moving from the margins to the center of the conversation. But while awareness of gender in energy has grown, progress in translating that awareness into action and structural change remains limited. In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Ellen Bomasang, a long-time energy and development practitioner, about how her work in the energy sector has evolved, and what it will take to move from token inclusion to a transition that is just and equitable by design.

***

SIPET Connect: Let’s start with your journey: how did you get into the energy sector, and how has your work evolved since you started in the early 1990s?

Ellen: I’ve been working in energy since 1992, straight out of college. I started at the Philippine National Oil Company, first with its petroleum subsidiary, Petron, and then in geothermal. After that, I pursued graduate studies in Japan in public policy, focusing on energy. And then I worked at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.

That’s where I was first assigned to work on renewable energy. My first assignment was a a JICA-funded solar project in Zimbabwe. At the time, solar wasn’t considered mainstream at all; it was mostly seen as something for off-grid communities. Coming from work on oil and geothermal energy, that was a completely new perspective for me.

Over time, I’ve seen renewables evolve from something niche and expensive into a mainstream source of power. Along the way, my work has spanned policy, finance, project design, and community engagement, but what has really stayed with me is the focus on access and equity, especially in rural and underserved communities.

And I think that’s where gender naturally comes in. When you’re working on access and community-level energy systems, you start to see very clearly that women and men experience energy very differently, and that those differences are often not reflected in how programs are designed.

SIPET Connect: You’ve also moved across different roles, geographies, and sub-sectors. How did you navigate that without getting locked into one track?

Ellen: It wasn’t automatic, I had to be quite intentional about it. When I moved to the U.S., I was working with International Resources Group, but they weren’t doing much in off-grid renewables, which was what I was most interested in. So, I actively looked for opportunities and moved to Winrock International, where I stayed for about 14 years.

SIPET Connect: Yes, and that’s where you and I first met and worked together—on the USAID Eco-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program, back in 2006, where I was leading the regional effort and you were running teams in Indonesia and Vietnam.

Ellen:  That’s right, this was the first large regional USAID program covering all of Asia and focusing solely on clean energy. During my time at Winrock, I did a lot of work on household energy, electrification, and community engagement, and it’s also where I started working more directly at the intersection of gender and energy.

After a while, though, I started feeling a bit pigeonholed into Asia-focused work. I wanted to branch out, both geographically and in terms of the types of roles I was taking on. So, I moved on, which led to more senior roles and opportunities to work in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

For me, it was really about actively seeking out new spaces rather than waiting for them to come.

SIPET Connect: The idea of a “gender-just energy transition” has gained traction in recent years. How have you seen the conversation on gender in energy evolve over time?

Ellen: Earlier, the conversation was much more about inclusion in a general sense. This is what we often referred to as a “just transition”—meaning not leaving anyone behind.

What I’m seeing now is a more intentional recognition that women and other marginalized groups have different needs, different perspectives, and face different structural constraints. It’s not just about including them, but also about understanding those differences and designing systems accordingly.

In countries that are actively pursuing this, you see efforts to increase women’s participation in renewable energy jobs, to promote STEM education for girls, and to embed gender considerations into policy and resource allocation. There’s also more focus on access, making sure energy services are equitable and actually address the burden of energy poverty.

It’s becoming more deliberate, but there’s still a long way to go in terms of implementation.

SIPET Connect: Your doctoral research looks at women of color in international development. What led you to focus on that?

Ellen: It was really inspired by my own experiences, as well as those shared by colleagues. My research looks at how women of color experience power, oppression, and privilege within the sector.

I focused on energy, which is still very male-dominated, and the health sector, which is more diverse, to draw some comparisons. I conducted in-depth interviews with women of color and also spoke with practitioners from different backgrounds to get a fuller picture.

What comes through very clearly is that there are multiple layers of barriers, and they’re not always visible in the way organizations think about inclusion.

SIPET Connect: From your experience, what are the most persistent barriers that hold women back in the energy transition?

Ellen: There are quite a few, and they tend to reinforce each other.

Education and skills are a big one. Women are still underrepresented in technical fields, and that carries through into the workforce. Even in renewables, representation is only around 30 percent globally, and lower in the broader energy sector.

Then, there’s how the labor market is structured. Technical, field, and leadership roles are still dominated by men, and hiring often relies on networks that women don’t have the same access to.

There are also structural biases in policies and institutions. Even when things appear neutral, they often don’t account for realities like caregiving responsibilities, which affect women disproportionately.

