69455 V2 Acting Today For Tomorrow A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region, with Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies Acting Today For Tomorrow A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region, with Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies ii Acting Today For Tomorrow Photo: iStockphoto © 2012 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: Ciril Jazbec iii Acknowledgments T his Policy and Practice Note, along with the Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Study materials, was prepared by a team led by Emilia Battaglini (Task Team Leader, World Bank) and comprising Michael Bonte-Grapentin (World Bank), John Hay (independent consultant), Cristelle Pratt (independent consultant), and Olivia Warrick (World Bank), under the overall guidance of Ferid Belhaj, John Roome, Charles Feinstein, and Abhas Jha (World Bank). We benefitted greatly from the feedback and guidance of peer reviewers and advisors from the Pacific region and from the World Bank (listed in appendix 1). Special acknowledgment is due to the organizations that supported the World Bank in the dissemination of the Policy and Practice Note, particularly the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. We acknowledge the financial support of the partners of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Anne Himmelfarb edited the report and Miki Fernandez assisted with the design. Rachel Cipryk and Nathan Hale (World Bank) provided support throughout, and Aleta Moriarty and Laura Keenan (World Bank) provided advice on the communication and dissemination strategy. Photo: The World Bank Photo: Olivia Warrick v Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. iii List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ................................................................................................ viii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 2. A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region ................................................. 2 2.1 The Consequences of Not Acting Today ..................................................... 3 2.2 The Lessons of the Last Decade .................................................................. 9 2.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers .................................... 15 2.4 Fostering Resilient Development................................................................. 18 3. Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies ...................................... 21 3.1 What Are the Consequences of Not Acting Today? .................................... 22 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade......................................................................... 25 3.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers .................................... 41 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development ................................................................ 43 4. Summary ....................................................................................................... 55 5. References ..................................................................................................... 57 Appendix 1. Significant Contributors to Preparation of the Policy and Practice Note ............................................................................ 60 Appendix 2. Outputs from the Policy and Practice Note Session at the Pacific Platform Meeting for Disaster Risk Management, August 2011 ................................................................................... 65 Appendix 3. Summary Overview of the Collective Roles of CROP Agencies in Relation to Climate Change ........................................................ 74 Appendix 4. “Acting Today for Tomorrow�: High-Level Dialogue and Meeting on Climate and Disaster Resilient Development .......... 80 Appendix 5. Studies Reviewed for the Analysis Summarized in Table 3.3 ............ 85 vi Acting Today For Tomorrow List of Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank AusAID Australian Agency for International Development CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market CBA community-based adaptation CCA climate change adaptation CCCCC Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre CIM Coastal Infrastructure Management CPEIR Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review CROP Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific DCCEE Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency DRM disaster risk management DRR disaster risk reduction EU European Union EU-ACP European Union-African, Caribbean, and Pacific FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FSPI Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International GEF Global Environment Facility GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GDP gross domestic product HFA Hyogo Framework for Action ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JCS Joint Country Strategy JNAP Joint National Action Plan KAP Kiribati Adaptation Program MCDEM Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E monitoring and evaluation MFEM Ministry of Finance and Economic Management NAP National Action Plan NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment List of Abbreviations vii NDMO National Disaster Management Office NGO nongovernmental organization NZ-MFAT New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade PACC Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change PACE-SD Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development PASO Pacific Aviation Safety Office PCCR Pacific Climate Change Roundtable PCRAFI Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative PIANGO Pacific Islands Association of Nongovernmental Organisations PICT Pacific island country and territory PIDP Pacific Islands Development Programme PIFACC Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat PMU project management unit PPA Pacific Power Association PPN Policy and Practice Note PRSM Pacific Region Support Mechanism RFA Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action SEI Stockholm Environment Institute SOPAC Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme SPTO South Pacific Tourism Organisation UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USP University of the South Pacific VMGD Vanuatu Meteorological and Geohazards Division VRA Vulnerability Reduction Assessment WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization viii Acting Today For Tomorrow Executive Summary P acific island countries continue to be among the most vulnerable in the world: they combine high exposure to frequent and damaging natural hazards with low capacity to manage the resulting risks. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by poorly planned socioeconomic development, which has increased exposure and disaster losses, and by climate change, which has increased the magnitude of cyclones, droughts, and flooding. Changes in how disasters and other extreme events in the Pacific are managed could significantly lessen the region’s vulnerability. Currently, inefficient management of risks negates development gains and incurs large costs for national and local governments. Progress in reducing vulnerability has been retarded in part because of fundamental problems with coordination and cooperation among relevant actors at all levels. The policy frameworks, governments, regional organizations, and donor and development institutions responsible for carrying out disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) often work in isolation from one another—and in isolation from the actors involved in socioeconomic development planning and implementation. Progress has also suffered because elected officials, as well as donors and other development partners, tend to support immediate-term relief following a disaster rather than investing in DRR and CCA initiatives, which have less visibility but would in the long run represent a far more efficient use of resources. Merely managing the symptoms of disasters and climate change, as Pacific island countries and territories (PICTs) commonly do, is inefficient, expensive, and not sustainable. A better approach would address the causes of vulnerability and work to promote climate- and disaster-resilient development. Such an approach is achievable if certain changes are made: risk considerations must be integrated in the formulation and implementation of social and economic development policies and plans; political authority, leadership, and accountability must be more robust and effective; and coordination and cooperation among actors must be increased. “Acting Today for Tomorrow� provides case studies, data, and analysis from the Pacific region to make a case for climate- and disaster-resilient development as being the most appropriate way to address the above challenges. It outlines what the consequences are of not acting today to reduce risk, what important lessons have emerged from the last decade, and what must be done to move toward resilient development in Pacific island countries. The document is intended for an audience of practitioners and policymakers at all levels across all relevant sectors. Its analysis and recommendations are meant to inform DRR and CCA planning across a range of institutions. Section 3 of the document, “Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies,� was produced to accompany a short Policy and Practice Note (PPN) for climate- and disaster-resilient development, issued in June 2012. The PPN, available as a 22-page, freestanding document (and reproduced in this document as section 2), contains concise recommendations aimed at high-level policymakers and decision makers within countries, regional organizations, donors, and development partner organizations. Given the audience, the Policy and Practice Note focuses on answering a limited number of key questions and communicating critical messages. Section 3, longer and more detailed, Executive Summary ix contains the evidence, including case studies and lessons that underpinned preparation of the PPN. Both the analysis contained in section 3 and the PPN presented in section 2 grow out of extensive consultations with countries, regional organizations, and donors and other development partners. The recommendations made in both sections are intended to inform key regional, national, and subnational climate and disaster risk policies and strategies. In particular, they should inform the joint Roadmap towards a Post 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, as well as an implementation strategy for integrating DRR and CCA across the World Bank’s development operations in the Pacific. The consequences of not acting today. If countries and donors do not act now to reduce PICTs’ extremely high vulnerability—above all, if development planning does not begin to assess hazard risks and integrate risk considerations—the consequences are likely to be serious indeed. Simply put, a “business as usual� approach focused on immediate disaster relief rather than long-term DRR and CCA will increase economic and human losses, slow economic growth, and delay or even set back progress toward Millennium Development Goals. Lessons of the last decade. Over the last decade, some important lessons have emerged about what works, and what does not work, to reduce vulnerability. It is clear now that project-based DRR and CCA initiatives with relatively short time frames encourage fragmented efforts, inhibit carryover across initiatives, and ultimately do little Photo: Thinkstock.com to reduce underlying vulnerability in a lasting way. It is also clear that weak coordination and partnership between institutions involved with implementing DRR, CCA, and development limit the impact of these interventions, and that the institutional rigidity of donor organizations makes cooperation and partnership more difficult. Finally, experience shows that reducing vulnerability requires stronger political leadership, end-user-friendly information, and improved monitoring and evaluation. These will ensure that DRR and Pacific island CCA considerations are mainstreamed in development plans and included in budgets, countries that well-designed DRR and CCA initiatives are delivered efficiently, and that leaders continue to make informed decisions. be among the most The way forward: Overcoming remaining barriers and fostering resilient vulnerable development. The lessons of the past decade teach us that climate- and disaster-resilient in the world: development is possible if they combine high exposure ■■ risk considerations are grounded in development; to frequent ■■ political authority, leadership, and accountability are robust and effective; and and damaging natural ■■ coordination and partnerships are strong. hazards with low capacity To ground risk considerations in development, governments and partners should, among to manage the other key initiatives, ensure that climate and disaster data are easy to access and inform resulting risks. the selection of priority investments and development programs. They should also give x Acting Today For Tomorrow precedence to development initiatives that reduce vulnerability and adapt existing tools (such as land use plans, building codes, and environmental regulations) to achieve higher resilience to all hazards. To achieve robust and effective political authority, leadership, and accountability for more resilient development, governments should anchor coordination of DRR and CCA in a high- level central ministry/body both at national and regional levels and ensure that leaders are knowledgeable about disaster and climate risk management. They should build on existing mechanisms such as strategic and corporate planning and budgetary processes, as well as proactively include communities, provincial governments, and central governments in the design and implementation of disaster- and climate-resilient investments. To promote strong coordination and partnerships, countries and development partners need mutual trust, respect, and flexibility. With good working relationships, each partner’s comparative advantage is optimized, adequate resourcing is ensured, and knowledge and implementation capacity are shared efficiently. Better cooperation between governments and donors would allow alignment of funding sources for CCA, DRR, and development, which would in turn promote flexible financing arrangements and allow current and anticipated risks to be addressed. 1 1 Introduction Over the last 10 years, it has become increasingly evident that reducing vulnerability at local and national levels requires integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) into development planning and processes. This message was clearly articulated in the 2006 World Bank Policy Note “Not If But When—Adapting to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Islands Region.� While some progress has been made since that document appeared, substantial obstacles to resilient development have persisted, and the need to integrate DRR and CCA into development planning and processes remains just as urgent today. This fact formed the impetus to reexamine both the obstacles to resilient development and the recommendations for overcoming them. The result was a Policy and Practice Note (PPN) entitled “Acting Today for Tomorrow: A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region� and published in June 2012. The PPN, which appears in its entirety below (section 2), is a knowledge product developed for and by policymakers, decision makers, and practitioners in the region. The PPN draws on evidence from lessons learned and good-practice examples contributed by DRR, CCA, and development stakeholders from national governments, regional organizations, donors, development partners, and civil society. This evidence is detailed following the PPN within the section entitled “Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies (section 3). During 2011, as it began work on the PPN, the World Bank facilitated extensive consultations with stakeholders at various locations around the region. Individuals who made significant contributions to the development of the PPN are listed in appendix 1. A dedicated session at the Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management, held in August 2011, provided significant inputs to the PPN. The list of participants and a summary of the inputs are provided in appendix 2. The PPN builds on the content of existing and emerging regional policy and action frameworks, in particular the Pacific Plan (2005), the Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action 2005–2015, and the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006–2015. The PPN will contribute to the Roadmap towards a Post 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, an initiative for harmonization of regional services and support to Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs). Rather than discussing the entire range of challenges to integration, the PPN distills evidence in the region in order to identify the major barriers to progress, the steps that have been taken to overcome them, and the actions still required. Given that the target audience of the PPN is high-level policymakers and decision makers in PICTs, and decision makers in regional, donor, and development partner organizations, the PPN is concise. It focuses on answering a limited number of key questions and communicating critical messages, and leaves the evidence, case studies, and lessons that underpinned its preparation to section 3. 2 Photo: The World Bank A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster- Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region This section contains the key messages and recommendations presented in the PPN. The PPN was launched at a high-level dialogue on climate- and disaster-resilient development held in Suva, Fiji, in June 2012. Cohosted by the World Bank, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), the dialogue was attended by representatives of Pacific island country governments and by members of the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP), including CROP CEOs (see appendix 3 for CROP agencies and their roles). It was also attended by donors, development partners, and civil society organizations. The objective was to bring together relevant stakeholders and actors to discuss actions that could serve as catalysts for change within an organization in order to advance climate- and disaster-resilient development in the Pacific at local, national, and regional levels. The messages contained in the PPN underpinned and guided the discussions. Several clear priorities for increasing consideration of risk in development, improving coordination and partnerships, and enhancing political leadership for DRR and CCA emerged from the discussions and are listed in appendix 4. Acting Today For Tomorrow 3 2.1 The Consequences of Not Acting Today 1. Unless development planning in Pacific island countries focuses on the need to assess hazard risks, these countries will remain among the most vulnerable in the world. 2. A “business as usual� approach to managing risks— Key Messages one that focuses more on disaster relief than on long-term disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation—will result in increased economic and human losses from extreme events. 3. A “business as usual� approach will slow economic growth and delay or even set back progress toward Millennium Development Goals. 4. The vulnerability of the poor and other marginalized groups will increase unless attention is paid to slow- onset and low-intensity climate and weather events as well as to extreme events. Photo: The World Bank/Michael Bonte-Grapentin Although Pacific island countries are among Of the 20 countries with the highest average annual the most vulnerable in the world to natural disaster losses scaled by gross domestic product hazards, development planning has not (GDP), 8 are Pacific island countries: Vanuatu, Niue, sufficiently focused on the need to assess Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, the hazard risks. Solomon Islands, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, and the Cook Islands (figure 1). The Pacific is experiencing the mounting conse- quences of an unfortunate combination of circum- stances, in which poorly planned and implemented socioeconomic development initiatives increase al- ready significant exposure to extreme weather and climate events. 4 Acting Today For Tomorrow average annual impact from disasters/GDP (%) 10 9 8 7 n based on reported disaster damages – Natural 6 Hazards UnNatural Hazards 5 n based on modeled annual losses from cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunamis – Pacific Catastrophe 4 Assessment and Financing Initiative 3 2 1 0 G ucia Va ada u ue a ca is M gua sia ng s lo Fed lia Isl s. ds ar n iji l I p. Co m s Vi k Is ica Isl s Bu u ds in na M B o ag ze Pa r Ja au Ba Sa ica Ba as, r l e m sh Bo e Sa ia au a Ne s l pa ca m do ne Mo ive Do and in nd iu s& g ng Th bw M o at s Ni Nev M me F on . St liv al e o an an Fa ad eli Zi ade Ni itt Ton rk ya l m o in El ma rit as sh , R nu ha lva rg la n ld ra .L ba sl re a a G St So , m Ye .K St ico M country Figure 1. Average annual impacts from disasters as a percentage of GDP Sources: Reported disaster impacts are from World Bank and United Nations, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention (Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank, 2010); modeled annual disaster impacts are from World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative, Risk Assessment—Summary Report (Washington, DC: World Bank, forthcoming). For example: ■■ In many Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs), infrastructure and other assets are increasingly concentrated dangerously close to the coast, rather than being more dispersed and set back from exposed shorelines (figure 2a). ■■ Seawalls constructed on the island of Moturiki, Fiji, have generally exacerbated the shoreline erosion they were designed to reduce, and removing the previously cleared mangrove fringe as soon as it shows signs of regrowth has prolonged the heightened vulnerability arising from clearance (figure 2b).1 The already high frequency of some extreme weather and climate events may be increasing in the Pacific.2,3 These increases are likely to continue because of global warming, although the precise nature of the relationship between global warming and extreme Figure 2 (a) Upper: Most infrastructure related to event increases remains uncertain.4 government, commerce, and transportation continues to be concentrated on the highly vulnerable north coast of Nothing can be done about the extreme events Rarotonga, Cook Islands (photo courtesy of Helen Henry); themselves, at least in the short term. But as (b) Lower: Remains of a typical rural seawall in Fiji. The original seawall remained intact for 18 months, then collapsed; it was subsequently partially rebuilt and then collapsed again (photo courtesy of Patrick Nunn). 2.1 The Consequences of Not Acting Today 5 this document will show, changes to the way The total value of infrastructure, buildings, and cash development policy is planned and carried out in the crops considered at some level of risk is estimated region would reduce such events’ consequences. at over US$112 billion (table 1). Inaction could prove extremely expensive and will only grow more Economic and human losses from extreme expensive in the future. events are enormous and will increase under 7.0 a “business as usual� approach. 6.0 Since 1950 extreme events have affected approxi- mately 9.2 million people in the Pacific region: they 5.0 percent of GDP have caused 9,811 reported deaths and damage of 4.0 around US$3.2 billion, with tropical cyclones the ma- jor cause for this loss and damage. Figure 3 shows 3.0 annual average economic losses suffered by Pacific 2.0 island countries as a result of damage caused by tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami.5 1.0 In the last decade, some PICTs have experienced 0.0 tu ue lo ed a Isl s. ds Co Isla ji Isl s ds au G a or ea Ki te Tu ti lu u natural disaster losses that in any single year have ok nd i So a, F ng o a ur on . St F va es ua an an Ti uin Ni al Ne Sam rib Na si To -L P n Va approached and in cases even exceeded their GDP. l al w m sh m Examples include the 2007 earthquake and tsunami ar ne a M pu ico Pa in the Solomon Islands, which caused losses of M around 90 percent of the 2006 recurrent government country budget;6 the 2004 Cyclone Heta on Niue, where Figure 3. Economic losses due to tropical cyclones, immediate losses amounted to over five times the earthquakes, and tsunami. 2003 GDP;7 and the 2009 Fiji floods, which affected Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Nadi, Ba, and the entire sugar belt area and which Financing Initiative, Risk Assessment—Summary Report (Washington, caused losses of F$350 million.8 DC: World Bank, forthcoming). Table 1. Asset replacement costs and economic losses due to tropical cyclone, earthquake, and tsunami Annual average economic losses Losses from 100-Year event Assets replacement cost Country US$ million US$ million % GDP US$ million % GDP Cook Islands 1,422 4.9 2.0 103.0 42.2 Fiji 22,175 79.1 2.6 844.8 28.1 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2,048 8.3 2.9 150.7 52.4 Kiribati 1,182 0.3 0.2 4.0 2.6 Marshall Islands 1,696 3.1 2.0 67.4 43.3 Nauru 453 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Niue 249 0.9 5.8 22.7 143.4 Palau 1,501 2.7 1.6 46.7 27.5 Papua New Guinea 49,209 85.0 0.9 794.9 8.4 Samoa 2,611 9.9 1.7 152.9 27.0 Solomon Islands 3,491 20.5 3.0 280.6 41.4 Timor-Leste 20,145 5.9 0.8 143.7 20.5 Tonga 2,817 15.5 4.3 225.3 63.0 Tuvalu 270 0.2 0.8 4.8 15.1 Vanuatu 3,334 47.9 6.6 370.1 50.8 TOTAL 112,602 284.2 3211.6 Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative, Country Risk Profiles (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2011). 6 Acting Today For Tomorrow 1,000 Figure 4. Relationship between the frequency 900 of an extreme event (as defined by the mean mean return period (years) 800 return period) and the resulting losses. Data are for Samoa. 