< previous page | next page >
Our survey of Asia-Pacific climate, agri-food, and environmental organizations focused on the following matters:
- Organizations’ populations and issues of interest;
- Organizations’ strategies and goals;
- Organizations’ use of frameworks;
- Organizations’ needs and requests;
- Organizations’ assessment of the activities of non-Asia-Pacific organizations;
- Organizations’ demands upon non-Asia-Pacific organizations and the international community. In this section, we detail the most compelling findings that we believe to be indicative of areas to facilitate collective dialogue, collaboration, and thought leadership among our institute (and other such institutes in the Global North) and climate, agrifood, and environmental organizations across Asia-Pacific.
Organizations’ populations and issues of interests
What are the primary communities your organization serves?
Among the organizations we heard from, 46.6 percent serve the general population and 41.6 percent serve rural communities, with substantial overlap among farmers (38.3 percent) and Indigenous, caste, or ethnicity-based groups (38.3 percent). Women (36.6 percent), youth (31.6 percent), and poor and low-income populations (25 percent) also appear frequently, often alongside rural or marginalized identities—suggesting multidimensional vulnerability frameworks. Smaller but significant subsets include fisherpeople (15 percent), urban populations (10 percent), and displaced persons (6.6 percent).
Most organizations responded that they primarily serve the general population (46.6%), rural populations (41.6%), indigenous, caste, or ethnicity-based groups (38.3%), and farmers (38.3%)
(click image to enlarge)
What are the primary climatic problems your organization is trying to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, pollution (50 percent) and water shortages (43.3 percent) received the most responses, showing widespread concern for pollution overall, followed by hydrological scarcity, and resource competition. Drought (41.6 percent) and flooding (40 percent) are nearly as prevalent. Extreme temperature (30 percent), soil erosion (26.6 percent), rising sea levels and coastal erosion (25 percent), and desertification (18.3 percent) were also significant. Among the organizations we heard from, the least prevalent climatic problems of concern were monsoons (8.3 percent), typhoons/cyclones (8.3 percent), and wildfires (8.3 percent).
Most organizations responded that the climate problems they are primarily concerned with are pollution (50%), water shortages (43.3%), and drought (41.6%)
(click image to enlarge)
What are the primary socio-environmental problems your organization is trying to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, the majority responded that the socio-environmental problems they are primarily concerned with are food insecurity (48.3 percent), governance and decision-making processes (35 percent), deforestation (33.3 percent), and resource extraction (31.6 percent), along with poverty (20 percent), and pollution (20 percent). Other major socio-environmental problems of concern include waste management (15 percent), agricultural pests (13.3 percent), soil fertility and land exhaustion (11.6 percent), and limited infrastructure (11.6 percent). Among the least prevalent socio-environmental problems of concern were debt and finance (3.3 percent), disease (3.3 percent), foreign ownership (infrastructure) at just 1.6 percent and water privatization and rights also at 1.6 percent.
Most organizations responded that the socio-environmental problems they are primarily concerned with are food insecurity (48.3%), governance and decision-making processes (35%), and deforestation (33.3%)
(click image to enlarge)
Organizations’ strategies and goals
What does your organization believe are the short-term solutions to the issues your organization is trying to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, the majority responded that the short-term solution to the issue they are trying to address are to advance food sovereignty (51.6 percent), increase or improve environmental regulations such as emissions and fuel quality standards, protected areas, etc. (48.3 percent), and to advance Indigenous peoples’ rights (40 percent). Other major short-term solutions include increased access to low-carbon, livelihood-enhancing technologies such as agricultural equipment, clean cook stoves, etc. (30 percent), advancing farmers’ land rights (28.3 percent), advancing women’s rights (28.3 percent), and improving waste reduction and management (25 percent). Among the least prevalent short-term solutions were improving infrastructure such as dams, reservoirs, and seawalls (10 percent), and not a single organization identified the cancellation or mitigation of external national debt as a short-term solution.
What does your organization believe are the long-term solutions to the issues your organization is trying to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, the majority responded that the long-term solution to the issue they are trying to address are to develop shared ownership models, closed-loop supply chains, and redesign economic systems for ecological and social well-being (43.3 percent), incorporate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into policy and practice (33.3 percent), ensure food sovereignty (28.3 percent), and scale up sustainable agriculture such as agroecology, reduced petrochemicals, soil restoration techniques, etc. (26.6 percent). Other major long-term solutions that were identified include eliminating poverty (25 percent) and incorporating climate and socio-environmental education into primary and secondary education (25 percent). Among the least prevalent long-term solutions were to improve public transportation infrastructures (5 percent), reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the top-emitting countries (3.3 percent), and to strengthen regulations for multinational corporations (3.3 percent).
Most organizations responded that the top short-term solution is to advance food sovereignty (51.6%) and that the top long-term solution is to develop shared ownership models, closed-loop supply chains, and redesign economic systems for ecological & social well-being (43.3%)
(click image to enlarge)
What work is your organization actively doing to advance toward these short and long term solutions?