Time poverty is another factor. Women are still managing multiple roles, childcare, household responsibilities, and in some contexts fuel and water collection, which limits their ability to participate in training, employment, or entrepreneurship.

And there are social norms. In many places, technical roles are still seen as men’s work. I’ve seen programs where only men were recruited for technical training, even though women might have been more likely to stay and apply those skills locally.

Finally, workplace environments can be a barrier, especially in male-dominated settings where there may be safety concerns, lack of mentorship, or limited support systems.

SIPET Connect: What have you seen actually work in moving beyond awareness to real change?

Ellen: One of the biggest lessons is that it’s not enough to simply increase participation. That was the approach for a long time, train more women, include more women. and then consider the job done.

What works better is addressing the underlying structural issues. That includes changing hiring practices, creating mentorship opportunities, and improving workplace culture so that women can actually thrive once they enter the sector.

Engaging men is also critical. In some of the programs I’ve worked on, bringing men into the conversation, helping them understand how certain behaviors or norms affect their colleagues, has made a real difference.

There’s also a strong case for starting early. We’ve done work with girls at the middle school level, introducing them to engineering and technical careers and connecting them with role models. That’s often the stage where career aspirations start to take shape.

And something that’s often overlooked is leadership training. Many programs focus on technical skills, but women also need support in navigating workplaces, negotiating, and advancing into leadership roles. In one program in Nigeria, we trained over a thousand women in leadership skills, and it was very well received and later replicated elsewhere.

I believe it’s really about addressing the full spectrum, from education to workplace dynamics to leadership.

SIPET Connect: Is there a risk that gender remains treated as a side issue rather than being fully integrated?

Ellen: Yes, and I’ve seen that happen. When gender is treated as a separate track or an add-on, it can actually create resistance.

I remember working on a project in Mongolia where we included a gender track in an energy conference. Some participants questioned why it was there at all, saying there were more “serious” issues to discuss.

That reflects a broader challenge. Gender is often labeled as cross-cutting, but it’s not given the same weight as technical components. And when budgets are tight, it’s often the first thing to be cut.

Where it works better is when leadership takes it seriously. If the project lead or the funder prioritizes it and integrates it into the core design of the program, then it becomes part of how the work is done, rather than something separate.

SIPET Connect: How do you see the role of gender lens investing and related approaches evolving?

Ellen: There’s definitely more interest, but adoption is still uneven.

In some of the work I’m doing now, we’re trying to integrate gender considerations into procurement processes, for example, assessing companies based on how inclusive their workplace policies are. But even then, there’s a question of how many companies will actually meet those criteria.

The evidence is quite clear that more inclusive workplaces lead to better outcomes, but that hasn’t fully translated into widespread practice yet.

SIPET Connect: Finally, what is one key takeaway you would leave for practitioners working on gender and energy?

Ellen: The main takeaway is that this is not just about participation.

If the focus is only on adding women, without addressing the underlying structural and systemic barriers, then the impact will be limited. What’s needed is a more transformative approach, looking at how systems are designed, whether that’s financing, labor markets, or energy access, and making sure those systems enable women to participate meaningfully and benefit equally.

A gender-just energy transition is really about ensuring that women are not only included, but that they have equitable access to opportunities and a role in shaping the transition itself.

Southeast Asia’s transition is moving into a more practical phase: not just targets and announcements, but the work of making projects investable and preparing power grids to be ready to absorb more clean power. For the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), that means combining policy and technical assistance with development finance tools—and partnering with regional institutions to help move capital into real-world projects. 

In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Sarah Love, who leads FCDO’s Climate, Energy and Nature Network in Southeast Asia. Sarah shares her views on a few areas where she is seeing traction: growing momentum behind the ASEAN Power Grid, the role of blended finance platforms like FAST-P, and why project preparation and coordination still matter as much as concessional funding. 

*** 

SIPET Connect: To start, could you briefly describe what FCDO is doing in Southeast Asia on climate, energy and nature, and your role within this work? 

Sarah: FCDO is the UK’s foreign ministry, and it also leads on international development. So our mandate is about advancing UK interests overseas—and that includes our development work as well as our climate, energy and nature priorities. The Foreign Secretary sees climate and nature as central to our foreign policy objectives. We won’t be prosperous or secure without action on climate change, and that conviction underpins much of what we do across the region. 