700 600 Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment 500 and Financing Initiative, Country Risk Profile: Samoa (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2011). 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 ground-up lossess (million US$) The case of Samoa provides a striking example of to around 12 percent of Samoa’s GDP. The extent to how losses can escalate rapidly due to extreme events which governments tend to count on donors to offset and the effects of climate change (figure 4). Though direct economic losses after a disaster—and the the precise influence of climate change on weather implications of this expectation for efforts to address variability and extreme events remains uncertain, the region’s vulnerability—are discussed below. It is a World Bank study of CCA in Samoa drew two worth noting here that the tsunami recovery plan, inferences. The first is that the severity—and perhaps which was founded on the principle of “build back the frequency—of El Niño Southern Oscillation better,� does provide a coherent response to both droughts is likely to increase. The second is that the tsunami risks and climate change. It is estimated to severity (wind speeds) of major cyclones may increase, cost just over US$100 million, shared between the while the return period for the most damaging public sector and donor assistance. cyclones may fall, leading to a significant increase in the average damage caused by cyclones that hit Lower-intensity natural hazards and climate Samoa.9 A macroeconomic model of the interactions effects also cause social and economic hardship between climate and the Samoan economy suggests in the Pacific. that, without additional adaptation, the present value of the climate change–induced damage to the In many Pacific countries, the accumulated impacts economy through 2050 could be between US$104 of small and medium-size events are equivalent to, or and US$212 million. This is equivalent to between exceed, those of single large disasters. Low-intensity 0.6 and 1.3 percent of the present value of Samoan events are typically more widespread, affecting a GDP over the same period. Importantly, the model comparatively large number of people. They are assumes that sound development policies will be in also likely to involve damage to housing, land, and place and implemented to minimize the impact of local infrastructure, rather than major mortality existing weather risks and other natural hazards, or destruction of economic assets.11 As the poor along with those from climate change. and other vulnerable, marginalized groups tend to live in more hazard-prone areas,12 increases in the It is also important to consider the more direct frequency of these lower-intensity hazards have a human consequences of extreme events. Between large impact on poverty. Even PICTs such as Kiribati, 1970 and 2007, Fiji experienced 41 documented which are situated outside the region of tropical flood events, which affected at least 220,000 people cyclone occurrence and hence experience relatively and killed 88.10 The tsunami that wreaked havoc on low economic losses as a result of cyclones (table 1), Samoa in September 2009 resulted in 155 deaths, are nevertheless considered highly vulnerable to the the destruction of the homes of some 5,300 people impacts of climate change. (2.5 percent of the population) and several coastal villages, and the loss of 20 percent of hotel rooms Data on low-intensity events are not collected (which could seriously harm the livelihoods of those systematically in many PICTs and are sometimes not in the tourism industry). collected at all. Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of efforts to address drought risks in Tuvalu, for Significantly, this devastation prompted almost example, was thwarted by the lack of data on the no national budget adjustment in Samoa, mainly economic and social consequences of its previous because donors stepped in with assistance amounting droughts. 2.1 The Consequences of Not Acting Today 7 Disaster- and climate-related losses are managed inefficiently: the focus by elected Direct Economic Lossess officials and donors on immediate relief tends (often offset by donors) to discourage investment in long-term DRR and CCA efforts, which in turn slows economic growth and progress toward Millennium Development Goals. The social and economic consequences of natural disasters and climate change fall into two broad categories (figure 5). In the Pacific, the two sets of consequences are managed differently from one another—and often inefficiently: ■■ Direct economic losses. Evidence shows that Social and Hidden Costs currently, although the amount of these losses (mostly, if not totally, is known and their effect anticipated, direct borne by the country) economic losses are largely offset by donors and other development partners. This was the case for recent cyclones, flooding, and tsunami affecting some PICTs. This arrangement reduces a country’s incentive to be proactive and invest its own resources in DRR and CCA initiatives designed to avoid or reduce these losses. It also means that donors are spending large amounts of money on relief and recovery, rather than on sustainable development. Figure 5. Countries tend to focus on direct economic ■■ Social and other hidden costs. While losses such losses, many of which are offset by donors; social and as injuries and deaths are well documented, this hidden costs are often larger if their impact on the is not true for some other significant social costs, national economy is taken into account. These costs such as increased illness, work and school days lost, are seldom offset by donors. and assistance of volunteers. Nor is there good documentation of smaller and indirect economic information and forecasts help farmers decide when losses, including loss of subsistence crops, reduced to plant, sow, fertilize, and harvest; guide tourism transport links, and reduced access to services. operators in which activities to schedule; and enable Opportunity costs, too, are rarely documented. electric utilities to anticipate and respond to demand Examples of these include loss of income due to fluctuations. Benefit-cost ratios as high as 44 have the decline in tourism following an extreme event, already been demonstrated in the Pacific: and the unwillingness of rural communities to grow cash crops because of frequent damage by cyclones ■■ A benefit-cost ratio of at least 2 was found as a and flooding. All these costs, whether documented consequence of reduced repair and maintenance or hidden, are generally an internal burden on a costs over the nominal 50-year life of the main country. If they are large, they can manifest as a road in Kosrae. The lower costs resulted from significant slowdown in economic growth, and investments by the State of Kosrae in climate- they can also set back development more broadly, proofing a new 6.6 kilometer section of the road.13 including achievement of Millennium Development ■■ Benefit-cost ratios of between 1 and 44 were Goals (MDGs). found for several community-based adaptation initiatives designed to alleviate flooding in Fiji and Acting today to reduce the consequences of Samoa.14 future extreme events can be cost-effective. An overall consequence of not acting today to reduce Benefit-cost analyses suggest that investing in DRR and disaster risks and the threat of climate change will CCA is sound policy. Collecting weather and climate be further delays in achieving MDGs or—worse— data and generating forecasts, for example, is costly, backsliding from goals that have already been but the benefits can be considerable: weather-related achieved. Table 2 summarizes the sensitivities of 8 Acting Today For Tomorrow Table 2. Links between the Millennium Development Goals and climate change and disasters in the Pacific Sensitivity of goal PICTs’ MDG performance Potential for CCA to climate change Number of countries and DRR to improve Goal and disasters On track Off track performance Goal 1: Eradicate extreme H 2 6 H poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal M 7 2 M primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality M 3 3 M and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality M 9 3 M Goal 5: Improve maternal health M 7 7 M Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, M 5 1 H malaria, and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental H 5 5 H sustainability Goal 8: Develop a global H 6 1 H partnership for development Source: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Pacific Regional MDGs Tracking Report (Suva: PIFS, 2011), and authors. Note: H = high; M = medium. A grade of “low� was available but not given. PICTs’ MDG performance above is based on two of four progress classifications used by PIFS: ‘On track’ and ‘off track’. It does not report ‘mixed’ progress or where there is ‘insufficient information’ to assess progress. For this reason the totals are not always the same. MDG performance to climate change and disasters. there are 6.7 million cases of acute diarrhea every Significantly, performance in the Pacific is poorest for year. Of these cases, 2,800 result in death, mostly MDG 1 (to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger). among children under age five.15 MDG 1 is judged to be the goal most adversely affected by climate change and disasters. CCA and The root causes of failure to achieve the MDG DRR can do much to reduce this sensitivity and targets, including poor governance, weak hence ensure that efforts made by countries and institutional arrangements, shortages in human their partners to reduce poverty and hunger are not and financial resources, lack of political will and counteracted. The level of achievement is somewhat stability, poor accountability and transparency, and better for MDG 6 (to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and inadequate natural resources management, decrease other diseases). Nevertheless, in the Pacific region the resilience of PICTs and communities to climate 2.2 The Lessons of the Last Decade 1. Project-based DRR and CCA initiatives with relatively short time frames encourage fragmented efforts, inhibit carryover across initiatives, and ultimately do little to reduce underlying vulnerability in a lasting way. 2. Weak coordination and partnership between Key Messages institutions involved with DRR, CCA, and development limit the impact of interventions, and the institutional rigidity of donor organizations can make cooperation and partnership even more difficult. 3. Reducing vulnerability requires stronger political leadership, improved monitoring and evaluation, and end-user-friendly information; these will ensure that DRR and CCA considerations are mainstreamed in development plans and included in budgets, that well-designed DRR and CCA initiatives are delivered efficiently, and that leaders make informed decisions. Photo: Ciril Jazbec Progress in addressing underlying vulnerability ■■ Implementation of DRR and CCA initiatives has in the Pacific has thus far had limited impact increased at the community level. on climate-resilient development. ■■ Comprehensive data sets and tools that assess In the last decade some progress has been made disaster, climate, and fiscal risk have been in implementing DRR and CCA measures on the developed or identified. ground. Among key achievements are these: It remains true, however, that progress has had limited ■■ Investment in DRR and CCA has grown. impact. This section discusses the achievements and lessons of the last decade to understand why more ■■ Institutions involved in DRR and CCA have been progress has not been made, and to identify solid strengthened. foundations on which to build and move forward. Underpinning the discussion throughout is the five- ■■ Integration of DRR and CCA policies and plans part framework articulated in the 2006 Policy Note has increased, evident in the Joint National Action “Not If, But When� (box 1). Plans (JNAPs) for DRR and CCA. ■■ Some mainstreaming of DRR and CCA has occurred at the sector level. 10 Acting Today For Tomorrow change and natural disasters. Thus climate change Box 1. A framework for effective management and natural disasters will further impede progress of disaster and climate risks toward the MDGs. A project-based approach to DRR and CCA encourages fragmented efforts and impedes progress. DRR and CCA initiatives in the Pacific commenced in the late 1990s; the number of projects being implemented has increased significantly since 2007 (figure 7). This increase has not translated into greater progress toward reducing vulnerability, however. A key Photo: Carlo Iacovino problem is that current interventions are typically project based. This means that initiatives tend to have short time frames and that there is little carryover from one project to the next. It also means that projects are generally identified as either DRR or Five elements (figure 6) make up the framework CCA, when—given the overlap in what the two types for effective management of disaster and climate of interventions seek to achieve—the two should be risks: 1) an enabling environment at all levels; 2) seen as part of a continuum from hazard focused support for decision making (through increased to development focused (figure 8). Consolidating public awareness, targeted information, and and streamlining the many discrete projects would relevant tools and training); 3) mainstreaming encourage progress and discourage fragmentation of CCA and DRR initiatives in key economic and of effort. social planning processes; 4) implementation of Weak coordination and partnership between initiatives; and 5) ongoing review of initiatives to institutions involved with DRR, CCA, and de- ensure that goals are being met and that lessons velopment limit the impact of interventions; learned are documented. donor organizations’ institutional rigidity contributes to this problem by making coop- eration and partnership more difficult. Support A second key reason that CCA and DRR efforts have Enabling for Decission Environment Making not had more impact is that organizational links and cooperation among the various projects and programs are too limited, both at the national and Mainstreaming at the regional level. Joint programming of CCA and DRR activities by donors and implementing agencies is not widespread. The lack of strong links risks duplication, limits learning, and makes it difficult to achieve the holistic and multisectoral response that resilient development requires. Review Implementation Donor funding requirements also contribute to this problem. For example, rigid criteria and agency- specific reporting requirements discourage alignment and integration as funds are often earmarked Figure 6. Five key components of a framework for separately and specifically for either DRR or CCA effectively managing disaster and climate risks. or development. The disjointed global processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Source: Adapted from World Bank, “Not If, But When: Adapting Climate Change for CCA and the Hyogo Framework to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Islands Region,� Policy Note, East Asia and Pacific Region, 2006, http://siteresources.worldbank. for Action (HFA) for DRR force and perpetuate this org/INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/Natural-Hazards-report.pdf. division. 2.2 The Lessons of the Last Decade 11 50 45 40 35 30 number of projects 25 20 15 10 5 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 year adaptation—multisector climate risk management capacity building land use adaptation—sectoral mainstreaming Figure 7. Number of CCA and DRR projects implemented in PICTs, 1991–2008. Source: Adapted from J. E. Hay, Assessment of Implementation of the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (PIFACC). Report to the Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) (Apia, Samoa, 2009). Note: some trend lines do not start in 1991 since most CCA and DRR projects began implementation following 1998 Confronting climate Anticipating impacts Building capacity Addressing drivers change and opportunities for action of vulnerability Increasing likelihood of benefits in absence of climate change Interventions assume Climate change-related Interventions laying the Poverty alleviation and the certainty of climate interventions that may foundation for more other activities to reduce Development change, with serious also result in significant targeted, on-the-ground vulnerability to climate context adverse consequences for development benefits – initiatives – climate data change not considered in the economy, society, and high reliance on climate help identify the most development plans natural systems information vulnerable parts of sectors Pro-poor surcharge for Adaptation Malaria prevention Land use plans include Installing cyclone early- participants in ecotourism example, campaigns for locations coastal setbacks and land warning and shelters for ventures including DRR thought to be at risk for new developments at-risk areas Figure 8. Responses to climate change, from development focused (left) to climate change focused (right), with illustrative examples. Source: Adapted from S. Becken and J. E. Hay, Climate Change and Tourism: From Policy to Practice (UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis, 2012). Donors’ institutional rigidity also reinforces “silo coastal protection projects and water tanks. They effects� in government institutional structures and tend to focus less on ensuring support of “softer� approaches, and perpetuates fragmentation and measures, such as institutional strengthening and duplication of effort. Because donors may prefer ecosystem-based solutions, or on the longer-term, high-visibility projects, their assistance is often ongoing capacity building required for country concentrated on funding “hard� measures, such as ownership and implementation of DRR and CCA. 12 Acting Today For Tomorrow crucial. It is now occurring in some PICTs such as the Why is progress toward reducing Cook Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the Marshall vulnerability inadequate? Islands, and Niue. Other countries are poised to pre- pare joint DRR/CCA national action plans. However, 1. Initiatives are project based. Short time DRR and CCA considerations are rarely incorporated frames and rigid categorization (as either into economic or physical planning. To date, central DRR or CCA) mean little carryover from one ministries such as Finance and Economic Planning project to the next. have not played a principal role in DRR and CCA, which is problematic given their mandate for oversee- 2. Links between projects and programs, ing and coordinating national development, financ- both at the national and regional levels, ing, and aid effectiveness. Improved coordination is are limited. Joint programming of CCA and needed to allow technical line ministries involved in DRR activities by donors and implementing DRR and CCA to concentrate more on the services agencies is not widespread. The lack of that they are mandated, and have the capacity and strong links risks duplication, limiting comparative advantage, to deliver. learning, and makes it difficult to achieve the holistic and multisectoral response that At the regional level there have been recent resilient development requires. expressions of intent to integrate DRR and CCA through the implementation of a joint Roadmap towards a Post 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy Currently, DRR, CCA, and development largely for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change operate as three distinct communities of practice Adaptation and Mitigation. This approach would go a in the Pacific. The last five years have seen the long way to redress the current arrangements, which appearance of a plethora of DRR, CCA, and mandate that DRR and CCA be facilitated separately development sector policy and planning instruments by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) at national and regional levels. This includes three and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment regional policies for DRR, CCA, and national Programme (SPREP), respectively. However, the development as well as National Action Plans for integration of DRR and CCA within regional economic Disaster Risk Management (NAPs) and National development, which is in the remit of the Pacific Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). A more Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), is less advanced. recent initiative is Joint National Action Plans for DRR A recent institutional policy analysis and CCA (JNAPs). These policy instruments have of CCA and DRR, in the Pacific came been influenced by various guidelines produced in to these conclusions: the Pacific for mainstreaming DRR and CCA into 1. Few regional institutions in the Pacific would development. While each initiative is well intended be capable of providing tangible support to and reflects substantial thought and effort, greater national and local DRR and CCA efforts in the cooperation among the three communities (DRR, absence of donor assistance. CCA, and development) and greater integration of their instruments would undoubtedly use available 2. Institutional fragmentation is resulting in resources more efficiently and produce more effective considerable inefficiencies in the use of the and lasting improvements. limited financial and other resources. Improved coordination and alignment be- 3. Most PICT governments and administrations tween existing DRR and CCA institutions, and are structured along sectoral lines, which makes greater involvement by relevant ministries (in it difficult for them to address the intersectoral particular Finance and Economic Planning), and integrated approaches that are needed to would make CCA and DRR into economy-wide make development climate resilient. and development-wide issues and would fa- Source: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster cilitate effective whole-of-government and Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development regional approaches. Programme (UNDP), Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific: An Institutional and Policy Analysis (Suva, Fiji: UNISDR and UNDP, 2012). Improved coordination and alignment between DRR and CCA institutions and planning instruments is 2.2 The Lessons of the Last Decade 13 The need for greater coordination and coherence ex- opment planning and implementation, and recognize tends to other DRR, CCA, and development actors its importance in national development strategies and such as international financing institutions, multilat- in relevant sector policies and plans. There has been eral and bilateral development partners, alliances and considerable progress in addressing some priorities in networks, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), some NAPs and NAPAs; and some countries, such as and civil society organizations. Effective coordination the Cook Islands and Papua New Guinea, have includ- is of particular importance given the critical issue of ed some consideration of CCA and DRR in budgetary limited absorptive capacity in PICTs and their com- processes. However, most NAPs, NAPAs, and JNAPs munities, a fact that NGOs in the Pacific are begin- fall short of their intended mainstreaming function in ning to recognize. Some have established coordina- that budgetary allocations at the sector level generally tion positions within their organizations, and there do not reflect DRR and CCA. is some movement toward forming consortiums between NGOs. Donors have made less progress in Stronger political authority and leadership is coordinating financing for DRR and CCA, although necessary to root DRR and CCA in regional debates some initiatives aimed at coordination have been es- on development and economy. Because DRR and tablished, such as the Development Partners for Cli- CCA lack political visibility at the regional level, PICTS mate Change meetings organized by the United Na- cannot reap the full benefits that would accrue from tions Development Programme (UNDP). Progress has mainstreaming DRR and CCA across the regional also been made in other sectors, for example in the development agenda. The PIFS has recently taken a lead advisory role to PICTs in the important matter of Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility, which facili- accessing and managing climate change financing, tates donor coordination in the infrastructure sector. but it does not yet have the support it would need Stronger political leadership would facilitate to take on the role of raising the political visibility needed inclusion of DRR and CCA consider- of DRR and CCA at the regional level in order to ations in national and subnational budgetary promote resilient development. It is worth looking processes. to DRR/CCA practice in other regions, such as risk governance and risk financing in the Caribbean, A substantial number of NAPs and NAPAs now say to identify approaches and options that could hold they consider DRR and CCA an integral part of devel- merit for the Pacific islands region. World Bank Institute Cairns Compact (governance Indicators) (development coordination) Paris Declaration Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles (aid effectiveness) National Development Plans Millennium Development Goals Hyogo Framework for Action Monitor Pacific Plan (DRR progress indicators and drivers) Regional Tracking of MDGs United Nations Development Assistance Framework Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (DRR- & CCA-sensitive indicators) Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Global Network for Disaster Reduction Framework for Action 2005-2015 (risk governance indicators) Vulnerability Reduction Assessment Tool Figure 9. Selected development, DRR, and CCA monitoring, evaluation, and reporting instruments that have been prepared for use at international, regional, and local levels; these offer starting points for designing an appropriate approach to measuring progress of integrated CCA and DRR in development. Source: Authors. 