Inside Australia’s Climate Migration: Communities on the Move - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate change is reshaping Australia’s housing map as floods, fires and heat make some regions harder to insure and live in.1 Insurance premiums in high‑risk areas are rising faster than incomes, pushing some households to consider relocation.2 New state and federal disaster adaptation funds exist, but many regional communities still face gaps in planning and infrastructure support.3 Managed retreat and land‑use planning are emerging as major tools for dealing with repeated flooding and coastal erosion.1 Climate risk is now a focus for financial regulators, with new assessments of how insurance affordability may change to 2050.4 Urban agriculture and local food systems are being explored as resilience strategies in Australian cities.5

Across Australia, climate change is beginning to redraw the map of where people feel safe to live, work and invest.1

Flooded river towns, fire‑scarred fringes and heat‑stressed inland suburbs are confronting a future in which repeated disasters, higher insurance costs and fragile infrastructure make staying put a harder choice.

While most Australians remain in place after floods or fires, a growing number of communities are weighing up whether rebuilding on the same block is wise, or even financially possible, as climate risks rise.1

This is not yet a mass exodus, but early signs of internal climate migration are emerging in government inquiries, insurance data and local planning debates.

Financial regulators warn that more frequent and severe disasters will push up insurance premiums and strain household budgets, especially in already vulnerable regions.1

Advocacy groups report that lower‑income Australians, who are more likely to live in high‑risk areas and in less resilient housing, face some of the steepest increases in premiums.6

As insurance becomes harder to afford in exposed coastal and river communities, some households are dropping cover altogether or quietly planning to move to less risky areas.1

Governments are starting to respond with disaster adaptation plans and new resilience funds, yet the policy framework for managing long‑term climate displacement within Australia remains patchy.

How these choices are handled over the next decade will shape local economies, food prices, social cohesion and the basic geography of who carries the burden of climate risk.

Climate pressures on where people live

Australia’s exposure to climate‑fuelled extremes is already high, with more intense rainfall, longer heatwaves and heightened bushfire risk projected under ongoing warming.1

In practice, that means repeated flooding in river valleys, coastal erosion in low‑lying suburbs and dangerous heat in some inland towns, all of which shape decisions about whether to stay, rebuild or relocate.

Research by the Reserve Bank of Australia notes that more frequent or severe weather events are expected to increase insurance claims on damaged property and other assets, raising premiums and affecting the price and availability of cover in high‑risk areas.1

The same analysis highlights managed retreat – moving people and assets away from high‑risk zones – as one of the tools governments may use as climate risks escalate.1

Alongside coastal and river flooding, extreme heat is becoming a defining pressure in some inland communities, raising health risks, undermining outdoor work and placing extra demand on ageing power and water systems.

Planning decisions made over past decades, including building in floodplains or expanding suburbs without robust heat and water strategies, are now colliding with a more volatile climate.

Human stories behind the shift

The human face of climate migration in Australia is most visible in regions hit by repeated disasters, where the choice to rebuild is no longer straightforward.

In New South Wales’ Northern Rivers, for example, whole neighbourhoods were inundated in the 2022 floods, prompting state buy‑back schemes and debates over which areas should be permanently relocated to higher ground.3

The NSW Reconstruction Authority is now leading Disaster Adaptation Plans for high‑risk regions like the Northern Rivers and the Hawkesbury‑Nepean Valley, explicitly considering where future homes, roads and services should be placed to reduce exposure.3

For many residents, the move away from a long‑standing home is driven less by abstract climate projections and more by repeated evacuations, mounting repair bills and the fear that the next flood or fire could be worse.

Community advocates warn that people with the least financial buffer – renters, casual workers, pensioners – are often least able to relocate safely, even when they want to leave high‑risk areas.6

Without targeted support, the risk is that climate migration becomes uneven, with better‑off households able to move early to safer, better‑serviced regions, while others remain in increasingly fragile locations.

Insurance, finance and forced moves

Insurance is emerging as one of the clearest channels through which climate risk is translated into pressure to move.

The Australia Institute reports that between 2022 and 2023, the average home insurance premium rose by 14 per cent, the biggest rise in a decade, with particularly steep increases in some high‑risk regions.2

The Reserve Bank has warned that as insurance costs rise and availability declines in exposed areas, more households may reduce their coverage or become uninsured, leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin after a major disaster.1

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has launched an Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment to explore how general insurance affordability may change to 2050 as physical and transition climate risks evolve across regions and sectors.4

Consumer advocates note that lower income Australians are more likely to live in higher risk areas and in less resilient housing, and they already pay higher premiums and additional charges when they cannot pay annually in one lump sum.6

In practice, this means climate risk is layered on top of existing inequality, with some households effectively priced out of insurance and nudged towards selling up or abandoning damaged homes after repeated events.

Planning responses and policy gaps

Governments are beginning to acknowledge that climate risk requires more than emergency clean‑ups, with new funds and planning frameworks aimed at long‑term adaptation.

At the federal level, the Disaster Ready Fund is providing up to one billion dollars over five years from July 2023 for projects that reduce disaster risk and build resilience, including levees, drainage and evacuation routes.7

New South Wales has introduced Disaster Adaptation Plan Guidelines that set out a four‑stage process for regional adaptation, from readiness and governance through to understanding regional risk and implementing early actions.3

The NSW Reconstruction Authority is developing Disaster Adaptation Plans for two high‑risk regions, the Northern Rivers and the Hawkesbury‑Nepean Valley, and has started early planning with regional organisations in areas such as the Central West, Illawarra Shoalhaven and Riverina Murray.3

These efforts signal a shift towards multi‑hazard regional planning, yet significant gaps remain in how internal climate displacement is identified, monitored and supported across states and territories.

There is, for example, no single national framework that defines when managed retreat should be used, how buy‑backs are funded over the long term, and how relocated communities will access housing, health care, schools and jobs.

Water security and infrastructure planning are also uneven, with some regional towns facing tighter water constraints as heat and drought intensify, while still promoting new housing estates without clear long‑term supply strategies.

Economic impacts on regions

Climate‑driven shifts in where people live have major implications for regional economies, from employment patterns to local government finances.

When repeated flooding or fire makes parts of a town less attractive to live and invest in, property values and rate bases can fall, limiting councils’ ability to fund essential upgrades and resilience projects.