Among the organizations we heard from, the majority responded that the work they are actively doing to advance toward these short and long term solutions includes raising public awareness (50 percent), organizing campaigns and community advocacy (38.3 percent), and consulting with impacted communities (38.3 percent). Over a third are advancing research, analysis, and policy advocacy (36.6 percent), while a third are consulting with civil society (33.3 percent), and over a quarter are consulting with government (26.6 percent). Fewer are focused on funding or technology distribution (10 percent and 6.6 percent respectively), indicating less direct resource transfer capacity, and very few reported legal litigation (3.3 percent), green jobs training (1.6 percent), or consulting with multinational corporations (1.6 percent).
Half of the organizations that responded are actively raising public awareness to advance toward their short and long-term solutions (50%)
(click image to enlarge)
Organizations’ use of frameworks
Is your organization using particular frameworks or concepts to guide its work?
Among the organizations we heard from, over a third responded that the particular framework or concept they use to guide their work is conservation (36.6 percent), followed by Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (26.6 percent), environmentalism (26.6 percent), and ecology (25 percent). Human rights (21.6 percent), and traditional knowledge (23.3 percent) were also prominent frameworks and concepts. Other major frameworks and concepts include circular / regenerative economy (20 percent) followed by anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and/or anti-capitalism (20 percent), and food sovereignty (20 percent).
Fewer organizations responded that they use a Just Transition framework or concept to guide their work (13.3 percent). Among those organizations guided by the framework of Just Transition, all were based in China (1), Afghanistan (1), Australia (1), Palestine (1), Indonesia (2), and Malaysia (2).
Most organizations responded that the particular framework or concept they use to guide their work is conservation (36.6%)
(click image to enlarge)
Organizations’ needs and requests
What kinds of material support does your organization need to remedy the challenges it seeks to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, nearly all responded that the material support they need to remedy the challenges they seek to address is funding (91.6 percent). Other major needs include specialized training including IT, Research & Development, funding procurement, etc. (56.6 percent), staff training (51.6 percent), and research (51.6 percent). The least prevalent need was technology and intellectual property transfers (11.6 percent).
The majority of organizations responded that they need funding (91.6%), and training namely IT, Research and Development, funding procurement, etc. (56.6%)
(click image to enlarge)
What kinds of institutional support does your organization need to remedy the challenges it seeks to address?
Among the organizations we heard from, the vast majority responded that the institutional support they need to remedy the challenges they seek to address are connections to international funders (96.6 percent), connections to international organizations and networks (95 percent), and connections to regional organizations and networks (85 percent). Fewer organizations responded that they need legal advice (23.3 percent).
Organizations’ assessment of the activities of non-Asia-Pacific organizations
Overall, how effectively do Global North NGOs address the most important environmental, agri-food, and climate problems that affect the communities or constituencies your organization serves?
Among the organizations we heard from, most view Global North NGOs’ work on Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate problem areas as somewhat effective (56.6 percent) and not effective (25 percent), with fewer considering their work very effective (18.3 percent).
Do you think people outside of Asia-Pacific adequately understand the risks that the climate crisis and other agri-food and environmental problems pose to Asia-Pacific Peoples?
Among the organizations we heard from, most believe that people outside of Asia-Pacific somewhat understand (58.3 percent) the risks that the climate crisis and other agri-food and environmental problems pose to Asia-Pacific Peoples. Fewer organizations believe that people adequately understand (21.6 percent) or do not understand (20 percent) such risks.
Do you think environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations outside of Asia-Pacific adequately understand the risks that the climate crisis and other agri-food and environmental problems pose to Asia-Pacific peoples?
Among the organizations we heard from, most believe that environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations outside of Asia-Pacific somewhat understand (61.6 percent) the risks that the climate crisis and other agri-food and environmental problems pose to Asia-Pacific peoples, with fewer believing they understand (28.3 percent) and do not understand (10 percent) such risks.
Organizations’ assessment of the activities of non-Asia-Pacific organizations
What can Global North NGOs do to support Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations more effectively?
Among the organizations we heard from, most believe that Global North NGOs can support Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations by providing unrestricted funding (46.6 percent) and by focusing on shifting policies and practices within their home countries to reduce the exploitation and extraction of land, resources, and labor from the Asia-Pacific region and Asia-Pacific peoples (35 percent). Many organizations also believe that Global North NGOs can support Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations by fostering working relationships and partnerships between Asia-Pacific organizations and Global North civil society (30 percent), amplifying and centering the voices and knowledge of Asia-Pacific organizations to Global North governments and civil society (30 percent), advocating for increased regulations on multinational corporations (28.3 percent), and by providing skill-based training (26.6 percent). Few organizations believe that Global North NGOs can support Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations by reducing their activities in the Asia-Pacific region (3.3 percent).
Most organizations responded that to support Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations more effectively, Global North NGOs should provide unrestricted funding (46.6%) and to focus on shifting policies and practices within their home countries to reduce the exploitation and extraction of land, resources, and labor from the Asia-Pacific region and Asia-Pacific peoples (35%).
(click image to enlarge)
What should Asia-Pacific environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations demand from the international community to address the social and environmental problems facing Asia-Pacific communities?