14 Acting Today For Tomorrow End-user-friendly information is necessary for development contain highly relevant proxy indicators informed leadership and sound decision mak- of resilient development. However, many of the ing as well as for the technical design and de- existing national or regional development and sector livery of resilient development initiatives. policies and frameworks focus on monitoring and evaluating inputs and outputs, rather than outcomes Appropriate, rigorous, and targeted information and the longer-term impacts that are much more can help avoid maladaptation. Over the last five relevant to measuring results and effectiveness. years considerable advances have been made in the development of comprehensive databases and tools Experience to date with monitoring and evaluation that assess disaster, climate, and fiscal risk. These frameworks for CCA and DRR shows that there is a include the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and need to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), the Pacific Sea Level and indicators that embrace principles of flexibility, Climate Monitoring Project, and the Pacific Climate learning, and participation (figure 10). Change Science Programme. To avoid maladaptation, these programs need to develop products and applications that are directly targeted to the needs of end-users in PICTs. CC A Considerable progress has been made in developing and applying approaches and tools to support integrated DRR and CCA decision making at DRR the community level in the Pacific. Increasingly, Resilie nt Develo disaster and climate risk information is being p m e nt provided to communities in a way that is relevant to socioeconomic, livelihood, and cultural contexts and complementary to indigenous knowledge. Accessibility of appropriate information products and services is vital, since communities are at the front line of disaster and climate change impacts. Recent M&E increases in coordination between NGOs should help Adaptive Dynamic to encourage tools’ consistency and quality. Active Participatory Improved monitoring and evaluation is essen- Adaptive Thorough Adaptation & tial to enhance the capacity of organizations Capacity DRR Actions and leaders to make better DRR, CCA, and de- velopment decisions in the future. Several current monitoring and evaluation frameworks provide solid starting points for approaches to Figure 10. A conceptual monitoring and evaluation measuring progress in achieving resilient development (M&E) approach that measures progress at the CCA- DRR-development interface and incorporates principles (figure 9). The long-term intended outcome of CCA of flexibility, learning, and participation. and DRR is reduced vulnerability. Thus many of the existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks for Source: Authors. 2.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers Critical barriers to achieving climate- and disaster- Key Messages resilient development can be overcome if n risk considerations are grounded in development; n political authority, leadership, and accountability are robust and effective; and n coordination and partnerships are strong. Photo: Simpson Abraham, FSM PACC Project Pacific regional DRR and CCA reports and reviews Resilient development requires grounding published over the past decade discuss a litany of risk considerations in development. recurring challenges that obstruct efforts both to integrate DRR and CCA initiatives and to incorporate Current governance arrangements at the regional level, DRR and CCA considerations at all levels of and in most countries, do not easily facilitate the in- development. The barriers discussed in this section tegration of risk considerations into development. The are the main obstacles to addressing these ongoing separate institutional, legal, and policy frameworks for challenges. Until these barriers are overcome and CCA and DRR are counterproductive. These frame- the three key requirements for resilient development works also have weak and often tenuous links with the (figure 11) are met, resilient development will remain development sectors. Both these separations serve to out of reach for most countries and their people, diffuse efforts to integrate DRR and CCA and to main- with progress limited and results patchy at best, and stream them in development planning and processes. with vulnerability increased at worst. It is easy for the very case for integration and main- streaming to get lost amid these separations. And with- out agreement among relevant actors that integration and mainstreaming are needed, it becomes difficult to add one more priority to a development agenda that is Political Authority, Leadership, and already crowded, complex, and competitive. Accountability Separation also encourages inefficiency, since it tends to encourage planning, financing, programming, and Resilient implementing of stand-alone DRR and CCA projects Development at all levels. These self-contained initiatives are able Strong Grounding Risk to only nibble away at the periphery of DRR and Coordination Considerations CCA and are not fully integrated into development- and Partnerships in Development planning, budgetary, and other processes. At the highest levels, both the overarching Pacific Plan and national development policy frameworks need to commit political authority and commensurate Figure 11. Key requirements for climate- and disaster- levels of resources to a focus on the underlying drivers resilient development. of disaster risk. Failure to do so will almost certainly winnow away any development gains thus far. Efforts Source: Authors. 16 Acting Today For Tomorrow should concentrate on integrating risk considerations in within relatively peripheral ministries. Thus the ability development and ensuring meaningful integration of to ensure DRR and CCA policy coherence across and DRR and CCA interventions that focus on risk-sensitive between development sectors, and to influence the development outcomes. An “outcomes focus� would shaping of development investment and multisector help clarify the roles and responsibilities of various key approaches, is limited. DRR and CCA anchored in the actors and stakeholders based on their comparative heart of the planning process within a central ministry advantages, and determine who should be involved such as Finance and Economic Planning, and strongly in the delivery of DRR, CCA, and development backed by the Office of the President/Prime Minister, outcomes. This clearer division of labor would facilitate would ensure political visibility for and responsible appropriate institutional arrangements and provide implementation of resilient development. lasting benefits. Important instruments and tools for this focus on outcomes are land use planning, building Resilient development requires strong coordi- codes, environmental impact assessment, catchment nation and partnerships. and coastal zone management, and integrated water The multitude and diversity of stakeholders, partners, resources management. and financing sources in the fields of DRR, CCA, Resilient development requires sustained and and development often overwhelm the absorptive robust political authority, leadership, and ac- capacity of countries. This complexity for DRR and countability. CCA is illustrated in figure 12. The political and economic imperatives for DRR Donors, development partners (including NGOs), and and CCA are clear. Over the last decade PICTs regional organizations need to coordinate their work have recognized these imperatives at international, to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, regional, and national meetings. In spite of these harmonize and simplify approaches to reduce the bur- public political commitments, in many PICTs the den on countries’ systems and capacity, and be more sustained effort needed to address DRR and CCA responsive to the needs and priorities of countries. An remains elusive. Short electoral timelines do little appropriate transparent consultative mechanism to to encourage politicians to “invest today for a safer ensure this type of coordination and cooperation has tomorrow.�16 Only when they face a major disaster yet to be achieved, however. To maximize the efficient event within their term of office do politicians tend allocation of available resources and achieve effective to focus on resilient development. coordination and implementation, a balance is need- ed between regional capacity, national capacity, local Donors, too, have little incentive to concentrate capacity, and capacity substitution. Where appropri- their efforts on long-term resilient development; ate, budget support may be a viable option to address responding to disasters irrespective of a country’s the capacity challenge. efforts in DRR and CCA is highly visible and has high short-term impact. Donors and other actors Effective mechanisms are currently lacking for linking are missing the opportunity arising from disasters local priorities with national strategies for DRR, CCA, to highlight the benefits of DRR. In the case of and development. A stronger collaborative partner- CCA, moreover, the high profile of climate change ship between NGOs, government, and donors is provides significant opportunity to mobilize political needed to ensure available resources are appropri- and financial resources for risk-smart development ately allocated to respond to local-level priorities. investment and to enhance and build resilience. Significantly, individuals, families, and communities tend not to differentiate between CCA, poverty al- But without the strong will and commitment of leviation, or DRR interventions. Rather, they focus leaders at all levels to make DRR and CCA a national on the impact on their security and well-being. An development priority, DRR and CCA will remain enabling environment is required that encourages invisible at the highest political levels. With strong inclusion of community representatives in decision leadership, politicians will be expected to include making and implementation efforts. Building capac- DRR and CCA considerations in development and be ity at subnational levels is fundamental to an effec- held accountable for the results. tive enabling environment. Currently, leadership responsibility for DRR and CCA policy rests mainly with Departments of Disaster Management or Departments of Environment, or 2.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers 17 Actual and potential climate support SPC PIFS ADB SPREP LDCF GEF World Bank SCCF Country PPCR X Climate investment UN-REDD Funds SCF UNDP Japan CTF New EU Adaptation Other UN Australia Zealand Fund agencies USAID “Green Fund� Figure 12. The diversity and complexity of climate funding and support sources to a typical Pacific Island Country Source: Courtesy of Toily Kurbanov, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP, Fiji. Note: Orange boxes indicate support from multilateral development banks; green boxes indicate support from other multilateral sources; red boxes indicate support from bilateral sources; and blue boxes indicate support from regional organizations. ADB = Asian Development Bank, CTF = Clean Technology Fund, EU = European Union, GEF = Global Environment Facility, ICCAI = International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, JICA = Japanese International Cooperation Agency, LDCF = Least Developed Country Fund, MDGF = Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund, PPCR = Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience, SCCF = Special Climate Change Fund, SCF = Strategic Climate Fund, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme, UN-REDD = United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, USAID = United States Agency for International Development . 2.4 Fostering Resilient Development This section offers practical guidance on achieving more- resilient development and on addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability, poverty, and limited access to financial and other resources. It recommends specific steps for attaining each of the three requirements for resilient development identified in the previous section. Photo: John Hay Resilient development requires grounding Resilient development requires robust and risk considerations in development. effective political authority, leadership, and accountability. PRACTICAL STEPS: PRACTICAL STEPS: 1. Strengthen support to relevant institutions to ensure that DRR and CCA are coordinated at all 1. Anchor high-level coordination of DRR and CCA levels. in a central ministry with a high level of political authority such as Finance and Economic Planning. 2. Focus on outcomes rather than inputs to clarify the roles and responsibilities of key actors and 2. Secure political leadership and accountability at stakeholders and to assign them based on the regional level by providing support to PIFS, the comparative advantages. region’s preeminent political agency. 3. Make mainstreaming of climate and disaster risk 3. Make full use of existing mechanisms, such as considerations in development planning and strategic and corporate planning, budgetary processes a priority. processes and performance management, harmonizing DRR and CCA financing, and 4. Ensure that climate and disaster data are easy exploring financial assistance mechanisms, to to access, meet the needs of end-users, and increase pre-disaster and climate risk investment. inform the selection of appropriate DRR and CCA measures. 4. When planning and implementing on-the-ground DRR and CCA initiatives, use established inclusive 5. Proactively identify development initiatives that and participatory best practice, adapted to local address the drivers of risk and seek to strengthen context, to help close gaps between communities, resilience; screen initiatives to ensure that benefits provincial governments, and central governments. would not be jeopardized by changing weather and climatic conditions or by an extreme natural 5. Make sure leaders have the knowledge, skills, and hazard event. awareness to make sound decisions about disaster and climate risk management. 6. Adapt existing instruments and tools—such as land use plans, building codes, environmental impact assessments, etc.—to achieve high levels of resilience to all hazards. Photo: Thinkstock.com Resilient development requires strong coordi- 4. Encourage an atmosphere of trust, respect, and nation and partnerships. flexibility among actors to promote coordinated and effective CCA and DRR efforts and to PRACTICAL STEPS: ensure appropriate levels of resourcing, access to information and local knowledge, and capacity 1. Divide labor among regional institutions so they support. assume suitable roles; for instance, coordination responsibility could be anchored in the PIFS, which 5. Promote joint planning, programming, and oversees regional development, cooperation, and implementation of DRR and CCA interventions by integration; and DRR and CCA services could PICTS and their development partners in ways that be handled by SPC and SPREP, which have the make optimum use of the comparative advantages mandate, capacity, and comparative advantage to of each. deliver them. 6. Provide flexible financing arrangements that 2. Align funding sources for CCA, DRR, and address both current and anticipated risks and development to encourage stronger coordination deliver both shorter- and longer-term benefits. and cooperation within donor organizations as well as between donors. 3. Use strong and transparent consultation and coordination mechanisms to facilitate sharing of data, good practices, and lessons learned. 20 Acting Today For Tomorrow Notes 1 These seemed reasonable initiatives when they were undertaken but have ultimately proved harmful. See P. D. Nunn, “Responding to the Challenges of Climate Change in the Pacific Islands: Management and Technological Imperatives,� Climate Research 40, no. 2–3 (2009): 211–31. 2 J. E. Hay and N. Mimura, “The Changing Nature of Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Risks to Sustainable Development,� Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 1, no. 1 (2010): 1–16. 3 Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, Climate Change in the Pacific: Scientific Assessment and New Research, Vol. 1: Regional Overview; Vol. 2: Country Reports, 2011, http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/ PCCSP/publications.html. 4 Ibid. 5 Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) currently comprises data sets, information, and risk models for the following hazards: tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami. 6 Asian Development Bank, “Solomon Islands: Strengthening Disaster Recovery Planning and Coordination,� Project Number 41105, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Programme, Asian Development Bank, 2007. 7 Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, “Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in the Pacific Islands Region and Measures to Address Them,� Out of Session Paper, Forum Economic Ministers’ Meeting, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, October 27–28, 2009. 8 Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), “Socioeconomic Flood Impact Assessment in Nadi and Ba, Fiji,� SOPAC, Suva, Fiji, no date. 9 World Bank, Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Samoa (Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2010). 10 P. N. Lal, R. Singh, and P. Holland, Relationship between Natural Disasters and Poverty: A Fiji Case Study. SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 678 (Suva, Fiji: SOPAC, 2009). 11 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific: An Institutional and Policy Analysis (Suva, Fiji: UNISDR and UNDP, 2012). 12 Ibid. 13 Asian Development Bank, Climate Proofing: A Risk-Based Approach to Adaptation (Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2006). 14 O. Chadburn, J. Ocharan, K. Kenst, and C. Cabot Venton, “Cost Benefit Analysis for Community Based Climate and Disaster Risk Management: Synthesis,� Tearfund and Oxfam America, 2010, http://www. preventionweb.net/files/14851_FinalCBASynthesisReportAugust2010.pdf. 15 World Health Organization (WHO) and Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), Sanitation, Hygiene and Drinking-Water in the Pacific Island Countries: Converting Commitment into Action (Suva, Fiji: WHO and SOPAC, 2008). 16 This was the slogan for the 2009 and 2011 Global Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction. Acting Today For Tomorrow 21 3 Photo: The World Bank Supporting Research, Analysis, and Case Studies This section contains the research, analysis, and case studies that have been used to inform and support preparation of the Policy and Practice Note (PPN). The key messages and recommendations contained in the PPN are a distillation of the myriad challenges, lessons learned, good practices, and needs in the region. The information presented in this section is based on an extensive literature review and on comprehensive consultations with stakeholders in the region. 22 Acting Today For Tomorrow 3.1 What Are the Consequences of Not Acting Today? An overall consequence of not acting to reduce disaster risks and the threat of climate change will be further delays in achieving national Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)—or even backsliding from those goals that have already been achieved. Examples of how natural disasters and climate change–related hazards can impact progress toward the MDGs are provided in table 3.1. Acting today to reduce the consequences of future extreme events can be cost- effective. The most significant driver of increasing economic losses due to climate variability and extreme events is poorly planned socioeconomic development. Case studies 1 to 3 below provide examples of how investments in climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures in the context of development will reduce costs in the longer term. Case study 1 exemplifies the benefits of climate-proofing infrastructure, while case study 2 illustrates the cost-effectiveness of investments in nonstructural measures. Case study 3 highlights the importance of economic data to enable effective cost-benefit analyses. Table 3.1. Disasters, climate change, and the MDGs MDG Influence of Disasters and Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Goal 1: Droughts, wind storms, floods, and coastal inundation Improve food and nutrition security, water security, health Eradicate destroy livelihoods and reduce food production, as does coral status, livelihood security, income diversification. Enhance extreme poverty bleaching; extreme high temperatures hasten spoiling of stored resilience and preparedness to cope with uncertain and and hunger food; poverty and malnutrition are exacerbated by increased extreme events to strengthen adaptive capacity. failures of subsistence crops and in high food prices; livelihood assets and income of poor people are reduced. Goal 2: Achieve Adverse weather conditions and increased incidence of Improve skills to increase ability to sustainably manage universal diseases reduce school attendance of children, especially girls; ecosystems, change vocations, or move locations, thereby primary education infrastructure is at increased risk from damage due reducing vulnerability; increase awareness of climate- education to extreme weather conditions. health links to reduce incidence of water- and vector- borne diseases; ensure design and upgrading of education infrastructure is climate- and disaster-proofed. Goal 3: Women represent a large percentage of the poor, experience Enhance capacity of women to deal with added economic Promote gender gender inequity, and are faced with increasing vulnerabilities as and social risks and stresses from climate change; make equality and the climate changes; because of their economic and social roles increased use of the knowledge, skills, and influence of empower (e.g., reduced livelihood assets, increased workload, health issues, women in efforts to cope with climate change and reduce women reduced time to participate in decision making), and heavy reliance the emissions that cause it; reduce the time spent by on the natural resource base for income-generating activities, women on providing access to drinking water and other levels of mortality for women and girls are often higher in natural basic tasks; create additional employment and income- disasters; the incidence of physical, emotional, and sexual violence generating activities for women. often rises in the wake of these events. Goal 4: Reduce Infant mortality rates are affected largely through influence Improve access to health services to enhance the child mortality of climate change on infectious diseases; other key factors are resilience of children; strengthen quarantine regulations food shortages and extreme and damaging weather events; and border surveillance. access to potable water is often reduced Goal 5: Improve Pregnant and lactating women,are highly vulnerable to health Improve access to health services to enhance the maternal health threats such as infectious diseases and noninfectious health resilience of mothers and infants to the health effects effects, including heat waves; levels of physical, emotional, and of climate change; improve food and water security and sexual violence often rise in the aftermath of a disaster; health access to health services to improve adaptive capacity; care and proper hygiene are often inadequate in shelters. increase use of cleaner fuels at the household level to decrease the incidence of respiratory illnesses among women and children. Goal 6: Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate Enhance capacity to prevent and deal with epidemics in Combat HIV/ fluctuations, including cardiovascular mortality and respiratory order to increase resilience to climate change. Examples AIDS, malaria, illnesses due to heat waves, altered transmission of infectious of interventions include improving public health and other diseases (e.g., malaria), health issues related to water access infrastructure, developing more-tolerant crop strains, diseases and sanitation, and malnutrition from crop failures; climate increasing freshwater storage capacity and provision of change leads to displacement, making social, environmental, safe sanitation service, creating early-warning systems, and health conditions unbearable, increasing risk of HIV and bolstering disease surveillance. Improve integration infection, and disrupting treatment and care services; of AIDS treatment and care programs as part of national populations most vulnerable to HIV infections, especially disaster preparedness strategies; strengthen health marginalized groups, are more adversely affected in emergency systems to integrate service provision in emergency continues 3.1 What Are the Consequences of Not Acting Today? 