Businesses in high‑risk regions may struggle with higher insurance and repair costs, as well as interruptions to trading, which can push jobs towards less exposed urban centres over time.1

In agriculture, shifting rainfall patterns and more extreme heat are already affecting yields and production risks in some areas, which can flow through to food prices and the stability of regional employment.

Urban agriculture and local food production are being explored as part of the response, with planning reforms in several Australian cities allowing underused land to be turned into community gardens and small urban farms.5

These initiatives aim to strengthen local food security, create new jobs and reduce the distance food travels, all of which can help buffer communities against supply disruptions linked to climate impacts on traditional farming regions.5

Social cohesion, inequality and displacement

Climate migration is not only about geography and economics, it is also about who is able to move early and who is left behind.

Consumer and legal advocacy groups warn that people on low incomes, including many in public or insecure housing, face limited options when insurance becomes unaffordable or when homes are repeatedly damaged.6

Without affordable relocation pathways, these households may experience deepening financial stress, mental health impacts and social dislocation, especially if local services and jobs decline in high‑risk areas.

Well‑designed disaster adaptation plans can help by involving communities in decisions about where new housing, transport and services will be located, and by ensuring that social cohesion and community networks are explicitly considered alongside physical infrastructure.3

However, experts emphasise that adaptation spending must be targeted to avoid entrenching disadvantage, ensuring that support for buy‑backs, retrofits and relocations is accessible to renters and low‑income homeowners, not only to those with significant assets.

What governments can do now

The emerging reality of internal climate displacement in Australia demands practical, near‑term measures rather than distant aspirations.

First, federal and state governments can expand and coordinate buy‑back and land‑swap programs in the most exposed flood and fire zones, using clear criteria and long‑term funding so communities know what support is available before the next disaster.3

Second, planning systems can be strengthened to prevent new development in high‑risk areas, and to integrate updated climate risk information into zoning, building codes and infrastructure decisions across states and territories.1

Third, targeted investment through mechanisms like the Disaster Ready Fund can prioritise projects that protect critical routes, utilities and community hubs, allowing people to stay safely where possible and to move in an orderly way where necessary.7

Fourth, regulators and treasuries can work with insurers, lenders and consumer advocates to monitor insurance retreat, identify hotspots where affordability is collapsing and design interventions that avoid sudden shocks to households and local economies.4

Finally, all levels of government can support regional economic diversification, including urban agriculture, renewable energy and care and services sectors, to provide new employment pathways in safer locations for those who need to move.5

Lessons from urban farming for global cities

Urban farming offers one lens on how cities can adapt to climate pressures while supporting communities that may be affected by displacement.

Case studies from Australian cities show that when councils update zoning to recognise urban agriculture as a legitimate land use, underused spaces can be turned into productive gardens and farms that strengthen local food systems and create jobs.5

Research on urban food security and climate resilience has highlighted the role of community gardens, rooftop farms and small‑scale commercial growing in improving access to fresh food and building local capacity to respond to shocks.8

For global cities, the lesson is that integrating food production into planning – through supportive zoning, water‑sensitive design and community‑led projects – can make neighbourhoods more resilient, especially when traditional supply chains are disrupted by climate impacts.

What must happen in the next five years

Over the next five years, regional planners and policymakers in Australia will need to embed climate risk into every major land‑use, infrastructure and housing decision, treating internal climate displacement as a real and growing challenge rather than a distant possibility.3

That means scaling up regional disaster adaptation plans, aligning them with federal resilience funding, tightening controls on development in high‑risk areas and establishing fair, long‑term arrangements for buy‑backs, relocation support and economic transition in affected communities.7

References

1. Reserve Bank of Australia, “Climate Change and Financial Risk”, Bulletin, June 2023
2. The Australia Institute, “Premium Price: The impact of climate change on insurance costs”, 2024
3. NSW Reconstruction Authority, “Disaster Adaptation Plan Guidelines”, 2025
4. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, “Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment”, 2024
5. Biomass Producer, “How Urban Agriculture Zoning Is Transforming Australian Cities into Food Gardens”, 2025
6. Financial Rights Legal Centre, “Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Premiums and Affordability”, 2024
7. National Emergency Management Agency, “Disaster Ready Fund”
8. P. Burton, “Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change”, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, 2013

Back to Top

Homes, Water and the New Australian Climate Reckoning - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate damage is projected to impose very large annual costs on Australia without stronger adaptation and emissions reduction.1 A national climate resilience star rating for housing could change how homes are built, bought and insured.2 More than A$23 billion in desalination projects are expected over the next decade as water demand rises and rainfall declines.3 Prevention and adaptation measures are consistently cheaper over time than repeated disaster recovery and emergency responses.4 Rising climate risks are colliding with a housing crisis, exposing more homes to flood, fire and insurance pressures.5 Global cities using urban farming and green infrastructure show how cooling, food security and resilience can be combined.6

Australia is entering a decisive decade in which climate change will test its disaster response systems, home safety, and water supply security.

From Lismore’s flooded streets to the blackened fringes of Perth and Melbourne, climate‑fuelled disasters are colliding with a housing crisis, pushing more people into exposed suburbs on floodplains, fire‑prone hillsides and eroding coasts.⁵

At the same time, the world’s driest inhabited continent is preparing for a new wave of desalination plants, as a growing population and a booming data centre and resources sector drive up demand for water while rainfall becomes less reliable.³

Policy advisers warn that without faster investment in prevention and adaptation, climate damage will drag on productivity, deepen inequality and force governments into ever more expensive rebuilding efforts after each disaster.¹

The Productivity Commission has called for a public database of climate hazards and a national climate resilience star rating for homes, making risks more visible to buyers, builders and insurers, and guiding upgrades to older housing in danger zones.²

Research on housing recovery shows that, in high‑risk regions, reinforcing homes and updating planning rules before the next flood or fire generally costs less than rebuilding suburbs again and again after disasters.⁴

On the water front, analysts estimate that Australia is on track to build or expand 11 desalination plants worth more than A$23 billion over the next ten years, reshaping coastal landscapes and energy demand in the name of water security.³

These choices are not purely technical: they go to the heart of the Australian dream of a detached house on the fringe, a backyard and a reliable tap, challenging governments to balance economic growth, housing security and environmental resilience under a rapidly changing climate.