In terms of priorities, our work spans three or four broad themes. Energy transition is one. Nature and nature-based solutions, particularly mobilizing finance for nature, are another. Then there’s adaptation and resilience, and finally, expanding access to sustainable finance. 

My role is to lead our climate, energy, and nature network in Southeast Asia. I manage a small team of experts based in Singapore and Indonesia, covering areas such as energy, industrial decarbonisation, green finance, carbon markets, nature, and marine biodiversity. We work closely with UK embassies and high commissions across Southeast Asia, alongside climate-focused colleagues in those posts, to deliver on these priorities with partners across the region.  

SIPET Connect:  If we zoom in on energy, could you share a couple of partnerships or initiatives you’ve been involved in, or are watching closely, that you think have been particularly effective in moving the needle on the energy transition in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: On energy transition, our focus is really on scaling renewables, using our development finance instruments and technical assistance programmes to support that, and to mobilise private finance into the transition. 

But I also think grids and interconnectors are critical enablers. A lot of development partners are looking at the ASEAN Power Grid and how to get behind that initiative. The idea of extending and connecting the grid across the region has been around for a long time, since at least the early 1990s, but it genuinely feels like there’s real momentum behind it now. 

We’re doing a lot with the ASEAN Centre for Energy and with ADB to explore how we can mobilize UK expertise in support of that. The UK has a long track record of electricity trading with our neighbours, and deep expertise, particularly on the regulatory side. So, a key question is: how do you design the regulatory environment for the power grid in a way that incentivizes private investment into big, complex interconnector projects? 

We’ve been working with ADB on the design of a financing facility that could attract other partners and mobilize private capital. We’re also supporting a few front-runner projects—for example, working with ADB to support Sarawak Energy as it explores potential regional connections, including interest in a Singapore–Sarawak interconnector. 

Another example is FAST-P, where we’re working closely with Singapore. Last year, we committed £60 million to FAST-P through British International Investment (BII), the UK’s development finance institution1. FAST-P is Singapore’s blended finance facility, and BII invested in the pillar focused on marginally bankable projects, where catalytic and blended finance can help bring in more commercial investors. 

SIPET Connect: Staying with ASEAN Power Grid, why do you think the momentum has picked up so much in the past few years? 

Sarah: It’s a good question. There are a few angles. 

Electricity trading with neighbours can be beneficial for energy security. It gives you more options, and we’ve seen that in the UK. It can also help with affordability, because being able to buy cheaper electricity from neighbours can bring costs down. And from a climate perspective, grids are important for enabling more renewables to be integrated into the delivery of electricity. 

There’s also a demand-and-supply story across ASEAN. Some countries have more available clean energy resources, and others have higher demand. Singapore is a good example, so interconnection helps. 

And I do think the prioritization of the APG by the ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN leaders has mattered. Having successive ASEAN chairs pick this up—Malaysia, the Philippines this year, and then Singapore looking ahead—creates continuity. This is long-term; it needs sustained political commitment. But you can see movement: a pipeline of interconnectors is being developed, land-based and subsea, for some of the more complex connections are moving through pre-feasibility and feasibility work. 

SIPET Connect: Can you explain a bit more, especially how partners are coordinating around APG projects? 

Sarah: Coordination and information sharing are a big part of it, because the space is fragmented. 

ADB has set up the Partnership for ASEAN Connectivity on Energy (or PACE), which is focused on the ASEAN Power Grid. It brings together a wide range of partners, including donors, MDBs, DFIs, commercial finance partners, and others, to look at specific projects and work through what’s needed to move them forward, The PACE platform helps to clarify who’s funding what, where support is available, and how to link efforts up more effectively. This kind of platform matters when the scale of the challenge is so big. We need to work together to use resources efficiently. 

SIPET Connect: There’s a lot of debate and discussion about blended finance. Many people say it’s promising, but it also is clearly slower than we need and appears to be hard to scale up. From your perspective, what needs to change to mobilise the amount of private capital that the energy transition requires in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: I think the challenge is that there are lots of project ideas out there, and in theory there’s commercial capital looking for projects, but there’s a big gap in the middle where they’re not matching up. 

Concessional finance helps bring projects closer to commercial bankability. In Southeast Asia we’re still learning what works best, what structures are attractive to commercial partners, and what needs to be demonstrated. 

For me, it goes back to the full project development pipeline. It starts with the enabling environment, regulations and policy frameworks that make investment possible. Then you need support for project preparation, because there’s a real gap before you even get to concessional finance: the preparatory work to get projects ready for investors. 