23 Table 3.1. (cont.) MDG Influence of Disasters and Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Goal 6: situations; rapid-onset disasters place people, especially women situations; enhance integration of food security, health Combat HIV/ and girls, at risk of HIV infections; in the immediate aftermath security, and resilience to cope with risks from uncertain AIDS, malaria, of climate-induced emergencies access to prevention services is and extreme events in order to improve adaptive capacity. and other disrupted and comprehensive AIDS treatment, care, and support diseases services are not readily available and accessible. Goal 7: Ensure Climate change will degrade the quality and productivity Recognize role of healthy ecosystems and sustainably environmental of ecosystems and living natural resources; resilience of managed natural resources in adaptation to the effects sustainability many ecosystems is unlikely to withstand a combination of of climate change and for disaster risk reduction in areas climate change and associated disturbances such as flooding, such as water resources management, forestry, and land drought, wildfire, insects, and ocean acidification, along management; avoid maladaptation such as reafforestation with other pressures such as land-use change, pollution, and with high-water-use trees or initiatives that undermine overexploitation of resources. Ecosystem services such as progress toward gender equity; use fiscal instruments and water, food, and firewood will be severely impacted in many standards to incentivize resource efficiency. developing countries. Goal 8: Climate change is both a global and cross-cutting issue; climate Build partnerships with actors internationally and Develop change impacts, especially those related to extreme events, will nationally, including those in the private sector and civil a global often exceed the coping capacity of the affected country; thus society, to ensure awareness raising, knowledge sharing, partnership for international cooperation is required to address the causes capacity building, technology transfer, and financing for development of climate change, as well as to ensure comprehensive and adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Offer access to effective responses to its consequences. international climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction funds to help developing countries enhance their resilience. Source: Authors’ compilation. Case Study 1: Enhancing the Climate Resilience of a New Road in Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia Kosrae’s Infrastructure Development Plan includes completion of the circumferential road, in which there is currently a 16 km gap. Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States has allocated US$1,000,000 for this project. The drainage works for the original road design (both built and yet-to-be built sections) were based on an hourly rainfall of 178 mm, intended to be the hourly rainfall with a return period of 25 years. Subsequent analysis of more reliable data indicated that an hourly rainfall with a return period of 25 years is currently 190 mm. But global climate model projections show that, as a consequence of climate change, by 2050 the hourly rainfall with a 25-year return period will have increased to 250 mm. The Government of the State of Kosrae accepted a subsequent recom- Photo: Simpson Abraham, FSM PACC Project mendation that the design of the road be modified so the drainage works could accommodate an hourly rainfall of 250 mm. A new “climate- proof� design for the road was prepared and costed by State employees. The incremental cost of climate-proofing the road design and construction for a yet-to-be built 6.6 km section of road is approximately US$500,000. While the capital cost of this road would therefore be higher than if the road was constructed to the original design, the accumulated costs, including repairs and maintenance, would be lower after only about 15 years. This is due to lower repair and maintenance costs for the climate-proofed road. The internal rate of return was found to be 11 percent. A 3.2 km portion of the road section has ready been constructed, including the drainage works. The design for these was also based on an hourly rainfall of 178 mm for a 25-year recurrence interval. Analyses show that it is more costly to climate- proof retroactively—US$776,184 for a 3.2 km section of existing road (US$243,000 per km) as opposed to US$511,000 to climate-proof 6.6 km of new road (US$77,000 per km). But a cost-benefit analysis revealed that the retroactive climate- proofing is still a cost-effective investment, with an internal rate of return of 13 percent. The Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia and the State Government of Kosrae have secured funding for the incremental costs of climate-proofing the road. The funds will be made available under the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change project. Source: ADB 2006. 24 Acting Today For Tomorrow Case Study 2: Cost-Benefit Analyses of Community-Based Adaptation Interventions in the Pacific Chadburn et al. (2010) developed and applied a methodology for undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of community-based climate and disaster risk management. For the Pacific, community-based adaptation (CBA) interventions assessed by the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) related to flooding in Samoa and Fiji. For Samoa these included floodwalls, a diversion channel, improved flood forecasting, and construction of homes with raised floor levels. Flood hazard maps were created using information from previous floods, and direct and indirect monetary losses calculated, with the distribution of impacts accounted for across sectors. Nonstructural measures were found to be the most economically vi- able. For an improved forecasting system, the benefit-cost ratios range from 1.92 to 1.72. Raising the floor levels of homes had benefit-cost ratios of 2 to 44, dependent on the type of structure, floor height, and discount rate used in the analysis. Structural interventions were found to be unviable economically, even if nonquantifiable benefits were considered. The CBA intervention in Fiji was a flood warning system. A survey was used to assess the distributional impacts for a range of sectors, including household, business, government, and donors. All benefit-cost ratios were high (3.7 to 7.3), including for government (1.1 to 2.2). The benefit-cost for one community was infinite, as no costs were borne. Source: Chadburn et al. 2010; see also Woodruff 2008; and Holland 2008. Case Study 3: Consequences of Drought,a Slow-Onset Event Drought is an example of a slow-onset event with significant social and economic consequences. Deo (2011) reports varying increases in the duration and severity of droughts in different parts of Fiji, but laments that the scarcity of economic data inhibits proper diagnosis of the consequences. Hay and Mimura (2010) confirm this underreporting. They show that quan- titative information on the economic damages resulting from drought is available for only one of eight droughts reported to have occurred in the Pacific between 1950 and 2009. Drought caused economic damages estimated at US$30 million when it occurred in the Western Division of Fiji in 1983. More recently, Fiji’s “100 year� drought of 1997 and 1998 caused the economy to contract by 4 percent, despite a very strong performance by the tourism, garment, and kava sectors. Tuvalu regularly faces drought conditions that force its government and development partners to provide emergency water supplies. The most recent drought, which started in July 2011, left some islands with very limited reserves of potable water. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the Red Cross responded, providing emergency bottled water and desalination equip- ment. Recent efforts to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of efforts to address drought risks in Tuvalu have been thwarted by the lack of data on the economic and social consequences of its previous droughts. This is despite in excess of $A 2 million currently being invested by donors in three projects. Sources: Deo 2011; Hay and Mimura 2010; Lal 2010. 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 25 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade Progress in addressing underlying vulnerability in the Pacific has thus far had limited impact on climate-resilient development. Some progress has been made in addressing underlying vulnerability: institutional arrangements and institutions have been strengthened; access to appropriate information has improved; policies and plans are better integrated; on-the-ground DRR and CCA measures have been implemented; and appropriate tools to measure progress have been identified. But it is also clear that a more strategic approach to integrating adaptation and risk reduction measures into development is required in order to scale up efforts and deliver enduring outcomes and impacts. For the Pacific, as elsewhere, substantial activity and investment in DRR and CCA did not commence until the late 1990s. Almost US$2 million had been invested by 2008, mostly in the later years (Hay 2009a). Extrapolating the data suggests that current investments amount to at least US$10 million per year. What difference have these efforts made, and what can be learned from experience? The number of fatalities per disaster has declined since comprehensive record keeping began in the 1950s (figure 3.1). This decline almost certainly reflects the major investments in disaster preparedness and response in the Pacific in recent decades. While some of the change may also be attributed to the substantial decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones of all strengths since the peak in the 1980s, it is important to note that the frequency of severe (hurricane-strength) cyclones has remained relatively unchanged (Hay and Mimura 2010). Significantly, the number of people affected by each disaster, and the economic losses per disaster, are still increasing (figures 3.2 and 3.3). These trends are consistent with population growth, development patterns, and (in many 200 fatalities per disaster 200 200 200 200 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 3.1. Number of human fatalities per disaster reported in the Pacific islands region, 1950–2008. Source: EM-DAT. 100,000 population affected per disaster 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 3.2a. Population affected in the Pacific islands region, 1950–2008, per disaster. Source: EM-DAT. 26 Acting Today For Tomorrow 500,000 total population affected for year 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 3.2b. Total population affected in the Pacific islands region, 1950–2008, per year. Source: EM-DAT. 4,000 3,500 n high estimate total economic loss, all 15 PICs, 3,000 n low estimate (trended million US$) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00 90 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 e1 pr decade Figure 3.3. Estimated economic losses per decade in the Pacific islands region. Source: World Bank forthcoming. cases) people’s relocation to more hazard-prone peri- urban areas. The number of people affected and the economic losses have been consistently lower for the Enabling Support for Decission last decade. This is an encouraging sign, though the Environment Making decline in cyclone numbers for this period must be at least partly responsible. While such macro analyses are informative, evidence- Mainstreaming based learning is greatest when it considers the effectiveness of specific interventions. The 2006 Policy Note “Not If But When� identified five areas where management of natural hazards in the Pacific needed to be improved (figure 3.4): (1) enabling Review Implementation environment, (2) decision support, (3) mainstreaming, (4) implementation, and (5) monitoring and evaluation (M&E). These areas were used to frame Figure 3.4. Five key components of a framework for an assessment of specific interventions in the past 10 effectively managing disaster and climate risks. years. Each area is extrapolated below. Source: Adapted from World Bank 2006. Effectively managing disaster and climate risks requires a better enabling environment. ground, there must be actions across macroeconomic policy and national development planning, as If there is to be an adequate foundation and support well as institutional and legislative strengthening and for tangible DRR and CCA interventions on the human resources development. 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 27 Disaster response can be hampered by a lack of relief fund and is now considering expanding the immediate liquidity. In order to avoid such difficulties, fund to include DRR and CCA (case study 4). the government of Vanuatu has established a disaster Case Study 4: Establishment of Vanuatu’s Disaster Relief Fund In order to ensure that disaster response would not be hampered by a lack of immediate liquidity, the government of Vanu- atu has established a disaster relief fund and is now considering expanding the fund to include DRR and CCA. Having such capability is logical given Vanuatu’s high ranking in the list of most vulnerable countries, and given the 25 tropical cyclones, 21 volcanic events, 3 severe earthquakes, and 3 damaging gales it has experienced in the past 26 years. Under provisions of the rules and regulations of the Public Finance and Economic Management Act, and specifically the Standing Appropriation for a Declared State of Emergency or a Financial Emergency, Vanuatu operates a VT25 million disaster fund. In addition, up to 1.5 percent of the total national budget can be disbursed to respond to an unforseen emergency. The procedure to obtain funds is straightforward, and involves an initial disaster report that identifies, prioritizes, and costs the essential requirements along with a letter of request to disburse the funds. The Department of Finance and Treasury verifies the documents and expedites payment. Under the procedure, VT20 million was disbursed in 2008 as a result of the tropical cyclone. Disbursements of VT110 million in 2009 in response to several disasters and VT99.1 million in 2011 as a result of a cyclone have also been made. In 2011 disbursements totalling VT63.6 million were made. These covered school fee exemptions. Sources: Cook 2011; and personal communication with A. Arnhambat, budget manager, Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, Vanuatu, 2011. Because of the cross-cutting nature of both disasters resulting in huge inefficiencies in the use of limited and climate change impacts, strong institutions financial and other resources. In most Pacific island are a vital part of a good enabling environment. countries and territories (PICTs), national institutions They can provide the necessary coordination and remain poorly aligned with the growing number ensure that there is both a whole-of-government of policies and action plans that propose a more and whole-of-country approach to DRR and CCA. A community-focused and integrated approach to CCA recent report on an institutional and policy analysis and DRR and that seek to make development efforts of CCA and DRR in the Pacific (UNISDR and UNDP more resilient to climate-related risks. Improved 2011) concluded that few institutions in the Pacific coordination and alignment is now occurring in are capable of providing tangible support to national some countries, including the Cook Islands (see case and local DRR and CCA efforts in the absence of study 5), and the experience of the Caribbean is also donor assistance. Institutional fragmentation is relevant in this regard (case study 6). Case Study 5: Strengthening DRR and CCA Institutions in the Cook Islands A recent decision to prepare a Joint National Action Plan (JNAP) for disaster risk management (DRM) and CCA has gone hand in hand with a series of institutional reforms. The preexisting National Action Plan Advisory Committee and the Na- tional Climate Change Country Team have been merged to form a strengthened Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change National Platform. Until recently, the National Environment Service had taken the lead in climate change–related activities. This was despite the lack of a specific mandate for oversight of government’s climate initiatives, but was consistent with its role as operational focal point for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Repre- sentation at international meetings, such as those under UNFCCC, has been and still is led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration. Recently, many of the climate change roles of the National Environment Service have been transferred to the newly established Climate Change Coordination Unit, which is located in the Office of the Prime Minister, along with the longer-established Emergency Management Unit. These new arrangements are resulting in greater and higher-level coordination of both CCA and DRM. For example, the two units will have oversight responsibilities for implementation of a joint CCA/DRR project in the Pa Enua (outer islands), financed by the Adaptation Fund. Sources: UNDP (2011). 28 Acting Today For Tomorrow Case Study 6: Strengthening the Enabling Environment in the Caribbean In 2009, the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) prepared the Regional Framework for Achieving De- velopment Resilient to Climate Change, which is to be in effect until 2015. The strategic vision driving the regional strategy is to lay the ground for a “regional society and economy that is resilient to a changing climate.� The framework is under- pinned by a series of principles, including recognition that an integrated approach is important in minimizing the use and costs of limited technical, administrative, and financial resources; in reducing any potential conflicts in policy development; and in promoting coordination among all stakeholder groups in hazard risk reduction. The framework envisages that the financing of DRR initiatives will be treated as a development priority within the budgeting process, and that all government entities will advance the goals and objectives of the framework by ensuring that disaster risk reduction is taken into account in the design of development programs and projects. The CCCCC, the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency, and other regional institutions are strategic partners in charting an integrated approach to DRR and CCA. On top of this, the Caribbean has a novel governance mechanism in the form of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Coordination and Harmonisation Council. It provides the overall management and technical guidance needed to ensure that comprehensive disaster management implementation activities within and between countries, as well as across different sectors and disciplines, are coordinated and harmonized. Climate change is recognized as a cross-cutting concern in comprehensive disaster management. In addition, the Caribbean Development Bank’s 2009 Disaster Management Strategy and Operational Guidelines provides an excellent example of regional stakeholder organizations mainstreaming an integrated approach into their operations. The strategy directly references the region’s Enhanced Comprehensive Disaster Management Strategy and Framework. An important theme of the guidelines is harmonized donor interventions. In keeping with this theme, the Caribbean Develop- ment Bank offers proactive assistance for integrated DRM and CCA work. In 2011, the Board of Directors of the Caribbean Development Bank approved a US$470,250 grant to the CCCCC to es- tablish a Project Development Unit. The unit will assist the center in building its capacity to coordinate the effective imple- mentation of the climate change strategy and the associated Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) implementation plan; it will also provide technical support to the member states to assist in implementing appropriate climate change responses. The Caribbean Development Bank project will focus on providing the services to manage the Project Development Unit, preparation of a pipeline of priority climate change adaptation investment projects for member states, and the development of tools and guidance resources. Source: UNISDR and UNDP 2011. The Pacific region has invested heavily in enhancing The ongoing evolution of the certificate program knowledge and skills related to CCA and DRR. is another example of a regional training initiative’s While the longer-term impacts of these efforts are sustainability. The program was developed by, and somewhat reduced by the usual issues, including staff had an initial trial at, the University of Waikato, in retention and mobility, an assessment of the Pacific’s collaboration with the United Nations Institute for first regional climate change project (the Pacific Training and Research. It was then transferred to Islands Climate Change Assistance Programme, the University of the South Pacific (USP) and taught which ran for an initial period of three years, starting initially by a combination of USP and University of in mid-1997) highlighted the sustainability of the Waikato staff. Since first being offered in 1999, the training outcomes (GEF 2001). For example, of the 33 USP program has evolved into the Postgraduate students (from 11 Pacific island countries) who gained Certificate in Climate Change Vulnerability and the Certificate in Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment, an intensive four-month Adaptation Assessment, the vast majority were still program of study with two required courses. These working in their own countries on tasks that utilized can be taken through any USP campus in the their expertise in ways that contributed substantively Pacific, using distance and flexible learning. There to climate change activities. is now another version of the program as well, a Postgraduate Diploma in Climate Change, which 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 29 comprises four courses taken over one year full time emerging response is to use trust funds and other or two years part time. The two required courses financing modalities (see, for example, PIFS 2012) are the same as those for the certificate program. as well as structured financial instruments that Many of the other optional courses are also available reduce vulnerability to disasters and climate change through distance and flexible learning. by spreading remaining risks across countries and sectors. Such instruments must recognize that Scholarships have always been an integral part of substantial CCA and DRR interventions in the Pacific ensuring access to, and the sustainability of, these have high transaction costs. educational initiatives. Currently, USP postgraduate scholarships in climate change are available through The Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and a European Union (EU)–funded project and through Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) is supporting DRR in the Australian Agency for International Development PICTs, in part by providing spatially detailed, state- (AusAID)–funded Future Climate Leaders Project. The of-the-art probabilistic assessments of the risks scholarships are available to citizens of PICTs. associated with tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami, including fiscal risk exposure. PCRAFI There is growing evidence that, while PICTs face high has generated the most comprehensive risk costs for CCA and DRR, most interventions are cost- exposure data set ever collected within the Pacific effective (such as the examples discussed in case Islands, and possibly globally. The data set covers study 2). However, this latter finding is dependent population, buildings (residential, commercial, on assumptions as to how the climate will change, public), infrastructure (e.g., bridges, dams, ports), including the speed of that change. The challenge is and major cash crops (e.g., coconut, banana, taro). to secure funding for investments where there is no PCRAFI results, presented in figure 3.5 and table 3.2, guarantee of significant returns, at least in the near are useful not only in in raising awareness about the term. Pacific island countries are generally unwilling financial consequences of extreme events, but also to use their own financial resources, especially in helping countries and their development partners to fund CCA interventions, preferring instead to to prioritize their DRR investments. PCRAFI’s risk rely on their development assistance partners. An assessment results can potentially support multiple 100 10 80 8 average annual loss (million US$) 6 4 60 2 0 M o a M ok este all ds ds lau Kir e Tu ti lu u u Tim amo ur iba va FS sh an an Ni Pa Na Co r-L ar Isl Isl S 40 20 0 a i u ds a . Tim oa e all ds ds lau ue ti lu u Fij Sts Co Lest ine ng at ur iba va an ar Islan an Ni m Pa nu Na To Tu Gu d. Sa Kir Isl Isl - Va or Fe on ok w ia Ne sh lom es on ua So M p icr Pa M n tropical cyclone n earthquake ground motion n tsunami Figure 3.5. Annual average losses for individual Pacific island countries and territories as a consequence of tropical cyclones, earthquake ground motion, and tsunami. Source: World Bank 2011. Note: The inset graph is a detail of the main graph—that is, it enlarges the scale so that the smaller dollar amounts are clearer. 