Among the organizations we heard from, the most common demand is for the international community to cut greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel financing (50 percent), and to increase access to unrestricted public funds (36.6 percent), as well as to challenge the economic exploitation of Asia-Pacific’s natural resources by multinational corporations (30 percent), for there to be a genuine commitment to transparent, equitable, and mutually beneficial trade agreements (26.6 percent), and increased access to unrestricted private funds (23.3 percent). Very few organizations believe that such demands should include public investments in Asia-Pacific public health infrastructures (6.6 percent).
Significance
Multiple frameworks for Asia–Pacific just transitions
The survey confirms the findings of our online content analysis: across the Asia–Pacific, most environmental, agri-food, and climate organizations do not rely exclusively on the Just Transition framework. Rather, they blend it with sustainable development and frameworks that protect resources and the natural environment—Conservation, Environmentalism, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Ecology being among the most frequently cited. Only a minority explicitly use the Just Transition label, yet the principles underpinning it—equity, participation, redistribution, and sustainability—run through nearly all responses.
These findings validate that the region’s just transition landscape is plural and adaptive, not monolithic. From South Asia’s rights-based grassroots movements to Oceania’s Indigenous governance systems and East Asia’s green innovation networks, organizations are localizing transition frameworks to match distinct sociopolitical and ecological realities. The survey reinforces that “Just Transition” functions as an umbrella concept—a constellation of interlinked practices and frameworks that together seek to replace extractive, high-carbon, and hierarchical systems with regenerative, community-controlled alternatives.
At the same time, the survey reveals that the Asia–Pacific is not merely absorbing global just transition discourse but redefining it through decolonial and reparative perspectives. Frequent references to anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism, and anti-imperialism underscore that the region’s organizations are situating climate justice within a broader struggle against historic and ongoing extraction.
Alternative economies and development trajectories
The survey highlights that Asia–Pacific organizations view just transitions as inseparable from economic transformation and social justice, not as a narrow technical project of decarbonization. The most common long-term priorities—the development of shared ownership models, closed-loop supply chains, and the redesign of economic systems to prioritize ecological and social well-being, as well as the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge into policy and practice, and ensuring food sovereignty—collectively articulate a vision of sovereign, circular, and post-extractive economies.
In the short term, respondents prioritize rights-based and sovereignty-oriented approaches: food sovereignty, stronger environmental regulations, and Indigenous rights top the list, followed by access to low-carbon, livelihood-enhancing technologies, land rights, and women’s rights. These choices suggest that Asia–Pacific just transition actors are advancing justice through agrarian, gender, and territorial struggles as much as through climate or energy sectors. Such findings mirror our content analysis, where community-led initiatives and localized adaptation strategies consistently anchored regional approaches from Central to West Asia.
Across both short- and long-term visions, respondents emphasize that mitigation and technology are secondary to advancing food sovereignty and transforming ownership, livelihoods, rights, as well as environmental regulations and policies. A relatively small percentage identified GHG reduction as a primary goal—an affirmation that for Asia–Pacific actors, climate justice is not a technical endpoint but a social process of decolonizing economies and restoring community sovereignty.
This bottom-up redefinition of transition—reparative just transitions—links climate action to debt relief, fiscal sovereignty, and value capture. By situating ecological repair within economic self-determination, respondents advance what can be called a reparative-sovereign transition model—where environmental restoration, social reproduction, and economic democracy converge.
The Global North’s role in enabling reparative just transitions
Consistent with the survey’s emphasis on structural transformation, respondents view support from the Global North not as benevolent aid but as a matter of accountability and reform. The top-ranked demand—greater commitment to reducing GHG emissions and fossil-fuel financing—underscores a justice-based understanding of mitigation responsibility. Organizations insist that the Global North must first transform its own extractive, carbon-intensive systems before claiming to support just transitions elsewhere.20
Equally, calls for unrestricted and decolonial finance reflect frustration with conditional funding and transactional aid. Respondents prefer flexible, trust-based partnerships that enable Asia–Pacific organizations to define their own priorities. They also call on Global North NGOs to amplify Asia–Pacific voices within international forums and to advocate for corporate accountability in their own countries and territories—linking finance reform, governance equity, and epistemic justice.
The survey thus importantly confirms that solidarity, not charity, is the operative principle. Respondents want relationships and partnerships that expand fiscal and political sovereignty, challenge debt dependencies, and redistribute decision-making power within international institutions. The emphasis on partnership and voice also aligns with the region’s cross-sectoral collaboration trends: community advocacy, research and policy work, and multilevel coordination with civil society and government.
Taken together, these findings reaffirm that Asia–Pacific organizations are building an integrated movement for reparative just transitions—one grounded in community sovereignty, ecological regeneration, and structural transformation of the global financial and political order. The survey not only substantiates the patterns identified in our online content analysis but deepens them, showing that across the region, the demand is clear: climate justice must mean economic justice, epistemic justice, and self-determination for Asia–Pacific peoples.
< previous page | next page >
- 20Matthew G. Allen and Keith Barney, “Resource-making, materiality and the disruptive geographies of the extractive industries in the Asia-Pacific,” Extractive Industries and Society 6, no. 3 (2019): 733-736, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.06.006.