And then you have early-stage finance, growth finance, and eventually commercial finance and public markets. From the UK side, we have instruments that target different stages. BII sits somewhere in the middle, but we also work through multi-donor platforms like PIDG (with tools like InfraCo and other facilities), as well as UK Export Finance, and initiatives like Mobilist, which operates in the public markets space, supporting companies that are close to listing but need a bit more support to get there. 

So, I agree, projects aren’t moving through the pipeline as quickly as we’d like. But there isn’t a single fix. It’s about putting support in place at multiple stages, across the whole project lifecycle. 

SIPET Connect: You touched on knowledge and coordination platforms earlier. What role do you think knowledge platforms like SIPET can play, especially as programmes evolve or end? 

Sarah: I completely agree there’s a need for strong knowledge platforms. 

SIPET’s project mapping work, understanding who is doing what across the region, is really valuable. The more we know about what others are doing, the easier it is to align efforts, collaborate, and draw out best practice, and also to understand where things haven’t worked, which is equally useful. 

Good, accessible data on policy changes, enabling environment challenges, investment trends, and examples of what’s going well can help build momentum. There’s also a role for sharing learning from initiatives like FAST-P, how these platforms are set up, what challenges they face, so it’s simpler for the next person trying to do something similar. 

Peer-to-peer learning matters too: connecting regulators and practitioners, and bringing in expertise, including private sector expertise, whether that’s on the ASEAN Power Grid, storage, or other parts of the transition. The UK’s transition away from coal over the last decade has been steep, and there are lessons there as well. 

SIPET Connect: Before we wrap, when you look ahead a few years, what would “success” look like for FCDO’s climate and energy work in Southeast Asia? 

Sarah: For me, success looks like accelerated deployment of renewables, real action on the ground at scale, and clear progress on the ASEAN Power Grid, particularly seeing some of the ambitious front-runner interconnector projects move forward. 

Then there’s mobilizing finance. This means seeing concessional instruments catalyze more commercial capital, with investors feeling more confident about backing climate-focused, nature-positive projects. 

And finally, stronger regional cooperation, donors, MDBs and others finding ways to work together more effectively. In the current climate, that’s what we all need to do. 

***

1. https://www.bii.co.uk/en/news-insight/news/british-international-investment-commits-60-million-to-green-investment-partnership-to-close-the-climate-finance-funding-gap-in-south-east-asia/  

JETP Project Portfolio 

In Southeast Asia’s fast-moving energy transition, many of the most difficult decisions are also the hardest to discuss openly, across borders, and with the right people in the room. That’s where ETP’s SPARK initiative comes in: a deliberately small, curated, closed-door format designed to give senior policymakers the space to speak candidly about complex issues.

Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect spoke with Adritha Subbiah, Senior Programme Manager (Regional Programmes) at the Southeast Asia Energy Transition Partnership (ETP), hosted by UNOPS, about why SPARK was launched, what emerged from the first dialogue, and what SPARK hopes to unlock next.

***

SIPET Connect: To start, could you briefly describe the role of ETP in the regional energy ecosystem, and what you’re personally working on at ETP?

Adritha: Thank you, I really welcome the opportunity to step back and reflect on why we’re doing what we’re doing.

So ETP, the Southeast Asia Energy Transition Partnership, is essentially a pooled fund of governments and philanthropies with a mandate to support the energy transition in the region. We focus on Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and we also have a regional window of engagement. We work across four strategic outcome areas and provide technical assistance across these areas.

The first strategic outcome is aligning policy with climate commitments, so really looking at where countries are in terms of their NDCs and what they want to achieve through the energy transition and ensuring that the policy ecosystem supports that.

The second outcome is supporting investments coming in for renewables, energy efficiency, and increasingly coal phase-down, or fossil fuel phase-out.

The third is about grids: once you have more investments and more renewables, how do you ensure grids are future-proof? How do you modernise them, extend them, and look at interconnections?

And the fourth is just transition, recognising that for all of this to happen sustainably, people and the environment have to be central to decision-making around the energy transition.

That’s broadly the role we see ourselves playing in the region. We very much see ourselves as working in partnership with governments, being a trusted partner they can turn to for technical assistance around the energy transition.

SIPET Connect: SPARK stands for Sharing Perspectives to Advance Regional Knowledge, and as a metaphor, sparking new ideas and connections. What was the motivation for ETP to launch SPARK?