30 Acting Today For Tomorrow Table 3.2 Risk profiles for Vanuatu (2010) General information Total population 246,000 GDP per capita (US$) 2,960 Total GDP (million US$) 729.0 Asset counts Residential buildings 90,699 Public buildings 3,280 Commercial, industrial, and other buildings 6,767 All buildings 100,746 Hectares of major crops 78,434 Cost of replacing assets (million US$) Buildings 2,858 Infrastructure 420 Crops 25 Total 3,303 Government revenue and expenditure Government revenue (million US$) 173.7 Government revenue (% GDP) 23.8 Government expenditure (million US$) 178.8 Government expenditure (% GDP) 24.5 Source: World Bank 2011. Note: The projected 2010 population was trended from the 2006 census using estimated growth rates provided by SPC. applications for public and private stakeholders; they Confronting uncertainty in decision making is not are relevant for urban and development planning; new or unique to the Pacific’s efforts to reduce building codes; community-based disaster risk vulnerability. The challenge is to reduce the extent management; postdisaster damage assessment; and causes of uncertainty and build on existing property catastrophe insurance market development; expertise, institutions, community networks, and and, sovereign disaster risk financing. infrastructure to implement successful interventions despite an uncertain future. The decision support Effectively managing disaster and climate mechanism developed under the Pacific Adaptation risks requires better decision support. to Climate Change (PACC) Project illustrates how existing expertise may be taken advantage of (case Sound decision making requires access to policy- study 7). It also illustrates the ongoing high demand relevant and end-user-friendly information that for capacity support in the region and the lessons is accurate and localized. It also requires strong that can be drawn from other regions and initiatives. leadership, advocacy, and high levels of awareness for all players, including the public. In contrast to those described in case studies 6 and 8, the Pacific region’s political and technical Decisions and actions to reduce vulnerability in the leadership structures related to climate change Pacific must be taken now, in spite of existing scientific, and disaster risk management are relatively flat, geopolitical, and economic uncertainties. Emphasis rather than hierarchical. While the Pacific Islands should be on “no regrets� interventions Forum Secretariat (PIFS) is the region’s premier and exploitation of synergies (see figure 3.6). political and economic policy organization, SPREP Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should go is often identified as having the regional mandate hand-in-hand with CCA and DRR, but seeking such for climate change initiatives and as the lead synergies should not constrain the Pacific’s access to regional CROP agency on climate change issues in energy, or its economic growth. the Pacific. Moreover, under the Disaster Reduction 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 31 Confronting climate Anticipating impacts Building capacity Addressing drivers change and opportunities for action of vulnerability Increasing likelihood of benefits in absence of climate change Interventions assume Climate change-related Interventions laying the Poverty alleviation and the certainty of climate interventions that may foundation for more other activities to reduce Development change, with serious also result in significant targeted, on-the-ground vulnerability to climate context adverse consequences for development benefits – initiatives – climate data change not considered in the economy, society, and high reliance on climate help identify the most development plans natural systems information vulnerable parts of sectors Pro-poor surcharge for Adaptation Malaria prevention Land use plans include Installing cyclone early- participants in ecotourism example, campaigns for locations coastal setbacks and land warning and shelters for ventures including DRR thought to be at risk for new developments at-risk areas Figure 3.6. Responses to climate change, from development focused (left) to climate change focused (right), with illustrative examples. Source: Adapted from Becken and Hay 2012. Case Study 7: Decision Support under the PACC Project A draft proposal for a PACC Regional Backstopping Facility was prepared in 2007, but was not pursued. Rather, nearly all the PACC countries expressed an initial interest in seeking assistance through the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Capacity Development Platform. A role was also identified for USP’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD), with the aim of bringing the two work programs into closer alignment for the benefit of member countries. PACE-SD has an excellent track record in relation to work on climate change and related issues, includ- ing the development and application of a community-centered approach to vulnerability assessment and adaptation. An interim arrangement was to use an informal group of like-minded officers from the relevant Council of Regional Organisa- tions in the Pacific (CROP) agencies to meet the technical backstopping needs of countries. To quote the PACC annual report for 2009, the first year of operation: “Capacity training and backstopping support for the project in the first year of implementation has been in overdrive due to requests for support to the regional Project Management Unit (PMU) and partners. SPREP [Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program], UNDP [United Na- tions Development Programme], USP PACE, SOPAC [Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission], SPC [Secretariat of the Pacific Community], IISD [International Institute of Sustainable Development], and SEI [Stockholm Environment Unit] have provided support. It is realised that such a support will need to be continued for the next year and beyond due to the fluidity in the situation regarding the case of Coordinators at present.� This statement not only highlights the substantial and criti- cal need countries have for targeted technical assistance, but also suggests that the available support is being provided in ways other than the envisaged “one-stop shop.� In this regard, PACC and the region as a whole could have benefited had the original vision of the Regional Backstopping Facility developed into something analogous to the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. Significantly, the second regional adaptation project in the Caribbean (see case study 6) helped to transform the Regional Project Implementation Unit, originally established under the first adaptation project, into a regional legal climate change entity, the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. Through its role as a center of excellence, the CCCCC coor- dinates the Caribbean region’s response to climate change and helps the people of the Caribbean address the impact of climate variability and change on all aspects of economic development. It provides timely forecasts and analyses of poten- tially hazardous impacts of both natural and man-induced climatic changes on countries and their economic, social, and environmental systems, and it develops special programs that create opportunities for sustainable development. Officially opened in August 2005, the CCCCC is the key node for information on climate change issues and on the region’s response to managing and adapting to climate change in the Caribbean. The official repository and clearinghouse for re- gional climate change data, it provides climate change–related policy advice and guidelines to the CARICOM member states through the CARICOM Secretariat. In this role, the CCCCC is recognized by the UNFCCC, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and other international agencies as the focal point for climate change action in the Caribbean. It has also been recognized by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research as a center of excellence, one of an elite few. continues 32 Acting Today For Tomorrow Case Study 7: (cont.) PACC could also have learned from the experiences of the Pacific Region Support Mechanism (PRSM) for the National Ca- pacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project. The PRSM was established in 2004 to assist the NCSA teams in the 14 eligible PICTs. Founding members of PRSM were SPREP, UNDP, the United Nations University, and Australia’s Department of Environment and Heritage. SPREP coordinated the PRSM activities. Under PRSM three subregional workshops were implemented to help countries with the inception of the NCSA. Participants used a self-assessment methodology, with advice and training provid- ed during two in-country national workshops and through e-mail communications. This assistance and collaboration were reasonably successful, even though the NCSA Project provided no funding to the PRSM and leadership and coordination by the NCSA Project staff were limited. The PRSM not only increased the immediate impact of the NCSA outreach activities in the region, but also helped the region maintain technical support capacity. Source: Hay 2009b. Programme of SPC/SOPAC, the SPC has the regional In recent years, the PIFS has played a role that mandate to support and strengthen disaster risk increasingly links climate change with economic and management in the region. In 2010 the inaugural social development in the region. It has developed CROP Executives Subcommittee Meeting for Climate advice on how forum member countries can access Change Coordination was convened. It resulted in and oversee financial resources for managing climate an agreement by all CROP agencies to renew efforts change, and it has recently been strengthened to to work together to address regional climate change improve its ability to perform these tasks. However, issues and support country efforts to address the its leadership, coordination, and advocacy roles are impact of climate change. The subcommittee met inadequate for ensuring improved support from again in November 2011. regional organizations and more effective responses by countries. Based on the findings of an institutional The overarching policy guidance for SPREP’s climate and policy analysis of DRR and CCA in Pacific island change program is the Pacific Islands Framework countries, UNISDR and UNDP (2011) looked to the for Action on Climate Change (2005–2015), while Caribbean to see if approaches there held some the Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster merit for the Pacific. The example of the CARICOM Management Framework for Action 2005–2015 Secretariat (case study 8) suggests what the Pacific guides the region’s disaster risk management efforts and the SPC/SOPAC’s Disaster Reduction region needs if it is to have the required capacity at Programme. Both regional frameworks were regional level to address climate change challenges approved by Pacific leaders in 2005 and were successfully. reflected in the Pacific Plan as key priorities under There are some encouraging developments now the Kalibobo Roadmap. underway in the Pacific regarding pursuit of There are two notable consequences of the relatively integrated approaches to DRR and CCA. A recent flat leadership structure described above. First, with initiative is the joint Roadmap towards a Post respect to a holistic response to climate change, 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk including increased disaster risk and its links with Management and Climate Change Adaptation and development, no one organization has a clear Mitigation. The document, endorsed at the 2011 leadership role. The result is frequent confusion over Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management, roles and responsibilities and hence inefficiencies outlines the steps to preparing an integrated regional at both regional and country levels. Second, the strategy for disaster risk management and climate current regional institutional arrangements hamper change adaptation and mitigation. Endorsement of an integrated approach to CCA and DRR. This is in this document is consistent with the efforts of many contrast to the more harmonized approaches either PICTs, and intentions expressed at some regional and long established or recently adopted in some other global forums, to integrate DRM and climate change countries (UNISDR and UNDP 2011). response efforts at national and subnational levels. 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 33 Case Study 8: The CARICOM Secretariat as an Exemplar of Regional Leadership, Advocacy, and Action for Climate Change The Caribbean Community and Common Market was established under a treaty signed in 1973 by the sovereign countries of Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago. Subsequently the eight Caribbean territories have also joined CARICOM. The CARICOM Secretariat is the principal administrative organ of the community. Its mission is to provide dy- namic leadership and service in partnership with community institutions and groups, with the goal of a viable, internation- ally competitive, and sustainable community and with improved quality of life for all. The main functions of the Secretariat include the following: ■■ Initiate or develop proposals for consideration and decision by the relevant CARICOM organs. ■■ Initiate, organize, and conduct studies. ■■ On request, provide services to member states on community-related matters. ■■ Collect, store, and disseminate relevant information to member states. ■■ Assist CARICOM organizations in developing and implementing proposals and programs. ■■ Mobilize resources from donor agencies to assist in implementing CARICOM programs. In 1994, Barbados hosted the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. The resulting Barbados Programme of Action focused on sustainable development through adaptation to climate change im- pacts. Soon after, the Organization of American States and CARICOM jointly organized a series of national and regional workshops to facilitate maximum stakeholder consultation on climate change issues. The result was a proposal for the Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change project. This major initiative ran from 1997 to 2001, overseen by an advisory committee chaired by CARICOM. Three major regional adaptation projects have followed: Adapting to Cli- mate Change in the Caribbean, Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change, and Regional Monitoring and Evaluation System for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in the Caribbean Tourism Sector. The names of the projects are themselves indicative of a rapid maturation in regional responses to climate change under the guidance of the CARICOM Secretariat, and they highlight how the Secretariat balances political and technical leadership roles. Source: Adaptation Partnership 2011 At a national level, for instance, Tonga recently Several NGOs and communities have also taken prepared the Joint National Action Plan on Climate substantial steps toward a more integrated approach Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management. to planning and implementing CCA and DRR Funding came from the Global Environment Facility (see case study 9). Gero, Méheux, and Dominey- (GEF) through the United Nations Development Howes (2011) evaluated several community-based Programme; from the African, Caribbean, and Pacific integrated DRR and CCA initiatives in Fiji and Group of States–European Union Natural Disaster Samoa and identified donor requirements, partner Facility through SOPAC; and from SPREP. A joint organizations, and underlying policy frameworks as team from SOPAC and SPREP provided training, barriers to an integrated approach to implementing facilitation, and technical assistance throughout the DRR and CCA at this level. They also highlighted process of developing the plan. Similar multiagency the benefits of such an integrated approach, assistance has been provided to other countries, including reduced duplication of effort, enhanced including the Marshall Islands, the Cook Islands, aid effectiveness, sharing of relevant experience and Tuvalu, the Federated States of Micronesia, and lessons learned, and delivery of well-targeted and Vanuatu, many of which have completed, or are more holistic assistance that is easier to align with close to completing, JNAPs. Through its regional the management of health, nutrition, and disease implementation of the GEF-funded Community- risks as well as responses to other livelihood issues. Based Adaptation Programme, a global initiative, Facilitating a dialogue between DRR and CCA as well as its own Community-Centred Sustainable practitioners also serves to initiate, develop, and Development Programme, UNDP is also taking a sustain the good relationships that are becoming a multiagency approach to implementing DRR and crucial part of the institutional architecture in the CCA at the community level. Pacific. 34 Acting Today For Tomorrow Case Study 9: Examples of Community-Based CCA/DRR Initiatives The following are among the community-based initiatives that integrate DRR and CCA: WWF Coastal Resilience–Climate Witness Toolkit ■■ Raises awareness of climate change impacts and appropriate community-scale adaptation measures by linking local indigenous knowledge to scientific knowledge as an entry point ■■ Adapts methods from participatory techniques developed by WWF South Pacific in community conservation and natural resource–management projects ■■ Has been used to improve community coastal mangrove ecosystem management in Fiji Source: WWF South Pacific Programme 2009. UNDP/SGP [Small Grants Program] Samoa Community-Based Adaptation ■■ Integrates community-focused climate change education and awareness and on-the-ground implementation of coastal protection measures ■■ Links information and expertise from local, national, regional, and global actors and stakeholders ■■ Piloted activities for shoreline protection in Fasitootai Village Source: UNDP, n.d. Solomon Islands Red Cross Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment ■■ Involves communities in addressing their vulnerability by helping people to identify, prioritize, and implement risk reduction actions ■■ Through participatory techniques, helps communities to understand the implications of climate change for disaster risks that they face and to identify adaptation options ■■ Applies this approach through the Community-Identified Climate Adaptation in Temotu project on Pileni Island as part of the Preparedness for Climate Change Programme linking National Societies to climate change–related stakeholders in the Solomon Islands Source: Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre 2011. USP Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Communities ■■ Uses a participatory methodology that bases climate change adaptation in the broader framework of sustainable development ■■ Approaches CCA through a DRR lens: critical problems related to climate extremes at the community scale are addressed first, before scientific knowledge is applied to add a specific climate risk element ■■ Has piloted this approach during phase 1 of the project in the water and coastal management sectors in six communities in rural Fiji; will apply the same approach in six other communities in Fiji during phase 2 Source: Aalbersberg et al. 2010. Effectively managing disaster and climate This conception means that a broad range of risks requires further mainstreaming of DRR stakeholders and players must cooperate and and CCA in development. coordinate their activities in order to effectively reduce climate and wider disaster risks to sustainable Two regional frameworks, the Pacific Islands development at national and subnational levels. Framework for Action on Climate Change 2005– Both frameworks therefore include strategies designed to mainstream climate change and natural 2015 (PIFACC) and the Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction hazard risk management into national planning and and Disaster Management Framework for Action budgeting processes, as well as to improve sector- 2005–2015 (RFA), consider management of natural and community-level planning and decision making hazards as a cross-cutting issue, and specifically as a to ensure that responses to climate and other risks cross-sectoral development issue. are systematic and coordinated. 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 35 While mainstreaming is a complex and broad-ranging indicates that many individuals working on climate undertaking, a recent assessment (UNISDR and UNDP change adaptation at the technical level are not 2011) reports considerable progress in this area, sure what procedures and activities to undertake especially in relation to implementing DRM National when mainstreaming CCA. To date the approach to Action Plans (NAPs). While NAPs are an important tool mainstreaming has lacked consistency, due in part to for promoting mainstreaming, the mainstreaming the absence of a clear and practical methodology. process itself should lead to management of natural Most CCA mainstreaming efforts have focused on hazards being incorporated in subnational and sector/ the national planning level, with very little attention agency action plans—right down to the community given to subnational levels or to sectors. This situation level—in an integrated manner (Pacific Disaster Risk has arisen despite the guidance on incorporating Management Partnership Network 2009). CCA into development offered by SPREP’s 2000 report (Campbell 2000). Thus a substantial number of national planning instruments, including national development In preparing a mainstreaming methodology and strategies and relevant sector policies and plans, now associated tools under the PACC Project, King acknowledge the need to consider DRR as integral (2010) found the strategies and mainstreaming steps to development planning and implementation. recommended in the SPREP report to be sound. On the other hand, inclusion of DRR in national It could be argued that the 2000 guidelines had budgetary processes remains very limited. In many limited uptake, and hence impact, because of their countries, there are well-developed policies and top-down approach—they targeted policymakers plans related to implementing DRR at the local and development planners. At the time, climate (provincial, community) level; this situation has come change was perceived as an environmental rather about principally through national legislation and than development issue, and few government DRM action plans. But generally there is only limited officials responsible for preparing and implementing extension of DRR planning into relevant sectors. development policies and plans would have been committed to the mainstreaming process and The situation regarding CCA is somewhat different. outcomes. It might have been more appropriate to Formal and anecdotal evidence (see Nakalevu 2010) target individuals with more expertise and experience DRM National Action Plan Provisional Indicative Implementation Programme (PIP) Vanuatu (NAP+PIP); Marshall Islands (NAP+PIP), Papua New Guinea NAP + National Adaptation Plan of Action Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu NAPA Joint DRM/CC National Action Plan Providional Indicative Implementation Programme (PIP) Tonga, Cook Islands (JNAP + PIP), Niue, Micronesi Fed. Sts., Fiji, Tuvalu, JNAP and Marshall Islands (to commence) Policies and Plans for DRM, CCA and Development RFA, PIFACC, Pacific Plan Regional Figure 3.7. National and regional DRM and CCA policy and planning instruments developed in the Pacific region since 2005. Source: Authors 36 Acting Today For Tomorrow in climate change adaptation. However, there were few such people working in PICTs in the early 2000s. Since then, new mainstreaming guidelines CCA 19 commissioned by PACC have been completed. There are now more individuals undertaking CCA in PICTs; DRR they are armed with greater technical knowledge 51 DRR/CCA than in the past, and have more motivation and 25 formal responsibility to ensure success of the mainstreaming efforts. King notes that the main value added by the Figure 3.8. Number of regional DRR, CCA, and DRR/CCA new guidance is to introduce a variety of tools initiatives implemented in the Pacific islands region, and approaches elaborated or developed since 1991–2010. The total number of initiatives is 95. 2000. Rather than presenting a voluminous compendium of information, he provides an overall Source: UNISDR 2011. framework while pointing the reader to online and other resources. For readers with slow internet connections, provisions have been made under One impediment to effective implementation of risk the PACC Project to provide resources on a CD- reduction measures is that DRR and CCA remain ROM. Unfortunately, the decision to focus on an largely project oriented, with little sustainable “overall framework� results in guidance material or strategic integration into development. The that is overly generic and that fails to address the quantity and quality of DRR and CCA implementation specifics of mainstreaming in a Pacific context. It has significantly increased since the “Not If But When� also fails to support, in a meaningful and practical Policy Note was published in 2006. The mid-term way, the more recent moves toward an integrated review of implementation of the PIFACC (Hay 2009b) approach to CCA and DRR. Global guidance, such found that a lack of formal monitoring and reporting as that provided by Llosa and Zodrow (2011) and procedures made it difficult to judge its overall Harris and Bahadur (2011), could add increase impact. The available evidence suggests, however, the learning from initiatives in the Pacific, such that the PIFACC has been far less influential than it as the Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management ought to have been, mainly because its approach has and Adaptation to Climate Change into National been predominately project based. Development Planning project currently being implemented by UNDP in selected PICTs. A country self-assessment of the progress since 2005 in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action Effectively managing disaster and climate (HFA)—a framework closely aligned to the RFA— risks requires more effective implementation found that Priority 4 (“reduce the underlying risk of risk reduction measures. factors�) achieved the lowest average score of all the priorities. This is despite concerted efforts and A 2011 stock-take of multicountry DRR and CCA committed investments aimed at linking DRR and initiatives by the United Nations International CCA. Most of these initiatives are still in their early Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Asia-Pacific stages. Of the six PICTs included in the assessment, all revealed that the Pacific region had 95 DRR, CCA, achieved the median rating (institutional commitment and integrated DRR/CCA projects and programs, attained). However, achievements do not appear to 85 percent of which had first been implemented in have been substantial (figure 3.9). 