On Oct. 6, 14 heads of government flew to Funafuti to look at the ocean. Not to negotiate with it, not to issue a joint statement about it. Just to look. Tuvalu's runway sits two meters above sea level. At high tide, the Pacific doesn't knock on the door. It simply arrives.
The optics were, by any measure, extraordinary. World leaders standing on an airstrip that is also, depending on the calendar and the weather, a beach. Tuvalu's prime minister, Feleti Teo, didn't need a speech. He had the tide.
This was pre-COP31: four days of ministerial meetings in Nadi, Fiji, bookended by that leaders' trip to Funafuti, all of it designed to do what decades of conference room negotiation hasn't quite managed, which is to make the climate crisis feel real to people who have the power to do something about it.
More than 50 countries showed up. Fiji pledged US$2.2 million. The Taku Pakasoa Declaration, adopted in Funafuti and eventually backed by around thirty countries, called for stronger ambition and faster access to climate finance.
Thirty countries. A declaration. Ten million dollars from Fiji.
The Pacific Resilience Facility, the one mechanism specifically designed to bypass the notorious bureaucratic bottlenecks of existing multilateral funds and get money directly to communities for sea walls, water security and climate-resilient fishing, has a target of US$500 million. After four days of Pacific solidarity, it remains mostly a target.
This is the central absurdity of international climate politics. The countries that did the least to cause the problem are the most effective at dramatizing its consequences, and the least effective at extracting commensurate action from the countries that actually caused it. Tuvalu has mastered the art of moral clarity. What it cannot conjure is the political will of others.
Australia is the interesting case here. Canberra holds the presidency of COP31 negotiations, a co-hosting arrangement with Turkey, which runs the formal conference in Antalya in November, and spent considerable diplomatic capital positioning Pre-COP as proof that Pacific voices would shape global climate outcomes.
Australia's Climate Minister Chris Bowen flew to Funafuti. The photographs were striking. The coal and gas export data, which Australia did not fly to Funafuti, tells a somewhat different story. Australia remains among the world's largest fossil fuel exporters.
It is simultaneously the Pacific's most vocal climate champion and a structural contributor to the problem the Pacific is drowning in. The Pacific knows this. The Pacific is also heavily dependent on Australian aid. This is a relationship with a lot left unsaid.
For Teo, the week was about more than climate. The Falepili Union Treaty with Australia grants Tuvaluan citizens a pathway to Australian residency and commits Canberra to security cooperation, but it has always carried an uncomfortable subtext about sovereignty.
Teo used his address at the pre-COP Leaders' Plenary to make this point plainly: the Pacific has its own knowledge, its own expertise, its own accountability structures, and what it needs from international partners is finance without conditions that undermine local agency. This was a message directed partly at Australia, delivered on a stage Australia helped build. Diplomacy is rarely simple.
Now here is where the story gets genuinely strange. Among Tuvalu's twelve remaining diplomatic allies, the small club of states that recognize Taipei rather than Beijing, Taiwan is arguably the most consequential partner Tuvalu has on the ground. And Taiwan was nowhere near pre-COP31. Because it cannot be.
Taiwan is not a UN member. It cannot sign the Paris Agreement. It has no seat in the UNFCCC process. When fourteen world leaders flew to Funafuti to bear witness to climate frontline reality, Taiwan's contribution to keeping that frontline functional was, officially, not part of the story.
Unofficially, it very much is.
Billion Electric Group, a Taiwan-listed company, has deployed solar and battery storage systems across Tuvalu, Palau and the Marshall Islands: 495 kilowatts of generation capacity, nearly 2,000 kilowatt-hours of storage, cutting roughly 800 tonnes of annual emissions and providing renewable energy coverage for agricultural and fishery facilities.
Taiwan's International Cooperation and Development Fund has been operating in Funafuti for years, running agricultural technology transfer, vocational training, and community resilience programs.
ADVERTISEMENT
The unglamorous, granular, actually-useful kind of development assistance that multilateral institutions spend decades trying to replicate at scale. The desalination capacity, the distributed energy systems, the agricultural plots that visiting delegations pointed to as evidence of what adaptation looks like in practice: Taiwan built a lot of that. Taiwan's name appears in none of the formal documentation.
There is something almost philosophical about this situation. Taiwan is a democracy of 23 million people, home to the semiconductor supply chains that make the clean energy transition physically possible, operating one of the more sophisticated carbon pricing experiments in Asia and running technical assistance programs across the Pacific that the international climate system is now trying to institutionalize at a fraction of the effectiveness through mechanisms like the Pacific Resilience Facility.
And it does all of this from outside every formal framework, without a nameplate at any conference table, in a kind of perpetual diplomatic parenthesis.
The conventional framing is that this is Taiwan's tragedy, the talented outsider pressing its face against the window of multilateral governance. That framing is not wrong. But it misses something.
Taiwan's model of climate cooperation, precisely because it is unburdened by the institutional politics of formal membership, has developed qualities that the multilateral system is only now learning to value: speed, community embeddedness, technical specificity, no-conditions delivery.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Pacific Resilience Facility was designed specifically because existing multilateral mechanisms are too slow, too bureaucratic, and too conditional. Taiwan has been running the Pacific Resilience Facility's operating model, informally and bilaterally, for twenty years.
The question worth taking to Antalya in November is not whether Taiwan deserves a seat at the table. That is a geopolitical question that COP31 cannot solve. The more interesting question is whether a climate governance system that is genuinely serious about results can afford to keep treating effective contributors as non-entities because of their political status. The Pacific is running out of time. The ocean does not check membership credentials before it comes in.
Somewhere between the declaration and the tide, there is a more honest accounting to be done about who is doing the work, who is getting the credit, and whether those two things have any relationship to each other. In Tuvalu, they mostly don't. That is not only a problem for Taiwan. It is a problem for the system that decided to hold its meetings there.
Jack Huang is the co-founder of the Global SDGs Alliance and a professional consultant specializing in international relations, digital governance, and sustainable development. Based primarily between Taipei and Bangkok, he has served as a consultant for the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union, where his work includes leading strategic research on digital transformation across the Micronesian region. Send feedback to jackh.should@gmail.com
The opinions expressed in this op-ed piece are solely the author's and don't necessarily reflect the Pacific Island Times' editorial position.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly issue