Adritha: A couple of things.

First, we have a regional window of engagement at ETP, and it’s slightly newer compared to our country programmes. We have in-depth country programmes in Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. But the deeper we got into those engagements, we started to realise there are real opportunities for sharing lessons. Countries are at different starting points, but many of the challenges are similar, and there may be opportunities to collectively arrive at solutions that can work across contexts. That’s one reason behind SPARK.

The other inspiration came from the Wilton Park[1] format. It’s a place where they regularly convene a group of people to have targeted discussions, and it creates a trusted space. We wanted to replicate something like that for the Southeast Asian context. We were also lucky to be in that dialogue with key stakeholders from the region who were keen to see something similar in Southeast Asia.

And I think a lot of opportunities for capacity building and lesson-sharing can still feel quite “North–to-South” and top down in a sense.  What we wanted to create instead was a South–to South peer learning network, where examples and solutions are more contextual and relevant.

And SPARK also helps us understand what’s required in the region. It creates space to build relationships among key policymakers and officials, understand pain points and sensitive topics, and then think through how we address them through our programming. That’s the intention behind SPARK.

SIPET Connect: You’ve chosen a very specific format, bringing together a small group of senior policymakers and experts in a confidential setting. Why this format, and how is it different from the many workshops and conferences in Southeast Asia?

Adritha: It was very intentionally designed.

We wanted to target policymakers, mid to senior-level people who have a clear sense of what’s needed and can shape things when they are back at their desks. It’s intentionally small and curated.

We also wanted to create an intimate, closed-door setting, a safe space, so we can have very open conversations. The idea is to tackle complex issues: topics that aren’t yet mainstream but really need to be discussed in the broader energy transition context.

Having a focused discussion helps in some elements of capacity building, but it also helps us come out with a clearer sense of where things stand, what needs to be done, and what ETP and others can do to support.

And another element we’re really keen on is building peer networks. Whether that’s a WhatsApp group or simply introductions across countries, we want policymakers to feel comfortable reaching out to each other. Ideally, a policymaker from the Philippines should be able to pick up the phone and call a counterpart in Indonesia about similar challenges. That’s the kind of environment we want to foster through SPARK.

SIPET Connect: The first SPARK dialogue focused on carbon markets and carbon pricing for the energy transition. What feedback did you get from participants from Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and what insights stood out?

Adritha: It was quite surprising to hear how interested policymakers are in this topic, the level of interest and the momentum building around it.

The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, emissions trading systems, these are very current issues that countries in Southeast Asia are trying to grapple with. What was really clear to us is that there’s an opportunity to ensure that the mechanisms being developed at the national level can “speak to each other,” because there’s more value you can unlock through that.

The timing of the dialogue also felt important. It was very topical, and there was a real need for the conversation. The way it was structured, with an element of capacity building, but also open discussion, worked well.

And maybe that’s the niche for SPARK: we can try to pick topics that have strong national ownership but also implications at the regional level.

SIPET Connect: A key output is the policy brief developed after each SPARK dialogue. Why is that important, and how do you see SPARK feeding into what ETP does next?

Adritha: The policy brief is our way of sharing the insights we gather through a closed-door convening. That’s a really important part of SPARK, because it puts learning into the public domain. And as a UN-hosted partnership, that’s incredibly important for us.

It also gives us an opportunity to continue working on areas that are identified for support. It informs our technical assistance programmes, and it can also help inform what our partners are doing or what we choose to do with our partners.

Just one example: following the last SPARK dialogue, we’ve continued conversations to explore the potential for ASEAN-level engagement on carbon markets and also looked at the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship this year and whether that creates a policy window. So that’s a very current example of how we try to take SPARK forward.

SIPET Connect: The second SPARK dialogue focused on financing the phase-down of coal. How do you view this problem and why is SPARK the right way to tackle it?

Adritha: The topic came from one of our regional projects, TRANSEND (Transition to End Coal), which looks at the asset-level coal phase-down. We were in discussions with a national utility in one of our focus countries that was keen to explore early retirement options. Our role was to provide technical assistance on what that could look like repurposing options, and critically, the financing of an early retirement.

We learned a lot from that engagement.  While it did not ultimately proceed to a transaction, the engagement generated critical insights into why early retirement remains so difficult to replicate in the region.          