2006 (figure 3.8).1 Since 2006, considerable experience has been gained regarding how to effectively implement risk reduction measures. The Kiribati Adaptation Program (KAP) is one of the longest-running integrated programs in the region, and one from which many lessons have 1 “Multicountry� initiatives had to involve at least two countries. The been learned (case study 10). number of initiatives would likely have been significantly higher if single-country projects had been included. The screening process may also have excluded community-based projects undertaken by Other initiatives are also generating important civil society or local actors (UNISDR 2011). experience in the Pacific. These include the use 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 37 Minor progress with few signs of 1. Timor-Leste 7% forward action in plans of policy 2. Vanuatu 1. Brunei Darussalam 5. Nepal Some progress, but without 2. Marshall Islands 6. Samoa 26% systematic policy and/or institutional 3. Mongolia 7. Solomon Islands commitment 4. Myanmar 1. Bangladesh 7. Paksitan 2. Bhutan 8. Lao PDR Institutional commitment attained, 3. Cook Islands 9. Philippines 45% but achievements are neither 4. Fiji 10. Sri Lanka comprehensive nor substantial 5. India 11. Thailand 6. Maldives 12. Vietnam Substantial achievement attained 1. Australia 4. Japan 22% but with recognized limitations in 2. China 5. Malaysia capacities and resources 3. Indonesia 6. New Zealand Comprehensive achievement 0% with sustained commitment and None capacities at all levels Figure 3.9. Summary of progress toward HFA Priority 4 (“reduce the underlying risk factors�) in the Asia-Pacific region since 2005. Although there have been concerted efforts and committed investments aimed at linking DRR with CCA, most of these are still in early stages. Source: UNISDR 2011. Case Study 10: The Kiribati Adaptation Program KAP is a three-stage program with the following objectives: ■■ KAP I: Preparation (2003–2005/2006)—mainstreaming adaptation into national planning ■■ KAP II: Pilot implementation (2006–2011)—implementing pilot adaptation measures in coastal protection and water resources management ■■ KAP III: Expansion (2011–2015)—scaling up best practices and successful investments from phases I and II Many lessons were learned from the recently completed KAP II, including these: Photo: Carlo Iacovino ■■ A focused project design, targeting a few sectors and involving select implementing agencies, is required where countries have limited project management capacity. ■■ Commitment to climate change adaptation at a high level of government is integral to project success. ■■ Targeted technical capacity building in sector ministries has sustainable outcomes past the life of the project itself. ■■ Thorough community consultation and engagement is fundamental to the success of technical interventions. Capacity building in this regard may be required where implementing agencies do not have a strong history of participatory development. ■■ Monitoring and evaluation frameworks and processes need to be straightforward and integrated with existing indicators in sector ministries, where possible. Source: Authors. 38 Acting Today For Tomorrow of physical planning to reduce the vulnerability Effectively managing disaster and climate risks of coastal communities in Samoa (case study 11); requires better monitoring and evaluation. an initiative to improve the resilience of school buildings in Nauru, which has provided important There has recently been considerable activity, lessons in climate-proofing of infrastructure (case both internationally (e.g., Villanueva 2011) and study 12); and the efforts of SPC to align policies regionally (e.g., SPREP 2011), to address the region’s and plans in agriculture and rural development, shortcomings in monitoring and evaluating DRR and which offers lessons for alignment of DRR and CCA CCA interventions. Currently the M&E conducted (case study 13). under the Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Case Study 11: Land Use Planning to Reduce Disaster- and Climate-Related Risks in Samoa Samoa has led the Pacific in the use of physical planning to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities and infra- structure to natural hazards. This effort has taken place within the wider context of development planning, including land use planning and disaster risk reduction. The initiatives had their origin in a project (the Samoa Infrastructure and Asset Management, or SIAM, project, funded by the World Bank) designed to ensure that Samoa’s transport and coastal infra- structure assets were economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable and managed by an effective partnership of all stakeholders. Preparation of a Coastal Infrastructure Management (CIM) Strategy was an important first step. This was undertaken in 2000, as part of the development of a national-level policy for the management of coastal infrastructure and local imple- mentation plans. The strategy recognizes that, for all communities, agencies, and other stakeholders to be resilient, they must be adaptive, responsive, and quick to recover. The strategy approaches the management and use of land and other resources through a partnership between government and villages, while also highlighting the importance of education, awareness, monitoring, and evaluation. Since its adoption by the cabinet in 2001, the strategy has become well entrenched in a wide range of planning and management frame- works. It is now a foundation document for most of the agencies and stakeholders active in coastal management in Samoa. Consistent with the strategy, by 2007 all 41 districts of Samoa, covering 283 villages, had prepared CIM Plans. Over 7,000 people were directly consulted in order to reach an agreement between the government and communities on how to address coastal erosion, flooding, and landslides. The CIM Plans are not statutory instruments. However, each plan was formally signed by village representatives and by both the chief executive officer and the minister of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, signifying the government’s commitment to the plans. The plans themselves include both “hard� and “soft� interventions, with the former being dominant. For example, of the 1,720 interventions to be under- taken at the village level, 280 involve replanting and riparian management. All interventions combine science, technology, and local knowledge. A further instance of innovation was the updating of the National CIM Strategy in 2011. This came as part of renewed efforts to implement the CIM Plans in light of growing concerns about risks to coastal communities and infrastructure. The strategy now ensures a whole-of-catchment approach. In the small-island context relevant to Samoa, this is usually described as a “ridge-to-reef� approach and is now recognized as being fundamental to integrated resource and hazard management in Samoa. Importantly, the updated strategy now considers the full range of hazards for communities and infrastructure in order to address such issues as inland flooding and watershed management, particularly in light of their effect on village safety, water quality, and coastal infrastructure. The updated strategy also provides a clear link between land use policy and planning, emergency management, and hazard reduction. There has been a delay in implementing the plans in a comprehensive manner, principally due to a lack of funding; village level physical works alone were recently costed at over US$ 16 million. Recently, the UNDP-supported Sustainable Com- munity Development Programme has been piloting CIM Plan implementation in 4 of the 41 districts. Within the context of the CIM Plans, the program has prepared more detailed and comprehensive Sustainable Village Development Plans for 25 villages. Projects financed under the Pilot Programme Climate Resilience (PPCR) and the Adaptation Fund were approved in 2011. These will implement revised CIM Plans in 16 and 25 districts, respectively, thereby achieving a whole-of-country approach. The revised CIM Plans will be implemented in conjunction with other related planning frameworks, such as Sus- tainable Management Plans and Village Disaster Risk Management Plans. Sources: Daly et al. 2010; Hay and Wedderburn 2011. 3.2 Lessons of the Last Decade 39 Case Study 12: Climate-Proofing Infrastructure An excellent example of the success in climate-proofing infrastructure is the reconstruction and refurbishment of school buildings in Nauru. Between 2007 and 2010, four of the Nauru Secondary School’s double�story teaching blocks were to- tally reconstructed, and three of its existing buildings were refurbished (AusAID 2010). This was the largest infrastructure project in Nauru in 18 years. During the peer review of the proposed infrastructure works, the need to account for climate change in the project’s design was identified. Climate change was considered along with other key cross�cutting issues, such as gender and access for the disabled. Subsequently, climate-related risks and concerns were assessed as part of an environmental impact assessment undertaken to inform project design. A climate change risk matrix was also included in the environmental management plan for the project. As a result of these initiatives, the final design for the buildings included measures to reduce their vulnerability to projected changes in climate as well as natural disasters. The design also included measures to ensure the works and buildings would not adversely affect the local environment. Windows were selected to resist winds of a category 4 cyclone, external wall structures were reinforced through block work, building materials were chosen to withstand changes in solar radiation, and low�energy lights and fans were installed. Case Study 13: Improving Alignment and Coordination of Policies, Plans, and Actions There is a need for increased coherence between regional and national policy frameworks, institutions, resourcing, and implementation of DRR, CCA, and socioeconomic development. The agricultural and rural development policies cascading from the Pacific Plan, directly and indirectly, to the national level offer a lesson in how this coherence might be achieved. The Pacific Plan encourages every PICT to formulate a National Sustainable Development Strategy where this or an equiva- lent instrument does not yet exist. Agricultural and rural development policies are incorporated into the strategy. The PIFS was mandated to assist with this task through such means as technical assistance. This National Sustainable Development Strategy, or its equivalent, provides a direct link from the Pacific Plan to the national governments. The indirect link with the Pacific Plan is through SPC, which is then linked to both the national and subnational levels through the bilateral Joint Country Strategy (JCS). The JCS discusses in detail the national and subnational projects that both parties have agreed to implement. Agreement by both parties is supported by relevant policies and resources. The latter can be national resources and those from development partners and donors. The relevant policies include those that have been mainstreamed into the national plans on the basis of mandates from forum leaders. Since the regional mandate for food security initiatives rests with SPC, risks to food security resulting from climate change are already incorporated into the JCS. Implementation is facilitated as SPC directs its substantial resources and expertise, and utilizes its bilateral and global partnerships. Stakeholders at the national and subnational levels benefit substantially from this arrangement. DRR and CCA can be built into this existing mechanism, allowing a more structured and coordinated approach. The mecha- nism can be further strengthened if, through existing collaborative arrangements, SPREP is made a trilateral partner in the JCS (with SPC and the relevant country the other partners). SPREP may need to supplement its substantial intellectual resources and to strengthen its technical assistance capabilities in order to contribute effectively in the collective delivery of services to the national and subnational stakeholders. With this additional capacity in place, the SPREP Council can direct DRR and CCA support to national governments, with SPREP facilitation. SPREP can then use its partnership with SPC to engage with countries needing such assistance. Forum leaders and the SPREP Council, in an integrated manner with SPC climate change programs, will be able to monitor and assess performance in DRR and CCA, including through the mechanism of the Pacific Plan annual progress reports. Source: Personal communication with K. Tavola, independent consultant, Fiji, 2011. continues 40 Acting Today For Tomorrow Management Framework for Action (SOPAC 2009) in the adaptation policy framework developed by leads the region in assessing the extent of activities UNDP. The VRA is itself based on a similar approach, related to DRR and CCA. But even these efforts the Threat Reduction Assessment methodology, that focus on M&E of inputs and outputs, rather is commonly used in biodiversity projects. than outcomes and longer-term impacts. VRA was used to assess the success of initiatives in 11 Given the importance of community-based DRR villages in Samoa. Six of 11 villages decreased their and CCA for the region, the results of some village- VRA scores in one year, indicating a decline in their level interventions in Samoa are significant—not vulnerability. This decline was largely achieved by an only in the reductions in vulnerability they achieved, increase in adaptive capacity. Repeated application but also in their use of the Vulnerability Reduction of VRA in the 11 interventions showed where and Assessment (VRA) tool (Droesch et al. 2008) to gauge why some interventions were successful and others effectiveness. The VRA methodology is based on key were not, leading to lessons learned (Petrini 2010). steps for designing adaptation projects, as laid out Photo: Olivia Warrick 3.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers 41 3.3 The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers There are myriad challenges confronting successful implementation of DRR and CCA. These challenges have been recounted in recent publications, reports, reviews, and assessments covering the period from 2006 to the present day. A first-order inventory of the challenges identified in the relevant literature shows that, to varying extents, all of the challenges impede the effective integration of DRR, CCA, and development. Some challenges are strategic in nature while others are operational. Together they can be classified into three broad categories that identify one of the following needs: ■■ 1. Grounding of risk considerations in development, to facilitate integration of DRR and CCA, and integration of DRR/CCA in development, in order to achieve resilient development and livelihoods. ■■ 2. Robust and effective political authority, leadership, and accountability to underpin effective implementation and sustain outcomes. ■■ 3. Strong coordination and partnerships, to ensure cooperation and collaboration, at all levels and between all actors and stakeholders, and to facilitate appropriate data sharing, communication, and decision making. In the 16 relevant studies that were reviewed (listed in appendix 5 in an order corresponding to table 3.3), many of the same challenges and themes recur, across scales and levels and within the three broad areas outlined above. Table 3.3 summarizes the findings. Table 3.3. Summary of literature review on DRR/CCA needs and challenges in PICTs and the region. References Category Challenges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 No incentive to reduce risks as long as donors respond generously to disasters irrespective of prevention X X X 1 culture Prevention measures may not be visible for many years and may compete with other priorities (short-term X X X X 1 domestic, etc.) dictated by others; few rewards for early action and proaction Donors face strong pressure to respond rapidly to disasters, and have to mobilize funds outside normal X X 1 budgets (Good Samaritan’s Dilemma) DRR and CCA have not been adequately mainstreamed (or factored) into national planning and processes X X X X X X X X X X 1 (or into public investment planning); risk of “mainstreaming fatigue� Risk management efforts undermined by virtue of their location in junior/weak ministries with limited X X X X 1 authority/influence Lack of intragovernment coordination and information sharing related to DRR and CCA issues (both whole of X X X X X 3 government and whole of country)—e.g., drought risk Lack of sound national enabling environment encouraging risk reduction and adaptation behavior X X X X X X 1 (limited cooperation between development/DRR/CCA) Lack of awareness (of regional and national DRR and CCA policies and plans) has implications for behavior X X X X X X X 3 change, implementation, and enforcement continues 42 Acting Today For Tomorrow Table 3.3. (cont.) References Category Challenges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Inadequate budgetary provisions and implementation for DRR policies and plans wherein “words are in place but there is a lag in action� (additional resources for DRR and CCA should be used to strengthen risk X X X X X 2 governance capacities and could leverage further resources for CCA to address underlying risk drivers and residual risks) Sustaining public awareness, particularly of low- frequency disasters such as earthquakes, and expanding X 3 awareness beyond high-risk areas Inadequate support for risk reduction tools, legal and technical instruments, and compilation of best practices and lessons learned (especially in relation X X X 3 to mainstreaming DRR/CCA into national and sector policies, plans, and processes and including DRR/CCA in regulations and codes) Inadequate exposure of national risk experts to external X 2 practice Mandates for DRR and CCA coordination in separate institutions, with DRR tending to be humanitarian led X X X X X X 1 and CCA environment led Inadequate integration of existing policy and strategy frameworks such as NAPs, NAPAs, and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, with National Sustainable X X X X X X X 1 Development Strategies, plans, and regional frameworks Limited coordination and collaboration between DRR and CCA institutions—possible duplication and lost X X X X X X 3 opportunities for synergies (at international, regional, and national levels) Investing institutional and administrative responsibility for DRR and CCA at the highest possible level in government for necessary political authority, resources X X X X X X X X X 1 to influence development policy and plans, and available risk management options Many DRR and CCA actors (governments, communities, donors, development partners) require “very significant� levels of coordination and collaboration X X X X X X X X X X X 3 to ensure appropriate, cost-effective (soft and physical investment) activities and sustainable outcomes Shifting the emphasis from disaster preparedness and response to risk reduction and development, which requires effective integration of disaster risk X X X X X X X X X 1 considerations into development policies, planning, and programming at all levels Shifting the emphasis from “project� funding (reactive and short term) to “program� funding (proactive, X X X X 2 innovative, lasting)—i.e., scaling-up Shifting the emphasis from mandate-driven outputs to development-driven outcomes to achieve greater X X X X X X 1 harmonization, coordination, and cooperation Shifting the emphasis of social protection from ex post to ex ante mechanisms in order to more effectively X X X X 1 target the most vulnerable groups Lack of a coordinated strategy for capacity building; connection between DRR and CCA in capacity-building X X X X X X X X 3 activities; sustainable capacity building; behavioral change at all levels Bridging between levels (regional->national->local- >community and the private sector); need for improved coordination and better relationships (top-down flows X X X X X X X 3 of resources for implementation have had little to no impact where most risk occurs and is felt most) 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 43 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development The many challenges involved in successfully implementing CCA and DRR—as well as the opportunities to improve their effectiveness regionally, nationally, and at the community level—have been discussed above. The following list describes important elements needed for progress toward resilient development: ■■ Prerequisites to progress include a strong enabling environment for DRR and CCA, with predictable resource allocations. ■■ Progress depends on the right process: DRR and CCA should be integrated into development policy, planning, and implementation, using a programmatic approach wherever possible and appropriate. ■■ The approach should be proactive, with an emphasis on risk reduction (i.e., prevention) rather than reactive responses. ■■ The approach needs to be present oriented—focused on managing current risks and sources of vulnerability—as the best preparation for building resilience to future pressures. ■■ The approach must be practical, delivering tangible improvements in resilience rather than stopping at policymaking, planning, and capacity building. ■■ The approach requires setting priorities, recognizing that resource limitations do not allow all risks to be managed. ■■ The approach must invite participation, involving all stakeholders in a meaningful manner, as early in the process as good practice suggests. ■■ Partnerships are key: progress requires whole-of-community, whole-of-government, and whole-of-country approaches that include civil society and the private sector, and that foster effective regional cooperation and coordination. ■■ Political leadership is key: high-level advocacy and leadership are critical to success, whether the context is the village, the country, or the region. ■■ Assessing performance is key: it provides opportunities to learn, build knowledge, and scale up successful interventions and modify those that are underperforming. Of these 10 elements, four that are especially important are further elaborated below. 44 Acting Today For Tomorrow Prerequisites development cycle or process can be identified and taken advantage of. An important dimension of the enabling environment is ensuring that financial resource allocations are A move to performance-based budget preparation is targeted, well timed, and predictable. Performance normally associated with a parallel reform in budget budgeting is now encouraging greater efficiency, execution, and spending ministries now have more accountability, and transparency. Budget appropriations freedom in how they use budget funds to meet their to spending ministries no longer comprise separate assigned levels of output, while still maintaining high budget lines for numerous different classes of inputs, levels of accountability for spending taxpayer money. such as stationery supplies or fuel for vehicles; instead, financial resources are allocated for outputs and sub- Two examples (case study 14 and case study 15) outputs. When appropriations are made by output, illustrate the importance of a robust mechanism for each ministry identifies and publishes performance funding DRR and CCA, one involving the national indicators and targets as part of the approved estimates. level and one involving an international mechanism for Opportunities to incorporate national environmental resource mobilization. Another example (case study 16) concerns, including climate change considerations, into outlines a mechanism for integrating climate finance these main components of the economic planning and into national policy, planning, and budgetary processes. Case Study 14: Targeted and Predictable Funding for CCA and DRR Initiatives in Samoa Funding levels for climate change and related initiatives, including DRR, in Samoa have escalated from US$0.8 million in 2008–2009, to US$2.4 million in 2009–2010, to US$2.75 million in 2010–2011, to US$26.0 million in 2011–2012. Development expenditure in Samoa is almost exclusively donor funded. Rather than being linked to specific outputs, such expenditure is recorded solely by project. Two recent initiatives are being undertaken to help increase the predictability of this donor funding. First, Samoa is working with some donors to implement direct budget support. For example, in the future the EU will be providing 85 percent of its assistance in the form of sector budget support. Second, Samoa has initi- ated the process of establishing a National Climate Change Adaptation Trust Fund, which will harmonize the management and use of the funds received from diverse sources while also ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of the assistance provided by development and other partners. Source: Government of Samoa 2011 Case Study 15: GFDRR Support for DRR and CCA in the Pacific The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), established in 2006 by major donors, the UN, and the World Bank, is a partnership with a mission to mainstream DRR and CCA in country development strategies by supporting a country-led and -managed implementation of the HFA. GFDRR has three main business lines to achieve its development objectives at the global, regional, and country levels: ■■ Track I: Global and Regional Partnerships ■■ Track II: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Development ■■ Track III: Standby Recovery Financing Facility for Accelerated Disaster Recovery GFDRR continues to evolve as an integral part of the emerging global CCA financing system. It now provides a global hu- manitarian grant-financing mechanism for DRR and CCA, one that is a stable and efficient, and that has active field pres- ence and unique operational capabilities to strategically mobilize and allocate expert and financial resources in real time. Since its inception, GFDRR’s country work has consistently, and successfully, taken an integrated climate risk management approach, fostering DRR and CCA links at the country level, within the World Bank, and with external partners. This success has been achieved by strategically leveraging just-in-time seed funding, targeted investments, and global expertise. The focus areas of GFDRR’s work program for DRR/CCA are as follows: 1. Upstream integration of climate risk management in assistance strategies and national development plans, investment programs, and postdisaster recovery 2. Capacity building for weather and climate services, including improving National Hydro-Meteorological Services and early warning systems, which are critical for core CCA and DRR analysis and planning 3. Multihazard vulnerability and risk assessment and probabilistic economic modeling 4. Innovative climate and disaster risk financing and transfer continues 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 45 Case Study 15: (cont.) In partnership with SOPAC, GFDRR contributed to the production of a disaster and climate variability regional