How Canberra, states and local councils respond over the next five years will influence not only insurance bills and water prices, but where millions of Australians can safely live, and how cities adapt to a hotter, drier future.¹

Prevention versus the cost of doing nothing

For decades, Australia has spent far more on cleaning up after disasters than on preventing damage in the first place, a pattern that economists increasingly argue is unsustainable in a warming climate.⁴

State and federal budgets support emergency services, recovery grants and rebuilding of public infrastructure, yet relatively modest sums have gone into relocating the most exposed homes, strengthening building standards or restoring natural buffers such as wetlands.⁴

The Productivity Commission’s work on climate and productivity highlights that climate damage, including from more intense heat, floods and storms, poses “substantial risks” to future economic growth, and argues that well‑designed adaptation can reduce these losses while unlocking new opportunities.¹

Parallel research on housing recovery notes that post‑disaster rebuilding is slow, complex and often more expensive than anticipated, citing the 2022 Lismore floods where reconstruction costs were estimated at around A$1 billion for a single regional city.⁵

Analysts at AHURI and other institutions argue that, in high‑risk areas, stronger planning controls, buy‑backs and resilient construction are more cost‑effective over time than repeatedly repairing damaged homes, especially as insurance premiums rise or cover is withdrawn.⁵

Insurance and actuarial assessments suggest that, without large‑scale adaptation, hundreds of thousands of Australian properties could face sharply higher premiums by 2030, or become effectively uninsurable, with obvious implications for household finances and mortgage markets.⁵

These findings strengthen the case for shifting more public and private finance upstream, from disaster recovery to prevention, by funding buy‑backs, retrofits, early‑warning systems and nature‑based solutions that reduce the impact of extreme events before they strike.⁴

Population growth, housing demand and risky land

Australia’s housing pressures are colliding with climate risk in ways that make planning decisions more consequential than ever.

Population growth and years of undersupply have pushed up prices and rents, encouraging development on cheaper land at the edges of cities, which is often more exposed to bushfire, flood or extreme heat.⁵

Research on climate risk to housing warns that millions of homes are already exposed to riverine flooding, coastal inundation or bushfire, with concentrations of vulnerable properties in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria where rapid growth has pushed suburbs into hazard zones.⁵

In this context, planning rules that still allow new estates on floodplains or in heavily forested, hard‑to‑defend landscapes lock in future disaster costs, and can leave first‑home buyers and low‑income renters shouldering the highest risks.

The Productivity Commission has recommended that governments agree on clear goals for improving the resilience of housing, backed by a national climate hazard database so that councils, developers and households can see the risks before new suburbs are zoned or approved.²

This approach would support more stringent planning controls in high‑risk areas, including steering new housing towards safer sites, lifting the minimum height of floor levels in flood‑prone districts and requiring evacuation routes that remain passable in disasters.²

It also raises challenging equity questions, because restricting development in dangerous locations can reduce land supply and push up prices unless governments are prepared to invest in well‑planned, safer infill and medium‑density housing near jobs, services and transport.

Can a climate resilience star rating change the market?

One of the Commission’s most striking proposals is a nationally consistent, outcome‑based climate resilience star rating for housing, similar in concept to the energy star labels on appliances or the NatHERS energy ratings used for homes.²

The idea is that star ratings would reflect a home’s ability to withstand climate hazards in its location, taking into account factors such as elevation above flood levels, construction materials, roof design, shutters and the presence of ember‑proofing and other protections.²

ACOSS and other social and environmental groups have backed the concept, and have called for a major program of federal investment to retrofit public, community and First Nations housing for climate resilience and energy efficiency, arguing that safer homes can reduce poverty, improve health and cut disaster costs.⁷

If such a rating became visible in listings, conveyancing documents and insurance assessments, it could start to shift the “Australian dream” away from size and location alone, towards a more nuanced picture of safety, liveability and long‑term cost.

In practice, a climate resilience star rating could affect valuations, as high‑rated homes attract better insurance terms or higher buyer demand, while low‑rated properties in exposed areas face pressure to upgrade or accept lower prices.

Banks and regulators would likely take an interest, because climate resilience affects the security of mortgage collateral, and a transparent rating system could help them manage portfolio‑wide risks.²

For households, especially in older suburbs, the key will be coupling ratings with clear guidance and finance options for improvements, so owners know which changes, from raising floor levels to installing shutters, deliver the greatest risk reduction for the money.

The politics and economics of desalination

On the other side of the climate ledger, Australia is preparing for a “big build” in urban water infrastructure, centred on desalination and, in some states, large‑scale recycling.

Bloomberg reporting, drawing on Oxford Economics analysis, indicates that Australia is projected to build or expand 11 desalination plants worth more than A$23 billion over the next decade, as demand from households, industry and data centres rises and rainfall in major catchments becomes less reliable.³

Perth, which already relies heavily on desalination, is constructing the Alkimos Seawater Desalination Plant, a multibillion‑dollar project expected to supply around 50 billion litres of drinking water annually from 2028, highlighting how coastal cities are turning to the ocean to secure supplies.⁸

Desalination offers a rainfall‑independent source of water, but it is energy‑intensive, which means its climate benefits depend heavily on how quickly the electricity grid decarbonises and whether plants are paired with renewables or contracts for clean power.

Economically, large‑scale plants create construction and supply‑chain jobs and can underpin regional industrial growth, yet they involve long‑term contracts that commit governments and water users to paying for capacity even in wet years.⁸

The politics of desalination has often been turbulent, with criticism over “white elephant” projects built at the end of droughts, but recent dry periods and climate projections have shifted the debate towards seeing diversified water portfolios, including desalination, as a form of insurance against system failure.⁹

To keep public trust, governments will need to demonstrate that these investments are integrated with demand management, leakage reduction and recycling, and that long‑term costs are fairly shared between households, businesses and heavy water users.

Urban farming and lessons from global cities

As Australian cities grapple with heat, water stress and food security concerns, some of the most interesting examples of integrated solutions come from global experiments in urban agriculture and green infrastructure.