What we also see is that there are many conversations happening around coal phase-down. Some policies have been put into the public domain, but there are also less visible conversations about how to keep commitments in place, how to ensure coal moratoriums hold, and how to explore early retirement without jeopardizing energy security     .

And I feel like policymakers don’t always have a safe space to have a very open discussion about this. That was the intention behind focusing SPARK on coal phase-down financing.

The financing aspect is also where things tend to get stuck. Policy is, of course, trickier to discuss across countries, and sometimes more sensitive. But I think everyone can agree that financing is a key bottleneck, and something we need to address if we want to advance energy transition in the region.

So, I’m really hoping we can create that safe space where policymakers are honest about the challenges, and we can think through solutions together.

SIPET Connect: Given SPARK is closed-door, how can knowledge platforms like SIPET complement the dialogues and help extend the impact?

Adritha: Because the dialogue is closed-door, it’s really important to think through how we disseminate what we can share publicly, like the policy brief that comes out of SPARK.

Since the discussions aren’t in the public domain, we need to ensure that what is in the public domain is widely circulated among policymakers, civil society, technology providers, and others.

At ETP, we’re not always the best at that, because our focus is really on government and policymakers. So, I think platforms like SIPET can help extend SPARK by disseminating those learnings, reaching the wider ecosystem, and hopefully bringing in partners who can continue to work on the issues that are crucial for the energy transition in this region.

SIPET Connect: Looking ahead two to three years, what would success look like for the SPARK initiative, and what message would you leave readers about why these convenings matter?

Adritha: Success for us is that SPARK is recognised as a safe space that convenes policymakers, so it becomes a well-used platform that policymakers can turn to for capacity building and for building peer networks around energy transition topics.

Another aspect of success is that SPARK continues to inform the work ETP does, but not only ETP. We see ourselves as part of a wider ecosystem, so ideally it also helps inform the work of others on the energy transition.

It’s a very curated, intimate convening, and for a busy policymaker, I think that’s exactly what they need. You need the headspace, a conducive environment, and a peer network to talk through these issues. Ideally, that’s what we’re creating through SPARK.

[1] Wilton Park is an executive agency sponsored by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) that convenes small, high-level policy dialogues designed to enable candid exchange and build trust among decision-makers.

In December 2025, governments gathered in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) against a backdrop of record heat, torrential rains, and growing calls to move away from fossil fuels. The final outcome fell short of expectations for many. Fossil fuels were not mentioned in the agreed text, and the existing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) still point to a dangerous 2.6°C warming trajectory, far above the level of 1.5°C called for in the Paris Climate Agreement and by science. 

Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect spoke with Frauke Röser, Co-Founder and Director at NewClimate Institute, about what COP30 revealed about the state of global climate politics, the emerging agenda of “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, and what all of this means for countries working on the energy transition, including in Southeast Asia. 

*** 

SIPET Connect: To start, could you tell us about NewClimate Institute and the work you focus on? 

Frauke: NewClimate Institute is a not-for-profit think tank that follows the international climate policy agenda. Our main focus has been on just transitions, the mitigation agenda, and the finance agenda, and we are also increasingly engaging on the issues of adaptation, resilience, and loss and damage. But the core of what we do is really around just transitions, mitigation, and the finance that goes with them. 

We are based in Germany with two offices, one in Berlin and one in Cologne. We are now roughly 50 people, with a very diverse team of more than 20 nationalities. We work on climate policy and transitions, and we track climate action, climate finance, and carbon markets. Article 6 and international carbon trading are also important strands of our work, and we follow those discussions quite closely at the COP. 

One of the things we are known for is the Climate Action Tracker, which looks at what countries are putting forward in the form of their NDCs and climate targets and relate that back to the Paris Agreement goals. This is one of the key inputs we provide at COPs. Beyond that, COPs are also a space for us to follow negotiations, exchange with peers, meet partners, and stay in touch with the international community. 

SIPET Connect: How did COP30 in Belém feel on the ground, especially for civil society and indigenous representatives? 

Frauke: In some ways, it was a relief. I was happy that, for the first time in several years, the COP was held in a democratic country again. Compared with Azerbaijan, Dubai, and Egypt, the visibility of civil society and particularly indigenous representatives was very high. That was really good to see. 

At the same time, you could really feel climate change in a very immediate way. It was extremely hot. I stayed a bit longer in Brazil, and the temperature difference coming back to Germany was a real shock for my body. During the COP, there were torrential rains that were so loud you sometimes could not have a conversation because of the sound of rain on the rooftops, and then there was the big fire. So it had all the drama of the climate crisis around it. In that sense, it brought the issue home very clearly. 