stock-take report in the Pacific, as well as DRR assessment reports in seven countries in the region: Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu (World Bank 2009a, 2009b). The detailed country as- sessments helped identify major gaps in countries’ preparedness for DRR/CCA and opportunities for investment. The project contributed to the merging of DRR and CCA agendas under a single institution in some countries, such as Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. GFDRR also supports the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Financing Initiative. The GFDRR stock-take noted the decline of hydrological networks and hence in the quality of available data in the region. The stock-take also found that the baseline hazard and risk information in the Pacific is too rudimentary to derive the flood risk assessments necessary to underpin meaningful flood management strategies. In response, GFDRR is funding the Inte- grated Flood Management in the Pacific–Nadi Flood Pilot. It will strengthen the capacity of the Fiji Meteorological Service in flood forecasting and warning, review the existing hydrological data for flood modeling in Nadi, and provide strategic guidance for more efficient services. These urgent needs were identified during the 2009 postflood assessment. The objec- tive of the project is to pilot an integrated flood management approach based on a sound scientific flood risk assessment in the Nadi basin as a measure to reduce disaster risk that can be replicated in other watersheds in Fiji, as well as in other Pacific countries. Project activities include acquisition of the necessary baseline data and development of a state-of-the-art flood inundation model for the greater Nadi area, from which flood hazard and flood risk maps will be produced. These will inform the identification of effective flood mitigation measures and contribute to knowledge urgently required to underpin the Nadi Basin Flood Management Plan. This knowledge will be disseminated though national and regional workshops. The project budget includes US$860,000 from GFDRR, plus cofinancing of US$569,000. While the project is designed to achieve results independently of inputs from other projects, its major strength lies in its being closely implemented with two other regional initiatives: the GEF-funded Pacific Integrated Water Resource Manage- ment project and the EU-funded Pacific Hydrological Cycle Observing System project. This synergy strengthens the project contribution to the overarching development goal of reducing flood losses in Fiji and in the Pacific region. Source: Authors. Case Study 16: Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review: A Key Tool New and additional international finance is becoming available to assist countries’ efforts to respond to climate change and disaster risk. It is important to ensure that these financial flows are integrated into national policy, planning, and budget- ary processes. The challenge is to secure a comprehensive, cross-government approach that delivers a coherent national response to climate change, involving both the public and private sectors. Such an approach has been termed a climate fiscal framework. A first step in developing a climate fiscal framework is to assess how climate change–related expenditures are integrated into national budgetary processes. This assessment is called a Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR). Similar types of analyses are already well established, including other forms of public expenditure and institutional reviews. These reviews typically address (1) the macroeconomic context; (2) budget planning and execution; (3) the institutional framework; and (4) the issue of fiscal decentralization. The CPEIR analysis must be set within the context of the national policy and institutional arrangements that exist to man- age the response to climate change and disaster risk. Such an analysis needs to take account of three key spheres: policy development, institutional structures, and financial management. These three key elements provide an essential governance framework for effective actions for resilient development. Specifically, the CPEIR needs to undertake the following: ■■ An assessment of current policy priorities and strategies as these relate to climate change ■■ A review of institutional arrangements for promoting the integration of climate change policy priorities into budgeting and expenditure management ■■ A review of the integration of climate change objectives within the budgeting process, including as part of budget planning, implementation, expenditure management, and financing CPEIRs have already been undertaken in Nepal and Bangladesh, with one currently underway in Samoa. Source: Bird et al., 2011. 46 Acting Today For Tomorrow Process climate risks and vulnerabilities, and reviewing and improving actions’ effectiveness (see figure 3.10). CCA and DRR are much more than discrete measures The Cook Islands has embarked on a development- to reduce risk. They are part of a process that focused program that will integrate DRR and CCA includes strengthening the enabling environment, interventions at island and community levels (see assessing and managing current and anticipated case study 17). Assess and strengthen the enabling environment • Institutions • Participatory planning • Policies, plans, and legislation • Knowledge and skills • Decision support—tools and methods • Financing • Technologies Review effectiveness Assess current risks • Indicators & targets and vulnerabilities • Monitoring • Hazards • Evaluation • Exposure • Reporting • Resilience • Improvement • Coping capacities Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction Reduce current & future risks Anticipate future changes & vulnerabilities • Assess trends • Identify priority areas/activities • Allow for shocks • Plan risk & vulnerability • Reflect modified development reduction interventions pathways • Carry out implementation Estimate future risks & vulnerabilities • Hazards • Exposure • Resilience • Adaptive capacities Figure 3.10. Good practice approach to preparing for and implementing DRR and CCA. Source: Authors. 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 47 Case Study 17: Targeted and Predictable Funding for CCA and DRR Initiatives in Samoa An integrated approach to DRR and CCA is illustrated in a program in the Cook Islands Pa Enua (outer islands). As shown in figure 3.12, the program has a three-pronged approach, ultimately focusing on the implementation of on-the-ground adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures at the community level in the Pa Enua. These will be integrated with sustain- able island capacity building and wider development processes, and supported through enhanced national policy capacity, institutional capacity, and knowledge management capacity. The objective of the program is to strengthen the ability of communities in the Pa Enua, and the public service, to make informed decisions and manage anticipated climate change– driven pressures (including extreme events) in a proactive, integrated, and strategic manner. In achieving this objective, the program will support, at the national, sectoral, and island levels, implementation of the Cook Islands’ new NAP for DRM and CCA. Activities at the national level involve strengthening policy, institutional capacity, and public awareness of CCA and DRR, through conducting and updating climate risk assessments, enhancing climate early warning systems tailored to vulnerable sectors, and training policymakers and technicians in the relevant government departments. DRR and CCA capacity-building activities in the Pa Enua include increasing the adaptive capacity of households, businesses, and affected sectors (such as agriculture, water supply, tourism, health, fisheries, and coastal management); enhancing the adaptive capacity of local communities through engagement in island-level CCA-DRM planning processes linked with Island Development Plans and the National Joint Action Plan; and targeted training and awareness-raising activities using different media. In the third component of the program community-based CCA and DRR measures will be implemented in relation to crop production, coastal protection, fisheries, tourism, and health and water resources management. These measures will have been identi- fied and prioritized during implementation of the second component, as part of the process of preparing integrated island- and community-level DRR and CCA action plans consistent with the island strategic development plans. Source: Government of the Cook Islands and UNDP 2011. Strenghtening Implementing • Knowledge management • Monitoring & evaluation capacities for CCA & DRR measures CCA & DRR in Pa Enua in Pa Enua Strengthening and implementing CCA & DRR at national level Figure 3.12. The components of Strengthening the Resilience of Our Islands and Our Communities to Climate Change (program for Cook Islands). Source: UNDP 2011. Despite many distinguishing features (listed in figure including the new risks created by climate change. 3.11), DRR and CCA share a common purpose. Both It is increasingly contributing to adaptation as the aim to enhance resilience and reduce the vulnerability disaster risk management debate moves beyond of human and natural systems to hazards by core humanitarian actions for disaster management improving the ability to better anticipate, resist, and of emergency response, relief, and reconstruction recover from their consequences. There is enormous toward disaster prevention, preparedness, and risk value added if adaptation efforts draw on the national reduction. Responding to possible future changes in platforms and other DRR tools and experiences within extreme events will require bolstering DRM as a first and outside the Hyogo Framework. DRR provides line of defense, along with disaster preparedness and many tried and tested tools for addressing risk, response. The goal should be to reduce vulnerabilities 48 Acting Today For Tomorrow Weather- and climate-related hazards only Longer-term view, but with increasing attention to present-day risks Initial focus on average conditions; now more attention to extreme events Strong science undrepinning, but short time to build experience Initially seen as a response to an environmental issue CCA Substantial and increasing funding streams High political engagement Some technical terms have meanings specific to climate change Focus on reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience Encompasses all geophysical hazards Considers only extreme events DRR Historic and present-day view, but increasing attention to future risks Origins in humanitarian assistance Well-establish tools and practices Funding streams ad hoc and typically inadequate Political interest high only following a disaster Some technical terms have meanings specific to climate change Figure 3.11. Different characteristics of DRR and CCA. In spite of obvious differences, the two share a common purpose; recent efforts have focused on harmonization and integration of DRR and CCA. Source: UNISDR and UNDP 2011. to the impacts that climate change will produce arrangements and to invest in DRR. Since citizens in the form of more extreme weather events, must be aware of disaster risks if they are to by emphasizing the importance of reducing hold governments to account, a lack of public sensitivity as well as exposure to weather- and information and education often presents a climate-related hazards (UNISDR and UNDP significant barrier to a stronger culture of social 2011). accountability. Political leadership Public pressure on political leaders can lead to legal provisions and regulations that clearly High-level advocacy and leadership are essential demarcate the responsibilities of leaders and to successful implementation of DRR and CCA. government officials. Where transparent There has always been a strong political imperative contractual arrangements are agreed on for for disaster relief, with leaders understanding the both civil servants and private service providers, power of symbolic and real responses to disasters. performance-based payments can be linked to Since saving lives and assisting disaster victims is budgets and expenditure. Such processes can a moral, humanitarian, and political paradigm be implemented by way of performance reviews that appeals to most people, disaster relief within and across government departments or can be a powerful tool for leaders, enhancing through social audits at a local or sector level. their political profile and facilitating patronage (UNISDR 2011). Especially because of the cross-cutting nature of DRM and CCA, a central ministry with a high But increasingly, the public expects or even level of political authority needs to be made demands proactive approaches, through DRR, responsible for them to ensure coherent policy and that endeavor to prevent disasters. Social demand planning. When relatively peripheral ministries for improved accountability mechanisms can or emergency management organizations galvanize political will to reform risk governance have responsibility for natural hazard risk 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 49 management policy, development investments are hazard risk considerations into development policy unlikely to reflect the need for proactive approaches. and planning processes. While decentralization Indeed, such arrangements tend to reinforce the can facilitate implementation, devolving too much existing skewed focus on disaster management and responsibility to weak local governments may encourage any investments in DRR and CCA to be actually slow down rather than accelerate progress. stand-alone rather than integrated into development Thus, while both CCA and DRM activities need to be programs. locally grounded, not all functions need to be fully decentralized. The central arms of government need Locating central government responsibility for DRM to provide technical, financial, and policy support, and CCA within national planning departments or and take over DRM responsibilities when local ministries for economy and finance would increase the effectiveness of policies and accompanying capacities are exceeded. legislation. Given their role in deciding allocations Where CCA and DRM are overly concentrated of the national budget and their political leverage at the national level, an incremental approach to over planning and investment, these ministries could decentralizing is desirable. This can allow time to help to ensure policy coherence across development ensure that adequate capacity exists and that reforms sectors, including integration of CCA and DRM into involve clear mandates, adequate budgets, and national development planning. appropriate systems of accountability. As outlined in Over the past 20 years, there has been a trend in case study 18, SOPAC, through the Pacific Disaster many countries to adopt a decentralized approach Risk Management Partnership Network, has helped to CCA and DRM; this was thought to be consistent many PICTs to mobilize high-level political support with mainstreaming climate change and natural for climate risk reduction. Case Study 18: Mobilizing Political Support at the Highest Levels In the Pacific, many countries have benefitted from the work undertaken by SOPAC on behalf of the Pacific Disaster Risk Management Partnership Network. This has involved leading and coordinating high-level advocacy at the cabinet/politi- cal level to garner support for DRM mainstreaming in national, sectoral, local, and community planning and budgetary processes. These efforts had their origin in the SOPAC High Level Advocacy Team, which was established in 2001, when advocacy was identified as a necessary prerequisite to the implementation of DRM capacity building, and in particular DRM mainstreaming activities, in Pacific island countries. In February 2001, a Pacific regional workshop agreed on the mandate, goal, and objective for the SOPAC Advocacy Program. In addition, the workshop recommended the appointment of a High Level Advocacy Team to obtain the highest-level national commitment to, and support for, the integration of disaster risk reduction and response strategies into national development policies and plans and to encourage the adoption by national governments of a comprehensive and integrated risk manage- ment policy designed to reduce vulnerability, enhance community resilience, and achieve sustainable development. Subsequently, the SOPAC High Level Advocacy Team assisted in the initial stage of developing DRM National Action Plans in Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, Samoa, and the Cook Islands. The advocacy method was tailored to suit the country in which the NAP was being developed. In the case of Vanuatu, advocacy was based on individual meetings with relevant sector representatives. In the Cook Islands and Marshall Islands, it combined one-on-one advocacy with the head of govern- ment and senior ministers with meetings with technical officials; a one-day workshop on the need to mainstream disaster risk reduction and disaster management was also conducted for parliamentarians in the Marshall Islands in January 2009. High-level advocacy has been reestablished as a priority through a joint effort of the SOPAC Division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and UNISDR. The focus of the advocacy will remain on Parliamentarians, national DRM/planning/finance agencies, and other relevant stakeholders, with the emphasis on the need to increase budgetary allocations for disaster and climate risk reduction. This effort involves advocating for mainstreaming disaster risk management into national and sectoral development policies and practices and for adopting all-hazards risk management practices as an essential element in reducing vulnerability, enhancing community resilience, and achieving sustainable development. Source: SOPAC 2010. 50 Acting Today For Tomorrow Performance food and water shortages, and erode recent gains in poverty reduction. Given this evidence, and given the Improving the monitoring and evaluation of DRR and accelerating pace of climate change—and the lack CCA interventions, and using the results to prepare of experience in CCA, in particular CCA’s integration and share lessons learned and good practices, with DRR and development—the importance of will do much to avoid inappropriate adaptation engaging in an ongoing process of doing, learning, (maladaptation) of DRR initiatives and to scale up and improving is evident. successful experiences. Programs, projects, and work plans should be Managing for results is an ongoing process, involving modified regularly, based on the lessons learned constant feedback, learning, and improvement. It is through M&E. The design of new programs and particularly important in the context of CCA, as this projects will also be influenced by the lessons has a very short history. Many development policies, coming from M&E. This ongoing process of doing, plans, and projects currently fail to take into account learning, and improving is referred to as the results- climate variability, let alone climate change. There based-management, life-cycle approach (figure is growing evidence that climate change is already 3.13). Learning not only helps improve results from having major repercussions across economies, existing programs and projects, but also enhances societies, and natural ecosystems, and that it has the the capacity of organizations and individuals to potential to destabilize economic growth, exacerbate make better decisions in the future. Setting the vision Defining the Managing results map and using and RBM evaluation framework Stakeholder participation Planning for Implementing monitoring and using and monitoring evaluation Figure 3.13. Results-based-management, life-cycle approach. Source: UNDP 2009. 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 51 When it is used to redesign initiatives that are not Initiative are examples of the gains made possible by delivering anticipated and desired results—when it M&E and adaptive management (see case study 19). helps programs move from “bad practice� to “good practice� (i.e., “failure� to “success�)—M&E can As already noted, the M&E process is relatively produce transformational changes in CCA and DRR. well developed for assessing levels of activity and The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring effectiveness for DRM at both national and regional Project and the Pacific Catastrophic Risk Financing levels in the Pacific. However, the same cannot be Case Study 19: Learning through Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation has resulted in continuing improvement in the design and implementation of some significant regional DRR and CCA interventions. Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) ■■ Commenced in 2007; 2 phases have been completed ■■ Joint initiative of SPC/SOPAC, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank (ADB), with financial support from Japan, GFDRR, and EU ■■ Phase 1 (2007–2009): Explored technical feasibility of developing a catastrophe risk insurance pool for the Pacific based on risk profiles for 8 PICTs ■■ Phase 2 (2009–2011): Broadened the focus to develop (1) comprehensive risk information for 15 island countries to underpin DRM/CCA in general; and (2) inclusive disaster risk financing solutions for PICTs covering both catastrophic and noncatastrophic risks ■■ Phase 3 (2012+): Focuses on developing applications and capacity of PICTs in utilizing risk information for informed decision making in DRM and CCA; applications include disaster risk financing, disaster damage estimation and forecast, and urban/infrastructure planning; climate change science an integral part of this phase Source: Authors. South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project (SPSLCMP) ■■ Phase I commenced in 1991; now in Phase IV ■■ Initially involved 14 PICTS; funded by Australia; growing in importance ■■ Consists of an operational observing network of tide gauges and geodetic stations providing accurate measurements of absolute values of sea level in 12 PICTs ■■ Reviewed on a regular basis, resulting in a great many lessons learned, shared, and acted on in the design of subsequent phases ■■ Key findings have resulted in changes (e.g., project design; roles and responsibilities of various implementing stakeholders; increasing regional/national ownership and leadership) ■■ Phase IV builds on learning from previous phases and current circumstances for aid effectiveness Source: Sandford and Hunter 2007. The Kiribati Adaptation Program (KAP) ■■ Project commenced in 2006; implemented by the World Bank in three stages, KAPI, KAPII, and KAP III ■■ Government of Kiribati responsible for M&E; KAPII included an extensive and intricate results and monitoring framework that reflected a complex project design ■■ Institutional capacity not sufficient to manage either the breadth of project design or its results and monitoring framework; hence M&E was less comprehensive than it could have been, and many important lessons were not systematically documented ■■ Monitoring by donors and the World Bank identified need for restructuring the project to a manageable scope and simplifying the results and monitoring framework ■■ Lessons highlight the importance of ensuring M&E design is appropriate for institutional capacity; aligning indicators with existing development M&E frameworks so as not to overburden countries; building flexibility into M&E systems so they can be revised and improved as needed Source: Authors. 52 Acting Today For Tomorrow said for CCA or for integrated approaches to DRR and Given the potential for very significant increases CCA. Recent initiatives, such as the review of PIFACC in funding for adaptation to climate change, and the preparation of a roadmap for a post-2015 governments and their partners will want integrated regional strategy for DRM and CCA, have to assess how these investments affect both highlighted the need for improved M&E. A monitoring resilient development and livelihoods. This type and evaluation framework has been added to the of assessment will require that evaluation policies second edition of the PIFACC, released in late 2011 and practices embrace indicators and targets that (see figure 3.14). The purpose of the framework is to are both qualitative (focused on flexibility and provide a simple, useable tool for evaluating progress learning) and quantitative (focused on efficiency and in implementing the PIFACC. The framework focuses effectiveness). Given the uncertainty and complexity on information that is available and collectable in an of climate change impacts, the need for participatory ongoing manner in the region, including through the approaches that encourage sharing and learning among all actors and stakeholders is crucial. These biannual National PIFACC Updates on Implementation approaches should span all scales and levels, from that contribute toward reports to the Pacific Climate community level to regional level, and from projects Change Roundtable (PCCR). Reviews of PIFACC to programs to overarching development plans. implementation will be undertaken prior to PCCR meetings in 2013 and 2015. Importantly, a study will Future policy and planning, along with programming also be undertaken following endorsement of the and project instruments, should use existing framework, to provide a baseline for these reviews. It M&E frameworks as starting points; they should is to be hoped that the baseline study will also result incorporate both quality and quantity indicators; and in development of performance targets, based on they should embrace principles of flexibility, learning, indicators in the framework. Targets are not included and participation. Such M&E frameworks for CCA in the second edition. and DRR in development initiatives would ensure Theme 1: Implementing tangible, on-ground adaptation measures Regional Outcomes and Indicators Examples/Measures or national outputs 1.1 Enhanced resilience to the adverse effects of climate change through the implementation of best practice adaptation and risk reduction N 1.1.1.1. Documented 1. Methods and tools to support risk assessment • Integration of climate change within National records of key climate vulnerabilty assessment Sustainable Development Strategy risks and vulnerable 2. Demonstrated application of participatory • Joint National Action Plans (JNAPs) for areas and multisectoral risk assessment processes climate change and disaster risk management in country • National climate change frameworks 3. National climate change action plans, relevant national projects, and/or vulnerability maps N 1.1.1.2. Documented 1. Number and scale adaptation projects • On-ground adaptation measures in key evidence of adaptation implemented nationally identified sectors, communities, measures developed 2. Application of participatory and multisectoral and regions and implemented, with processes for choosing appropriate • Climate change coordinating committees reference to new and adaptation measures established existing data sets and 3. Degree of local ownership of adaptation • In-country traditional knowledge narrative traditional knowledge planning processes databases established applied in adaptation 4. Coordinated use of local traditional planning knowledge and data in adaptation planning processes N 1.1.1.3. Sectoral 1. Climate change considerations incorporated • Sector policies and plans (e.g. transport, programs and into key development sector policies and water resources, coastal zone) include climate development plans with strategies change considerations adaptation measures 2. Funding for adaptation measures • Vulnerability assessment data available across integrated incorporated into development budgetary all sectors (e.g. sea-level rise inundation allocations maps) Figure 3.14. A portion of the PIFACC monitoring and evaluation framework. Source: SPREP 2011. 