Singapore’s “Cooling Singapore” initiative, along with building rules that mandate greenery on roofs and upper levels, has helped create layered green spaces that moderate temperatures, support biodiversity and host community urban farms.¹⁰

New York, Paris and Singapore have seen the spread of rooftop farms and community gardens that not only produce food close to consumers, but also insulate buildings, reduce stormwater runoff and contribute to reducing urban heat island effects.⁶

Scenario work on urban agriculture suggests that, when cities mainstream green roofs, vertical farms and community gardens, they can cut peak temperatures, ease pressure on drainage systems and improve resilience to supply chain disruptions, while using recycled water and organic waste to close resource loops.⁶

For Australian planners, these examples point to a broader vision of climate adaptation in which housing, water and food systems are considered together, rather than as separate silos.

Embedding urban farming and green corridors into densifying suburbs can complement hard infrastructure like desalination, reduce localised flood and heat risks, and strengthen social cohesion, which is critical during and after disasters.¹⁰

What global cities can learn from urban farming pioneers

Cities that have embraced urban farming show that resilience is not only about engineering, but about using every available surface and space to cool streets, manage water and grow food closer to where people live.

By integrating rooftop farms, community gardens and vertical agriculture into planning rules and incentives, global cities can reduce heat stress, cut stormwater runoff and improve local food security, while giving residents a direct stake in climate adaptation.⁶

What planners must do in the next five years

The next five years will be critical for regional planners and policymakers seeking to reduce long‑term climate risk for Australian communities.

First, governments need to deliver a national, public climate hazard database, embed it in planning schemes and introduce a climate resilience star rating for housing, so that risk information is visible and drives safer land‑use and construction decisions.¹

Second, planning systems must restrict new development in high‑risk locations while enabling well‑designed, climate‑resilient infill and medium‑density housing in safer areas, backed by funding to retrofit and, where necessary, relocate the most exposed homes.²

Third, water authorities and governments should lock in staged investment in diversified, low‑carbon water sources, including desalination, recycling and demand‑side measures, to meet rising demand without over‑reliance on rainfall or last‑minute, high‑cost projects.³

Finally, planners can integrate green infrastructure and urban agriculture into growth strategies, using vegetation, permeable surfaces and local food systems to cool neighbourhoods, manage stormwater and strengthen community resilience as the climate continues to warm.⁶

References

1. Productivity Commission report highlights climate action as crucial for Australia’s productivity
2. Interim report: Investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and climate‑resilient housing
3. Australia poised for desalination boom as water shortages loom
4. An indicative assessment of four key areas of climate risk for NSW
5. Enhancing housing recovery policy and practice for improving community resilience to future disaster
6. The role of urban agriculture in mitigating heat islands
7. Submission to the Productivity Commission on climate resilience and social housing (ACOSS and partners)
8. Quenching growth: How new desalination plants could boost ASX stocks
9. What Australia can learn from Singapore about designing our cities to reduce urban heat
10. Why we need to invest in water security, even when the dams are full

Back to Top

Australia’s Climate Innovations: Technology and Adaptation - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Australia is using climate technology to manage rising climate risks while reshaping heavy industry and the energy system. 1 National science agencies and startup accelerators are turning research in carbon removal, smart grids, and forecasting into commercial solutions. 2 Industrial regions such as the Hunter are emerging as test beds for green hydrogen and net zero manufacturing. 3 New funds and networks are directing billions of dollars towards decarbonising heavy industry and scaling climate tech across the Indo-Pacific. 4 Climate forecasting and resilience programs are reshaping how governments plan infrastructure and manage disasters. 5 International technology initiatives create new opportunities for Australia to adapt overseas climate solutions and export homegrown innovations. 6

Australia is rapidly becoming a laboratory for climate innovation, as governments, scientists and businesses race to cut emissions while protecting communities from escalating floods, fires and heatwaves.¹

From carbon removal experiments in regional Australia to smart grids that juggle rooftop solar and batteries, new technologies are beginning to change how energy, industry and cities operate.²

Behind these systems are coalitions of researchers, investors and local leaders who are trying to ensure the transition does not leave industrial regions, or vulnerable communities, behind.³

The stakes are high, as Australia has committed to cut emissions 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, goals that require steep reductions in energy, transport and heavy industry within the next decade.⁷

At the same time, climate impacts are intensifying, which led the federal government to commission a national climate and disaster resilience study after the Black Summer bushfires to identify practical options to harden infrastructure and services.⁵

These pressures are driving a wave of public investment, including a proposed $5 billion Net Zero Fund within the National Reconstruction Fund to support industrial decarbonisation and low‑emissions manufacturing.⁴

New alliances such as Climate‑KIC Australia’s Industrial Regions Network and accelerator programs like EnergyLab’s Climate Solutions Accelerator are trying to translate that funding into real projects and jobs on the ground.²

Australia’s climate scientists are also updating high‑resolution projections through the Climate Change in Australia program, giving planners more detailed information about localised temperature, rainfall and fire risk throughout the century.⁶

Internationally, Australia is positioning its climate technologies inside broader Indo‑Pacific initiatives, from regional climate‑tech investor forums to UN‑backed technology transfer networks that support partners in the Pacific and beyond.⁸

Together these efforts are reshaping national climate strategy, yet the coming five years will determine whether innovation can move fast enough to transform high‑emitting sectors while protecting communities already on the front line of climate change.⁷

Leaders behind Australia’s climate push

The architecture of Australia’s climate innovation effort is being built by a mix of scientific leaders, public agencies and private capital, often working in new configurations.

CSIRO, the national science agency, has become a central player, coordinating national climate and disaster resilience research and leading work on smart grids, climate projections and emerging carbon removal technologies.²

Its CarbonLock Future Science Platform, launched in 2022, is funding research into direct air capture, enhanced mineralisation and ocean‑based carbon uptake, with the explicit aim of making large‑scale atmospheric carbon removal technically and economically viable by 2050.²

On the policy side, the federal government has begun to re‑cast industrial strategy around net zero, announcing that a new $5 billion Net Zero Fund will sit inside the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to help large facilities invest in clean equipment, processes and low‑emissions technologies.⁴

The Climate Change Authority’s sector pathways work, underpinned by detailed CSIRO modelling, sets out how heavy industry, transport and other sectors can align with a 43 per cent cut by 2030 and net zero by mid‑century, providing a reference point for ministers and investors.⁷

In the private sector, specialist investors and accelerators, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and programs such as EnergyLab’s Climate Solutions Accelerator, are increasingly acting as gatekeepers for climate‑tech capital, shaping which technologies reach demonstration and scale.⁹

EnergyLab reported that its Australian alumni raised $147 million of private capital in 2024, representing roughly one in every four dollars invested in domestic clean energy and climate‑tech startups, an emerging influence on the makeup of the future low‑carbon economy.⁹

Institutions, startups and alliances

Australia’s climate technologies are emerging from a dense ecosystem of research organisations, startups and collaborative alliances that link industry and government.