Unfortunately, though, the political outcome did not fully reflect the urgency that you could feel there. 

SIPET Connect: Going into COP30, what were you hoping to accomplish, and which issues were you following most closely? 

Frauke: I would not say we had targets in the sense of expecting the COP to suddenly deliver what is needed, given the climate crisis we are facing. In the current geopolitical setting, it was clear that the international community was not going to magically come together in Belém and decide on ambitious climate action. Especially with the United States pulling back in various ways, it was a difficult set-up. 

Personally, I was following three things most closely: the discussions on transitioning away from fossil fuels, the just transition agenda, and the related debates on levels of climate finance. Finance is always at the core of the negotiations and often the stumbling block that prevents things from moving fast and ambitiously. 

Other colleagues of mine focused more on Article 6 and international carbon markets, which we view quite critically, and on the overall picture of NDCs and where we stand relative to the Paris Agreement. 

SIPET Connect: Many governments updated their NDCs ahead of COP30. What did we learn from these new NDCs, and what does that mean for the energy transition? 

Frauke: You are right that some updated NDCs are more ambitious, and that is positive. But others are not. Some major economies, such as India, had not even submitted their NDCs. And the EU submitted its NDC very late, essentially a day before the COP. 

China’s NDC is somewhat more ambitious but still short of what we know the country can do, and compared to what we see happening in the real economy. That is an important point: NDCs are a useful political tool and framing, but they often do not portray reality very well. In some cases, like the EU, the real economy is moving much faster and in a much more ambitious way than what is written in the targets, and countries then overachieve their NDCs. 

Overall, in our analysis, the current NDCs will lead to a temperature increase 2.6°C by the end of the century, largely the same as last year, meaning that the new 2035 NDCs did not change the picture. That is pretty disastrous when you look at the scientific models. I cannot quote all the exact submission statistics off the top of my head, but I can say that many NDCs came late, some were not very ambitious, and some big emitters had not submitted at all. 

SIPET Connect: One of the initiatives that drew attention at COP30 was the “Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels” (TAFF) agenda. How do you see that process? 

Frauke: The TAFF initiative was indeed one of the more interesting developments. It was started by Colombia and at some point there were more than 80 countries behind it, including many European countries. 

There was quite a bit of hope that this initiative would find its way into a final COP decision—some kind of formal language or text. In the end, it did not. Fossil fuels were not even mentioned in the final outcome, which was disappointing. 

For me, the main take-away is that there is now a large and significant group of countries that clearly want to pursue an agenda of transitioning away from fossil fuels. They have organized themselves around this and are continuing. There will be a conference in Colombia early next year, co-hosted with the Netherlands, to follow up on TAFF. 

Many of the countries behind TAFF are fossil fuel importers. From an energy security and independence perspective, you would expect them to have a strong interest in accelerating this transition. On the other side, you have fossil fuel exporting countries who are trying to stall it. I do not think they can stop it. At best, they can delay it. That is really what they are aiming for. 

So even though TAFF did not make it into the final text of COP30 declaration, it has created a movement and a platform that I hope will grow into the kind of multilateral collaboration we need. 

SIPET Connect: Given the current geopolitical context, how do you see the role of COPs now? Can they still deliver meaningful outcomes? 

Frauke: If you think back, the Paris Agreement is almost a miracle. I do not think we would be able to negotiate such an agreement today. The idea that 194 countries would agree unanimously on something that ambitious seems almost inconceivable now. 

So we have to be realistic. Having a unanimous, highly ambitious agreement from 194 countries is extremely difficult. Even COP decisions are, to some extent, voluntary. That is why it is important to have issue-focused coalitions and initiatives like TAF. They allow a “coalition of the willing” to move ahead together. 

At the same time, COPs remain extremely important. They show that multilateralism is not dead. They provide a forum where all countries have to come together and, in a very transparent way, show the world where they stand. That visibility is crucial. 

You can also see that something is at stake simply by looking at who shows up. There are now many lobbyists attending COP. If nothing in these processes threatened existing business models, they would not bother to be there. So what happens at COP, including NDC updates and long-term strategies, does matter, because it shapes the direction of travel and the policy signals that follow. 

SIPET Connect: You mentioned climate finance and the need for just transitions. What did COP30 change on those fronts, and what still needs to happen? 