CSIRO’s role extends from long‑term climate modelling to applied grid innovation, including leading Australia’s participation in the International Energy Agency’s Smart Grids Innovation Challenge, which aims to demonstrate robust megawatt‑scale microgrids capable of hosting 100 per cent renewable power plants by 2030.¹⁰

The Smart Grids project, based in Mayfield West in New South Wales, also positions Australia in international standard‑setting discussions and creates a pathway for local companies to export grid‑integration expertise and products.¹⁰

Climate‑KIC Australia operates at the systems level, convening multi‑stakeholder collaborations such as the Industrial Regions Network, which brings together industrial regions, governments, civil society and researchers to share decarbonisation strategies and scale up practical projects.¹¹

Climate‑KIC also partnered with Climateworks Centre on the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative, which has mapped techno‑economic pathways for decarbonising key supply chains including steel, aluminium, liquefied natural gas and chemicals, and highlighted where new technology investment is most urgent.¹²

At the startup end, EnergyLab’s 2024 Climate Solutions Accelerator cohort includes companies working on industrial heat, passive cooling, energy storage and even electric aviation, reflecting how climate innovation is extending well beyond the power sector into hard‑to‑abate areas.⁹

HolonIQ’s Indo‑Pacific Climate Tech 100, announced alongside an investor forum in Singapore, underscores that many Australian ventures are now embedded in regional markets, with the 100 companies across 14 countries collectively valued at more than US$20 billion and employing over 12,000 people in green jobs.¹³

Carbon capture, smart grids and forecasting

Among the most closely watched technologies in Australia are those that promise to clean up existing emissions sources while enabling a more flexible, climate‑resilient energy system.

CSIRO’s CarbonLock program is exploring a portfolio of carbon dioxide removal options, from direct air capture and enhanced mineralisation to ocean‑based approaches and biomineralisation, on the premise that technological removals will be needed alongside deep emissions cuts to reach net zero.²

While large‑scale deployment remains distant, the research is already influencing discussions about future negative emissions industries in regional Australia, including potential synergies with mining, agriculture and marine sectors.²

On the grid side, the Smart Grids Innovation Challenge has become a focal point for integrating high levels of variable renewables, storage and demand response, with the goal of making microgrids both technically robust and economically attractive in diverse Australian conditions.¹⁰

This work complements state‑based initiatives, such as the Australian Capital Territory’s Integrated Energy Plan, which relies heavily on distributed solar, batteries and electrification to support its ambition of becoming an all‑electric city over the next two decades.¹⁴

In the realm of climate intelligence, the Climate Change in Australia program has produced a new generation of nationally consistent climate simulations, combining work from CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and several state agencies to deliver detailed regional projections that underpin infrastructure and land‑use planning.⁶

These projections, together with CSIRO’s climate and disaster resilience report, are feeding into efforts to redesign warning systems, strengthen buildings and coordinate disaster response across jurisdictions after a series of severe fire seasons and floods.⁵

Industrial regions, vulnerable communities and Indo‑Pacific links

The transition is most visible in industrial regions, where new climate technologies intersect with long‑standing dependence on fossil fuel jobs and infrastructure.

The Hunter region in New South Wales, long a coal and heavy industry hub, is emerging as a key trial ground, with the state and federal governments jointly committing more than $100 million to the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub at the Port of Newcastle, led by Origin Energy Future Fuels and Orica.³

Project documents indicate the hub aims to install around 50 megawatts of electrolyser capacity in its initial phase, producing thousands of tonnes of renewable hydrogen per year and abating an estimated 195,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 while creating up to 150 construction jobs.³

The Climate Tech Industry Report, prepared with support from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, notes that regional hubs such as the Hunter and New South Wales’ North Coast are becoming focal points for climate‑tech firms that want to recruit in regional and rural communities traditionally dependent on emissions‑intensive industries.¹⁵

Climate‑KIC’s Industrial Regions Network is designed in part to ensure these areas can share strategies and avoid a patchwork of uncoordinated projects, by connecting local governments, industry and community groups working on decarbonisation and resilience.¹¹

Across the economy, analysis prepared for the Climate Change Authority finds that heavy industry, electricity, transport and parts of agriculture must accelerate innovation most sharply to align with 2035 and 2050 decarbonisation pathways, with particular emphasis on industrial supply chains that produce steel, aluminium and liquefied natural gas.⁷

For vulnerable groups, including some rural, coastal and Indigenous communities, the core challenge is making sure climate innovation is not only about emissions but also about locally appropriate adaptation, which is why resilience planning frameworks increasingly stress co‑design, data access and learning across jurisdictions.⁵

Australia’s innovation story is also outward‑facing, as global technology transfer initiatives create channels for knowledge and investment to flow across the Indo‑Pacific.

The UN Climate Technology Centre and Network, which has implemented hundreds of technical assistance projects since 2013 and leveraged about US$1.24 billion in finance, is working with partners in the Pacific on climate‑resilient agriculture, green buildings and AI‑based coral reef monitoring, a set of themes that align closely with Australian expertise.¹⁶

In parallel, the Indo‑Pacific Climate Tech 100 and associated clean‑economy investor forums are explicitly designed to channel capital into climate‑tech firms across 14 Indo‑Pacific partner countries, positioning Australian companies as both adopters and exporters of solutions, from grid software and storage to resilient infrastructure designs.¹³

Learning from global best practice and urban farming

Australia’s climate‑tech trajectory is informed by overseas examples, particularly in sectors where early adopters have already tested policy and deployment models.

Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have developed national hydrogen and Power‑to‑X strategies that combine public tenders, infrastructure support and industrial partnerships to build export‑oriented green hydrogen value chains, providing templates for how Australia might integrate similar projects with its own renewable and industrial base.¹⁷

International energy reviews also note the importance of interconnections and flexible markets in enabling very high shares of wind and solar, lessons that resonate with Australia’s push to modernise its grids and inter‑state transmission links.¹⁸

Urban farming offers another strand of global learning, particularly for cities seeking to strengthen food security and climate resilience at the same time.

Australian research, including work by the Institute for Sustainable Futures on Sydney’s food futures, has shown how peri‑urban agriculture can reduce food miles, buffer against fuel price shocks and provide local employment, even as urban expansion places pressure on productive land around major cities.¹⁹

Surveys of urban agriculture in cities such as Melbourne, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong point to the value of mapping food production, identifying “food deserts” and integrating community gardens, rooftop farms and other small‑scale operations into broader planning and health policies.²⁰

For global cities, the emerging lesson from these Australian examples is that urban farming should be treated not as a lifestyle add‑on but as part of a wider climate adaptation strategy, supported by spatial planning, infrastructure and data about local food systems.¹⁹

What regional planners must do next

The next five years will be decisive for regional planners and policymakers who are trying to reduce long‑term climate risk while protecting livelihoods.

Evidence from Australia’s sector pathways work, regional hydrogen hubs and resilience studies indicates that regions need integrated plans that align industrial decarbonisation, infrastructure upgrades, skills programs and community engagement, rather than treating each as a separate project.³⁵⁷

In practical terms, that means using the latest climate projections to stress‑test investments, prioritising funding for technologies that cut emissions and build resilience in the most exposed sectors and communities, and tapping into international technology networks so that regional Australia can adapt proven solutions quickly while exporting its own climate innovations to neighbours across the Indo‑Pacific.⁶¹³¹⁶

References

1. Climate Change Authority – Sector Pathways Review 2024
2. CSIRO – CarbonLock Future Science Platform and 2024 conference
3. NSW Government / DCCEEW – Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub presentation
4. Australian Government – Net Zero Fund proposed design consultation
5. CSIRO – Climate and Disaster Resilience report
6. Climate Change in Australia – Next generation climate projections
7. Australian Government – Climate change commitments and net zero targets overview
8. Lowy Institute – Technology and Australia’s climate diplomacy in the Pacific
9. EnergyLab – 2024 Climate Solutions Accelerator cohort
10. ARENA / CSIRO – Smart Grids Innovation Challenge project
11. Climate‑KIC Australia – Industrial Regions Network
12. Climateworks Centre & Climate‑KIC – Pathways to industrial decarbonisation
13. HolonIQ – Indo‑Pacific Climate Tech 100
14. Climate Change Authority – Climate Policy Tracker 2024 (ACT energy planning and living infrastructure)
15. Clean Energy Finance Corporation – 2023 Australian Climate Tech Industry Report
16. UN Climate Technology Centre & Network – Technology transfer overview
17. Government of the Netherlands – National Hydrogen Strategy
18. International Energy Agency – Denmark 2023 Energy Policy Review
19. UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures – Peri‑urban farming and Sydney’s food future
20. Sustain: The Australian Food Network – Growing Edible Cities and Towns report

Back to Top

Canberra’s path to global leadership in urban farming - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Canberra’s population is projected to reach nearly 700,000 by 2050, intensifying pressure on land, housing and food systems. 1 The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 positions urban and regional agriculture as a core pillar of food security and emissions reduction . 2 More than 100 community gardens already operate across the ACT, providing a base for scaling urban food production. 3 Singapore’s rooftop and high-tech farming policies show how incentives and spatial planning can rapidly expand urban agriculture. 4 Global bodies such as FAO and OECD identify urban agriculture and productivity gains as critical to resilient, low-emissions food systems. 5 In the next five years, integrating urban farming into planning codes, climate strategies and housing policy will be decisive for Canberra’s long-term food resilience. 6

On the northern edge of Canberra, where new suburbs encroach on paddocks and construction cranes redraw the skyline, a quieter experiment in survival is unfolding in raised beds, school plots, and makeshift hydroponic rigs.

As the city prepares for a population approaching 700,000 by 2050, planners and growers are asking whether Australia’s bush capital could become a world leader in feeding itself from within its own urban footprint.⁷

The stakes are high, as rising food prices and pandemic‑era supply shocks have exposed how dependent Canberra remains on long road, rail and air corridors stretching to coastal ports and distant farms.⁸

At the same time, the ACT’s climate strategy commits the territory to net zero emissions by 2045, forcing a reckoning with the carbon cost of everything from refrigerated freight to fertilisers.⁹

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 sketches a future where urban farming, community gardens and peri‑urban agriculture help cut emissions, reduce food waste and increase access to fresh food, but it leaves open the question of how bold the city is prepared to be.¹⁰

Globally, agencies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation describe urban and peri‑urban agriculture as a critical tool for making cities more resilient to climate, economic and health shocks.¹¹

From Singapore’s rooftop farms to controlled‑environment vertical farms in Australia’s industrial parks, high‑tech food production is moving closer to consumers and into spaces once reserved for cars and machinery.¹²

Canberra already has more than 100 community gardens, dozens of school kitchen gardens and a growing ecosystem of local producers, yet most of what its residents eat still arrives by truck.¹³

This investigation examines whether the ACT’s policy settings, spatial planning, technological capacity and social fabric are aligned to turn Canberra into a global exemplar of urban farming, rather than a city that watched the opportunity pass by.

Demographics, demand and land pressure

Canberra’s population is projected to rise from about 482,000 people in 2024 to nearly 700,000 by 2050, an increase of 319,000 residents.¹⁴

ACT Treasury data indicate growth of around 8,000 people each year, with higher-density housing and infill development expected across all districts as greenfield sites become scarcer.¹⁵

The ACT’s Guide to Community Gardens notes that as more residents live in apartments or on smaller blocks, demand for shared gardening spaces rises because private yards are no longer sufficient to grow food.¹⁶

This demographic shift reshapes food demand and land use, increasing the volume of fresh produce required while making traditional backyard gardening less feasible for many households.¹⁷

Nationally, an ABARES‑informed discussion of food security shows Australia exports about 70 per cent of its agricultural production, highlighting that the country is a net food exporter even while some urban households struggle to access affordable, healthy food.¹⁸

Within this context, urban farming in Canberra is less about replacing broadacre agriculture and more about reshaping how and where food is produced, distributed and consumed inside the city.

Mapping Canberra’s food system

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy describes the territory as part of a wider city‑region, drawing much of its fresh produce from surrounding New South Wales farming districts while importing significant volumes of packaged and processed food from interstate and overseas.¹⁹

The strategy aims to strengthen local food systems by fostering urban and regional agriculture, reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with long‑distance freight, and increasing community access to fresh, affordable food.²⁰

According to Agriculture and Food in the ACT, there are over 100 community gardens across the territory, 77 school kitchen gardens and at least nine gardens in public housing complexes, showing that small‑scale local production is already embedded in the city’s fabric.²¹

The ACT Government also recognises community gardens as a form of outdoor recreation facility in its Territory Plan, effectively legitimising food growing as a planned land use in new estates and urban renewals.²²

Yet large supermarket chains continue to dominate food retail and pricing, and an ACCC grocery inquiry submission notes that food price inflation between 2019 and 2023 added almost 19 per cent to Australian grocery costs, exacerbating cost‑of‑living pressures for low and middle income households.²³

Local production currently contributes to food security mainly by improving access to fresh fruit and vegetables in specific communities and by building social connections, rather than by supplying a large share of total calories consumed in the territory.²⁴

Sustainability potential and trade‑offs

A national research project on urban food security and climate change concludes that urban agriculture can strengthen food security and urban resilience by improving access to fresh produce, using waste streams productively and creating opportunities for community engagement.²⁵

The same study finds that urban agriculture is unlikely to make Australian cities fully self‑sufficient, but argues that it can play an important role when integrated into broader planning for resilience and sustainability.²⁶

For Canberra, the environmental opportunities include cutting emissions from food transport, using composted organic waste as fertiliser, and integrating green infrastructure that cools suburbs and manages stormwater alongside food production.²⁷

The ACT’s Urban Forest Strategy 2021–2045 sets a target of 30 per cent tree canopy cover and 30 per cent permeable surfaces in urban areas by 2045, aligning food‑producing landscapes with shade, biodiversity and heat‑island mitigation goals.²⁸

However, trade‑offs are real, as high‑tech indoor farms can be energy intensive and rooftop farms must compete with solar panels, mechanical services and structural constraints on buildings.²⁹

To maximise benefits, Canberra’s planners will need to balance space for food production with renewable energy generation, tree canopy and housing, rather than treating any single use as automatically dominant.³⁰

Policy, governance and gaps

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 marks a new approach to valuing local food production in the ACT, setting out actions to diversify the local food economy, reduce and repurpose food waste and strengthen community wellbeing.³¹

The strategy positions Canberra as part of a global community of city‑regions working to foster urban and regional agriculture, signalling that food systems are now a recognised part of climate and sustainability policy rather than an afterthought.³²

The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019–2025 commits the territory to net zero emissions by 2045 and to a 50–60 per cent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2025, creating a strong rationale for reducing emissions in food supply chains through local production and circular economy practices.³³

AdaptNSW’s summary of the ACT region highlights heightened risks of drought and bushfires, which will place pressure on water supplies and agriculture, underlining the need for climate‑resilient urban food systems that can operate under variable rainfall and heat extremes.³⁴

At the national level, Feeding Australia, a National Food Security Strategy initiative, notes that Australia’s strong export position coexists with pockets of food insecurity, particularly among disadvantaged groups, pointing to the importance of local initiatives alongside national production.³⁵

Despite these frameworks, researchers have found that complex regulations governing land use, health and small business operations can unintentionally thwart attempts to establish new urban agriculture enterprises, suggesting that regulatory reform is a key enabler for Canberra’s ambitions.³⁶

Technology, innovation and controlled environments

Globally, urban agriculture is shifting from small community gardens to systematised, technologically advanced and policy‑integrated models that use vertical farming, hydroponics and controlled environment agriculture to boost yields and resource efficiency.³⁷

In Australia, an automated vertical farm profiled by industry media claims output equivalent to a 20‑acre farm on a 1,000 square metre footprint, using up to 95 per cent less water than conventional agriculture and delivering produce within kilometres of urban consumers.³⁸

Vertical farms typically rely on LED lighting, hydroponic systems and data‑driven climate controls, and Australian agri‑tech commentary emphasises their potential to strengthen local food systems and complement rather than replace traditional farms.³⁹

For Canberra, integrating such facilities into industrial estates, logistics hubs and even repurposed car parks could allow continuous year‑round production of leafy greens and herbs close to population centres.⁴⁰

Linking these systems to the territory’s high penetration of renewable electricity would help ensure that the additional energy demand of controlled environment agriculture does not undermine the ACT’s emissions targets.⁴¹

Experts also highlight that digital platforms connecting urban producers directly with consumers, including subscription boxes and online marketplaces, can increase the economic viability of small urban farms by shortening supply chains and reducing waste.⁴²

Spatial strategies and reimagined spaces

The Guide to Community Gardens in the ACT confirms that community gardens now operate in schools, public housing and retirement villages, illustrating how non‑traditional spaces can be adapted for food production within existing urban layouts.⁴³

Agriculture and Food in the ACT reports that there are more than 100 such gardens across suburbs, showing a city‑wide patchwork of small plots that could be expanded or linked through planning frameworks and incentives.⁴⁴

Internationally, Singapore’s food agency has tendered the rooftops of public housing car parks and other public buildings for commercial hydroponic farms, repurposing previously under‑used structures to help meet a goal of sourcing 30 per cent of nutritional needs locally by 2030.⁴⁵

Singapore’s planners also sweeten rooftop transformations by offering gross floor area exemptions when mechanical equipment is relocated to make space for urban farms and gardens, reducing the financial barriers for developers and building owners.⁴⁶

Research by Australian universities has proposed turning car parks into horticulture farms and installing controlled‑environment agriculture in under‑utilised urban structures, arguing that such conversions can combine food production with climate adaptation benefits like shading and cooling.⁴⁷

For Canberra, similar policy tools—such as planning bonuses for rooftop farms, design competitions for food‑producing buildings and explicit mapping of suitable industrial roofs—could unlock a network of productive spaces from Civic to Tuggeranong.