Frauke: On finance, there was some progress, particularly around adaptation finance, which I see as a positive step. But in terms of the overall provision of climate finance, there is still a long way to go. 

We need to move forward with reforming the international financial architecture, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and making sure we are not only mobilizing more investment for green sectors but also redirecting investment away from brown sectors and into green ones. It is not enough to simply add green finance on top of continued fossil investment. 

On just transitions, there was more explicit recognition of what transitions mean for people, workers, communities, indigenous peoples. That social dimension was brought into the debate more formally, which I think is a success. But again, these are only starting points. The key is whether countries now turn that recognition into policies, finance, and support mechanisms that actually help people through the transition. 

SIPET Connect: The funding environments over the past year has been extremely challenging for many climate organizations. How has this affected NewClimate Institute and your peers? 

Frauke: It has been difficult. We did not have USAID funding ourselves, but we are impacted by the ripple effects. When U.S.-based organizations are hit by funding crises, they turn more to European funders. At the same time, many foundations with links to U.S. corporates have partly pulled back from climate work. And then you also have governments like Germany reducing some budgets. 

So the squeeze is coming from all sides: more competition for European and foundation funding, and fewer resources overall. Organizations like ours have had to adapt—rethinking funding models, being more strategic, and trying to protect the quality of our work while dealing with more uncertainty. 

SIPET Connect: Many of our readers are working on the energy transition in Southeast Asia. What should governments and private sector actors in this region take away from COP30? 

Frauke: I would highlight a few things. 

First, transitioning away from fossil fuels is a question of when, not whether. That message came through quite clearly, even if it is not yet reflected in the formal COP text. Countries that prepare early will be better off economically and socially. 

Second, the just transition is now more firmly part of the conversation. Governments need to think about what the transition means for people and communities, including indigenous communities, and to design policies that reflect that. 

Third, for public sector actors, it is important to have a longer-term vision of where the economy is going and what is actually beneficial for the country and its communities. When you look at the hard numbers, you usually find that moving faster on the transition is economically and socially more advantageous than delaying it. 

For private investors, everything depends on signals and the framework they operate in. They follow investment opportunities. When governments send clear, reliable signals about the direction of travel and put the right incentives in place, the private sector responds. COP30 did not fully provide that clarity, but initiatives like TAFF and the stronger emphasis on social and justice issues still send important impulses. 

SIPET Connect: How important are NDCs themselves as signals for investors, and where do they fall short? 

Frauke: I am not sure investors read NDCs in detail. NDCs are high-level political signals about where a country says it wants to go. They need to be underpinned by concrete policies, sectoral roadmaps, and regulatory changes that investors actually respond to. 

That said, NDCs and long-term strategies do matter. The level of lobbying around them shows that. If they were irrelevant, you would not see so many actors trying to influence them. They frame what comes next in terms of laws, regulations, and incentives. 

Ultimately, though, each country has to take these high-level targets and translate them into very specific plans and policies across sectors. That is what gives investors the clarity they need. 

SIPET Connect: In spite of the 2.6°C trajectory, you still sound cautiously hopeful. Where do you see signs of progress? 

Frauke: I would say I am worried and hopeful at the same time. Clearly, 2.6°C is not acceptable. But a few things give me hope. 

One is that multilateralism is still functioning on some level. Countries are still coming together at the COPs, and that matters a lot. It forces them to be transparent about where they stand, and it keeps the pressure on those who are blocking progress. 

Another is what we see in the real economy. In many parts of the world, the deployment of renewable energy and the falling costs of technologies show that the transition is happening and that it is unstoppable. 

And if you compare where we are now with ten years ago, we have moved the needle. In 2015 the current policies scenario led to 3.6°C of warming by 2100.. Now we are at 2.6°C. That is still far from where we want to be, but it shows that action makes a difference. 

Looking ahead, I think one of the important next steps is for more countries—maybe not all 194, but a critical mass—to adopt credible roadmaps for phasing down and phasing out fossil fuels. Even if it is “only” 80 countries out of 194, such roadmaps can send powerful signals to investors and real-economy actors. 

So yes, progress is too slow, and it is not yet enough. But things are moving in the right direction. Our task now is to speed up that movement and make sure that the transition is fair. 

Viet Nam, the Philippines and Indonesia have the resources and workforce to lead ASEAN’s clean energy future, but turning potential into progress hinges on creating stable, predictable policies and taking bold and near-term actions to secure investment and stay competitive.