Socio‑economic impacts and community identity

Studies of community gardens in Canberra and other cities have found that participants value not only the fresh food produced but also the social connections, mental health benefits and opportunities for learning new skills.⁴⁸

The ACT’s community garden guide notes that gardens attract a diverse range of residents and can help address the lack of private growing space in higher density housing, supporting social inclusion as well as nutrition.⁴⁹

At a broader scale, national analyses of food insecurity highlight that rising grocery prices and housing costs leave many households struggling to afford healthy diets, and that local food initiatives can reduce reliance on food relief services by improving access to low‑cost produce.⁵⁰

Urban agriculture can also create jobs in farming, logistics, processing and education, particularly in high‑tech facilities that require specialised skills in plant science, engineering and data analysis.⁵¹

Embedding food production in schools, TAFEs and universities further reinforces a local identity centred on sustainability and self‑reliance, and prepares a workforce capable of operating advanced urban farming systems.⁵²

In Canberra, this could mean aligning urban agriculture initiatives with existing strengths in research, higher education and public policy, turning the city into both a living laboratory and a teaching hub for urban food systems.

Global trends and lessons from Singapore

FAO’s overview of urban and peri‑urban agriculture argues that improved urban food production can boost yields, diversify crops and enhance sustainability while making fresh, nutritious food more available to urban households.⁵³

A recent thematic review in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems notes that in high income countries, urban agriculture has evolved into technologically advanced, policy‑integrated systems with vertical farms, aquaponics and rooftop gardens embedded in urban regeneration projects.⁵⁴

The OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook projects global food consumption rising by about 1.4 per cent per year over the next decade, driven mainly by population growth, and warns that productivity gains and reduced waste are needed to meet demand while cutting emissions.⁵⁵

Singapore stands out as a city‑state that has responded by leasing public rooftops for urban farms and setting clear local production targets, while supporting hydroponic and building‑integrated farms through planning and incentive schemes.⁵⁶

Analysts describe Singapore’s approach as an “iron triangle” of policy, technology and spatial planning, combining rooftop farms, retrofitted buildings and car park conversions to reduce import dependence and build resilience against external shocks.⁵⁷

Canberra does not share Singapore’s land constraints or import reliance, but its climate risks, emissions goals and rapid population growth mean the underlying logic of integrating urban farming into planning, housing and economic policy is strikingly similar.⁵⁸

Action plan: from pilots to global model

Short‑term actions over the next five years could include embedding explicit urban agriculture targets into the Territory Plan and development codes, such as requiring a proportion of roof or communal open space in major developments to be designed for food production where feasible.⁵⁹

The ACT Government could also establish a dedicated urban farming grants and loans program, building on proposals like the Canberra Region Food Collaborative, to support start‑ups deploying hydroponics, container farms and community‑scale greenhouses in strategic locations.⁶⁰

Medium‑term measures to 2035 could involve integrating urban farming into major urban renewal projects and new precincts, linking them to the Urban Forest Strategy and Living Infrastructure Plan so that food production, tree canopy and permeable surfaces reinforce one another rather than compete.⁶¹

Policy makers could set procurement targets for ACT schools, hospitals and public institutions to source a share of fresh produce from local urban and peri‑urban farms, giving producers secure markets and aligning food policy with health and climate objectives.⁶²

Longer term, by 2045, Canberra could position itself as an international model by combining high‑tech vertical farms, extensive community gardens, integrated waste‑to‑fertiliser systems and research partnerships, underpinned by a robust food security strategy that is regularly reviewed and publicly reported.⁶³

If these steps are taken in concert with national strategies on food security and emissions reduction, the city could demonstrate how a medium‑sized, inland capital can adapt to climate change while improving equity and resilience in its food system.⁶⁴

Conclusion: the next five years

The evidence from Canberra’s own policy documents, Australian research and global urban agriculture initiatives points to a clear conclusion, that urban farming will not feed the city alone but can make it significantly more resilient, equitable and sustainable.

For regional planners and policymakers, the next five years are critical. They must bake food production into planning codes and climate strategies, streamline approvals for urban farms, invest in community and high‑tech projects, and set measurable local procurement and access targets to reduce long‑term risk of food insecurity, climate disruption and social fracture.⁶⁵

References

1. Food for All – ACT Greens policy on local food resilience and urban agriculture (2020)
2. Burton, P. (2013), Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change – NCCARF report
3. Canberra doubles down on alleged supermarket price gouging – Community Directors (2024)
4. Draft Canberra Region Local Food Strategy – YourSay ACT (overview page)
5. Feeding Australia: A National Food Security Strategy – Australian Government (2025)
6. ACT Cost of Living Budget Statement – ACT Treasury
7. Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 – ACT Government
8. Public Health Association of Australia submission on the National Food Security Strategy (2025)
9. ACCC Groceries Inquiry – Coles Group public submission (2024)
10. Developing a new climate change strategy for the ACT – Climate Choices ACT
11. ACT Population Projections: Growth reflected across the City – ACT Government media release (2025)
12. Guide to Community Gardens in the ACT – Policy and Site Selection Criteria
13. Australia’s first fully automated vertical farm completes R&D phase – Green Magazine
14. Nearly 700,000 Canberrans by 2050 – Our Canberra (2025)
15. Turner, B. (2012), A study of the demand for community gardens and their benefits – University of Canberra
16. Innovative Vertical Farming in Australia – CheerBio (2025)
17. Agriculture and Food in the ACT – ACT Government
18. Agriculture and Food in the ACT – community gardens statistics
19. Creating an urban farm‑friendly Australia – UTS case study (2025)
20. ACT population projections show we must build houses, quickly – Canberra Daily
21. Singapore rents public rooftops for urban farming – Agritecture
22. Urban and peri‑urban agriculture – FAO briefing
23. Climate change in the ACT region – AdaptNSW
24. Singapore unveils incentives for urban and rooftop farms – Agritecture
25. Senthamizh, R. (2025), Urban agriculture in a changing world: a thematic review – Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
26. Climate Change – ACT State of the Environment Report
27. OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022–2031
28. Rooftop urban farming in Singapore: the iron triangle of food security – FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform

Back to Top