3.4 Fostering Resilient Development 53 enduring outcomes and impacts. If the ultimate goal is and McGray 2011) can provide guidance, as can the resilient development and livelihoods, the evaluation few evaluation frameworks for measuring progress of integrated DRR, CCA, and development actions of the interface between climate change adaptation, should, as a starting point, use and build on existing disaster risk reduction, and development, such as development evaluation and indicator frameworks. Villanueva (2011). Moreover, the uncertainties and complexities of climate change impacts mean that the chosen framework A one-size-fits-all DRR/CCA evaluation and reporting should be dynamic, flexible, and adaptable. tool is unlikely to suit the circumstances of all PICTs or to be applicable at all levels. In order to ground Given that the integration of DRR and CCA needs to climate and disaster risk management in development be grounded in development processes, the following processes, all countries could at the highest level build offer logical starting points for regional and national on the systems and approaches used to evaluate their evaluation systems that track and assess adaptation national development plans (or equivalent). Doing and disaster risk outcomes at the highest levels of so would include ensuring that measures to assess government: the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles progress in achieving the MDGs include indicators (2007), which focus upon ownership, alignment, sensitive to adaptation and disaster risk. Section 2 and harmonization, results, mutual accountability, table 3.1 above, along with guidance notes by UNISDR and capacity development; the Cairns Compact (2008, 2009) and UNISDR and UNDP (2011), show how on Strengthening Development Coordination in achievement of MDGs is linked to disasters and disaster the Pacific (2009); the Pacific Plan (2005); and the risk reduction and suggest several ways to incorporate Regional Tracking of Millennium Development Goals disaster risk reduction into MDG actions; figure 3.15 (e.g., the 2010 and 2011 reports). suggests how MDG 7 might be used in evaluation and reporting. The point to emphasize is that using existing It would also be prudent to ensure consistency with approaches would reduce the burden of investing time international practice and consider the Paris Declaration and resources to develop a new evaluation system, for Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the related Accra with additional reporting requirements. Action Agenda (2008), as well as the Millennium Development Goals (2005), the United Nations Learning not only helps improve results of existing Development Assistance Framework (2006), and the programs and projects (see case study 19), but it will HFA Monitor (2009). In addition, some indicators from also serve to enhance the capacity of organizations the RFA Monitor and the PIFACC (second edition, 2011) and individuals to make better decisions in the future. may also be relevant. The DRR and CCA M&E policies and practices of key partners such as the Deutsche With respect to developing an integrated CCA and Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) DRR policy and action regional framework by 2015, and the World Resources Institute (WRI) (Spearman the associated monitoring and evaluation framework Modified DRR-sensitive indicator Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9 Integrate the principles of sustainable development Percentage area complying with enforcement of no into country policies and programs and reverse the development or no construction by laws on lands loss of environmental resources classified in land use plans to be at high risk as per hazard maps Target 10 Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without Proportion of population with sustainable access sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic to an improved water source not susceptible to sanitation destruction or depletion by natural hazards like floods, droughts and seismic and cyclone risks Target 11 By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement Proportion of people with access to secure land in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers tenure not located in high-risk hazard prone zones e.g., land slide or flood prone or seismic zones Figure 3.15. Indicators for targets for Millennium Development Goal 7 (“ensure environmental sustainability�) and possible modifications intended to capture disaster risk reduction in MDG actions/measures. Source: UNISDR 2009. 54 Acting Today For Tomorrow should use as its starting point the DRR-related Such a framework would be especially relevant for indicators in the United Nations Development Assistance improving interventions at program and project Framework and the RFA Monitor for the Pacific Disaster levels, for ensuring increased effectiveness of results Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework and impact, and for preventing results/outputs for Action. Regional and national indicators from the from creating or contributing to increased risk and recently developed PIFACC Monitoring and Evaluation vulnerability. Framework results can be used to Framework (2011) would also need to be considered. prepare and share lessons learned and good practices, As was indicated above, it is important that any to help avoid inappropriate DRR actions/initiatives and monitoring and evaluation approach be flexible, maladaptation, and to scale up successful experiences. dynamic (responsive to the uncertainty and complexity Using results in this way is particularly important in the of climate change effects), and participatory (facilitating context of CCA, given its very short history. links between capacity, actions, and key actors, such as individuals and communities). 55 4 Photo: The World Bank Summary From the preceding analyses and case studies, the following points stand out: Climate and disaster risks are ■■ Affected by hazard, exposure, and vulnerability ■■ Context specific and dynamic ■■ Often not reduced by current CCA and DRM policies and interventions ■■ Continuing to increase as a result of trends in vulnerability, exposure, and climate Although there is a range of practices that would increase climate- and disaster-resilient development in the Pacific region, the following guiding principles are particularly pertinent: Resilience to disasters and climate change is enhanced when ■■ DRR is practiced, even without reflecting CCA ■■ Lessons from DRR inform CCA 56 Acting Today For Tomorrow ■■ DRR and CCA are integrated, as are approaches to ■■ Disaster risk is identified, assessed, and monitored, assessing and understanding risk and early warning is enhanced ■■ DRR and CCA include strategies, policies, and ■■ National planning and coordination strategies measures that address exposure and vulnerability for improving local DRR and CCA are integrated with local knowledge and made to support local ■■ There are strong enabling environments for CCA empowerment and action and DRR, including well-functioning institutions, data, information and knowledge systems, ■■ DRR and CCA are both a local and a national education, and public awareness priority, with a strong institutional basis and high- level political support ■■ DRR and CCA are integrated into development planning, design, and approval processes, and ■■ Actions address causes of vulnerability, poverty, development initiatives are screened to ensure and limited resource access, thereby facilitating benefits are not jeopardized by changing weather sustainability and climate conditions or by extreme natural hazards ■■ Climate- and disaster-related research, systematic observation of climate, and related data are ■■ Investments include a balance of hard and soft available in order to inform decision-making CCA and DRR measures, such as strengthening of processes infrastructure and urban land use planning ■■ Roles and responsibilities of key actors, ■■ There is economic diversification and sustainable stakeholders, and institutions are clearly and management of natural resources rationally assigned, based on comparative advantages ■■ Predisaster financial mechanisms are used where little formal insurance or postevent compensation ■■ Financing sources for DRR and CCA are harmonized is available and flexible, and existing strategic and corporate planning and budgetary mechanisms are used to ■■ There is increased research, development, increase predisaster and climate risk investment demonstration, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of technologies, practices, and processes, ■■ DRR and CCA interventions are jointly planned as well as capacity building for promoting access and programmed by PICTs and their development to CCA and DRR technologies partners 5 57 References Adaptation Partnership, 2011. Review of Current Chadburn, O., J. Ocharan, K. Kenst, and and Planned Adaptation Action: The Caribbean. C. Cabot Venton. 2010. “Cost Benefit London: International Institute for Sustainable Analysis for Community Based Climate and Development. Disaster Risk Management: Synthesis.� ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2006. Climate Tearfund and Oxfam America. http:// Proofing: A Risk-Based Approach to Adaptation. www.preventionweb.net/files/15116_ Prepared by J. E. Hay, R. Warrick, C. Cheatham, FinalCBASynthesisReportAugust2010pl.pdf. T. Manarangi-Trott, J. Konno, and P. Hartley. Cook, S. 2011. Vanuatu Investment in Disaster Manila: Asian Development Bank. Risk Management. Economic report (PR21). Aalbersberg, B., P. Dumaru, L. Limalevu, and A. Suva, Fiji: Applied Geoscience and Technology Weir, A. 2010. “Community Adaptation in Division (SOPAC) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Fiji: Some Lessons Learned.� Occasional Paper Community. No. 2010/1, Pacific Centre for Environment Daly, M., N. Poutas, F. Nelson, J. Kohlhase. 2010. and Sustainable Development, University of “Reducing the Climate Vulnerability of Coastal the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. http://www.usp. Communities in Samoa.� Journal of International ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/pacesd/Projects/ Development 22:265–81. Climate_Change /Community_Adaptation_in_ Deo, R. 2011. “On Meteorological Droughts in Fiji__Some_Lessons_Learnt.pdf Tropical Pacific Islands: Time-Series Analysis of AusAID (Australian Agency for International Observed Rainfall Using Fiji as a Case Study.� Development). 2010. Integration in Practice: Meteorological Applications 18: 171–80. Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Droesch, A. C, N. Gaseb, P. Kurukulasuriya, A. Change and Environmental Considerations in Mershon, N. Moussa, D. Rankine, and A. AusAID Programs. Canberra: Australian Agency Santos. 2008. “A Guide to the Vulnerability for International Development. October. Reduction Assessment.� UNDP Working Paper, Becken, S., and J. E. Hay. 2012. Climate Change and Community-Based Adaptation Programme, Tourism: From Policy to Practice. Abington, UK: United Nations Development Programme. Routledge/Taylor and Francis. http://www.undp-adaptation.org/projects/ Bird, N., T. Beloe, M. Hedger, J. Lee, J., M. websites/docs/CBA_VRA_Guide_Dec_08.pdf. O’Donnell, and P. Steele. 2011. Climate EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Database. Public Expenditure and Institutional Review: Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, A Methodology to Review Climate Policy, Belgium. www.emdat.be. Institutions and Expenditure. Manila: Asia- GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2001. Project Pacific Capacity Development for Development Performance Report 2000. Washington, DC: Effectiveness Facility. GEF. http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef. Campbell, J. 2000. “Adapting to Climate Change: org/files/documents/C.17.08.pdf. Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Gero, A., K. Méheux, and D. Dominey-Howes. into Development Activities in Pacific Island 2011. “Integrating Community Based Countries: A Set of Guidelines for Policymakers Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change and Development Planners.� Secretariat of the Adaptation: Examples from the Pacific.� Natural Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11: 101–13. Samoa. 58 Acting Today For Tomorrow Government of the Cook Islands and UNDP (United Llosa, S., and I. Zodrow. 2011. Disaster Risk Nations Development Programme). 2011. Reduction Legislation as a Basis for Effective Strengthening the Resilience of Our Islands and Adaptation. Global Assessment Report on Our Communities to Climate Change (SRIC-CC). Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations Project document for programme financed by International Strategy for Disaster Reduction the Adaptation Fund, Avarua, Cook Islands. Secretariat. Government of Samoa. 2011 Strategic Programme Nakalevu, T. 2010. 2009 Annual Report, Pacific for Climate Resilience (SPCR). Prepared for the Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) Project. Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR). PIMS 2162. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Apia, Samoa. Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Harris, K., and A. Bahadur. 2011. Harnessing Pacific Disaster Risk Management Partnership Synergies: Mainstreaming Climate Change Network. 2009. Guide to Developing National Adaptation in Disaster Risk Reduction Action Plans: A Tool for Mainstreaming Disaster Programmes and Policies. Brighton, UK: Risk Management Based on Experiences from Institute of Development Studies. Selected Pacific Island Countries. SOPAC Joint Hay, J. E. 2009a. Implementation of the Pacific Contribution Report 196. Suva, Fiji: Applied Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) Project: Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC) of Process, Status and Assessment. Technical the Secretariat of Pacific Community. report. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Petrini, K. 2010. “UNDP GEF CBA in Samoa Regional Environment Programme. Results.� UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme, Hay, J. E. 2009b. Mid-Term Review Pacific Islands Apia, Samoa. Framework for Action on Climate Change PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat), 2012. (PIFACC) and the PIFACC Action Plan: Findings, Pacific Experiences with Modalities Relevant for Options and Recommendations. Report Climate Change Financing. Suva, Fiji: PIFS. prepared for the Secretariat for the Pacific Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre. 2011. Regional Environment Programme. Rarotonga, “Climate Impacts in the Pacific, Assessing Cook Islands. Capacity for Change, A Solomon Islands Case Hay, J. E., and N. Mimura. 2010. “The Changing Study.� RC/RC Climate Centre, The Hague. Nature of Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Sandford, R., and J. Hunter, 2007. South Pacific Sea Risks to Sustainable Development.� Geomatics, Level and Climate Monitoring Project: Phase IV Natural Hazards and Risk 1(1): 1–16. Strategic Review Report. Prepared for AusAID, Hay, J. E., and S. Wedderburn. 2011. “‘Ridge to Canberra, Australia. Reef’ Management Approaches: Addressing SOPAC (Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Interactions in Samoa’s Coastal Zone.� Inprint Commission). 2009. Implementation of 3:40–44. http://www.loicz.org/imperia/md/ the Hyogo Framework for Action and the content/loicz/print/newsletter/ Inprint_2011_3_ Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster online72.pdf. Management Framework for Action 2005– Holland, P. 2008. An Economic Analysis of Flood 2015. Report for the period 2007–2009. Warning in Navua, Fiji. SOPAC technical report, Regional synthesis progress report. SOPAC EU-EDF8 Project Report 122. Suva, Fiji: SOPAC. Miscellaneous Report 674. Suva, Fiji: SOPAC. King, P. 2010. Mainstreaming Climate Change: SOPAC (Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Com- A Guidance Manual for the Pacific Islands mission). 2010. “DRM Policy and Planning,� Countries and Territories. Report prepared June 27. http://www.sopac.org/index.php/drm- under the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change policy-and-planning. (PACC) Project. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat for the Spearman, M., and H. McGray. 2011. Making Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Lal, P. N. 2010. “Vulnerability to Natural Disasters: Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change An Economic Analysis of the Impact of the Adaptation. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche 2009 Floods on the Fijian Sugar Belt.� Pacific Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Economic Bulletin 25 (2): 62–77. (GIZ). 5. References 59 SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Villanueva, P. S. 2011. “Learning to ADAPT: Environment Programme). 2011. Pacific Islands Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches in Framework for Action on Climate Change Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster 2006–2015. 2nd. ed. Apia, Samoa: SPREP. Risk Reduction—Challenges, Gaps and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Ways Forward.� SCR Discussion Paper 9, 2009. Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Strengthening Climate Resilience (SCR), Evaluating for Development Results. New York: UK Institute of Development Studies, Plan UNDP. International, and Christian Aid, London. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Woodruff, A. 2008. Economic Analysis of Flood Risk 2011. “Akamatutu’anga i te iti tangata no te Reduction Measures for the Lower Vaisigano tuatau manakokore ia e te taui’anga reva— Catchment Area. SOPAC technical report, EU- Strengthening the Resilience of our Islands and EDF8 Project Report ER0069g. our Communities to Climate Change (SRIC- World Bank. 2006. “Not If But When: CC).� Proposal by the Government of the Cook Adapting to Natural Hazards in Islands to the Adaptation Fund Board, United the Pacific Islands Region.� Policy Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Note, East Asia and Pacific Region, Multi-country Office, Apia, Samoa. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/Natural- n.d. “Community-Based Adaptation Fast Facts: Hazards-report.pdf. Samoa.� UNDP, New York, http://www.undp- World Bank. 2009a. Reducing the Risk of Disasters adaptation.org/projects/websites/docs/KM/Fasi- and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands: tootai_Final.pdf. Regional Stocktake. Washington, DC: World UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy Bank. for Disaster Reduction). 2008. Indicators of World Bank. 2009b. Preparedness, Planning, Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction and Prevention: Assessment of National and of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the Regional Efforts to Reduce Natural Disaster Hyogo Framework for Action. Geneva: United and Climate Change Risks in the Pacific. Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy Washington, DC: World Bank. for Disaster Reduction. World Bank. 2011. Pacific Catastrophe Risk UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy Assessment and Financing Initiative, Country for Disaster Reduction). 2009. Annexes to Risk Profiles. Washington, DC: World Bank. Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring World Bank. Forthcoming. Pacific Catastrophe the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative, Risk Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Assessment—Summary Report. Washington, Action. Geneva: United Nations Secretariat DC: World Bank of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. WWF South Pacific Programme. 2009. “Climate Witness Community Toolkit.� WWF-South UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Pacific Programme, Suva, Fiji. Disaster Reduction). 2011. HFA Progress in Asia Pacific: Regional Synthesis Report 2009–2011. Geneva: UNISDR Secretariat. UNISDR and UNDP (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and United Nations Development Programme). 2011. Institutional and Policy Analysis of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific Island Countries. Report prepared by J. E. Hay. http://www.unisdr.org/files/18869_ institutionalandpolicyanalysisofdrr.pdf 60 Acting Today For Tomorrow Appendix 1. Significant Contributors to Preparation of the Policy and Practice Note The following individuals made significant contributions during preparation of the Policy and Practice Note. Role Name Title/Organization Technical review Angelika Planitz Subregional coordinator Pacific, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Cathy Bennett Independent consultant, Australia Mosese Sikivou Deputy director, Disaster Reduction Programme, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Padma Lal Independent consultant, Fiji and Australia Neta Pelesikoti Program manager, Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme Tagaloa Jude Kohlhase Administrative head, Planning and Urban Management Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa Kevin Petrini Regional climate change policy advisor, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Pacific Centre Moortaza Jiwanji Disaster risk management programme specialist, UNDP Pacific Centre Tekau Frere Climate change officer, Environment Department, government of French Polynesia Sam Wedderburn East Asia Social, Environment and Rural Sustainable Development Unit, World Bank Sofia Bettencourt Lead operations officer, Africa Environment Unit, World Bank High-level review Kaliopate Tavola Independent consultant, Fiji Hon. Mark Brown Minister of Finance, Cook Islands Peter Adams Independent consultant, New Zealand World Bank review and Milen Dyoulgerov Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) adaptation and disaster decision meeting risk reduction coordinator, World Bank Group Francis Ghesquiere Senior hazard risk management specialist, Finance, Infrastructure and the Private Sector Department, World Bank Ian Noble Lead climate change specialist, Environment Department, World Bank Robert Guild Director, Pacific Strategy and Special Operations, Pacific Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB) Kevin Goh Climate Change, Disaster Risk Reduction, Pacific Small Island States and Regional Programs Section, Pacific Division, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) John Roome Sector Director, East Asia Sustainable Development, World Bank Charles Feinstein Sector Manager, East Asia Water and Energy Management Unit, World Bank Abhas Jha Lead Urban Specialist, East Asia Transport, Energy and Sustainable Urban Development Unit Shyam KC Disaster Risk Management Specialist, East Asia Transort, Energy and Sustainable Urban Development Unit Sam Wedderburn East Asia Social, Environment and Rural Sustainable Development Unit, World Bank Suzanne Paisley Consultant, Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Tevi Obed Extended Term Consultant, Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Claudia Ortiz-Montemayor Junior Professional Associate, Climate and Chemicals Team, GEF Kanthan Shankar Portfolio and Operations Manager, World Bank Office, Sydney Robert Jauncey Senior Country Officer, World Bank Office, Sydney Vivek Suri Lead Economist, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Department Jay Roop Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) Kosi Latu Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Diane McFadzien SPREP Scott Hook Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) Coral Pasisi PIFS William Morrell PIFS Veronica Piatkov Consultant, Pacific Islands Sustainable Development 2011 Global Platform Elizabeth Wright-Koteka Cook Islands for DRR (margins of Charles Carlson Cook Islands meeting), Geneva, Vaitoa Toelupe Samoa May 2011 Loti Yates Solomon Islands Ethel Sigamanu Solomon Islands Antonneth Arnhambat Vanuatu Peter Korisa Kamil Vanuatu Appendix 1 61 Role Name Title/Organization 2011 Global Platform Paijiali Dobui Fiji for DRR (margins of Preeya Ieli Fiji meeting), Geneva, Sumeo Silu Tuvalu Michael Foon Kiribati May 2011 Ngiratmetuchei Belechi Palau Luisa Tui-Aftu Tonga (cont.) Polotu Fakafanua-Paunga Tonga John Carter New Zealand John Hamilton New Zealand Alan March Australia Jennifer Clancy Australia Russell Howorth SPC Litea Biukoto SPC Jutta May SPC Samantha Cook SPC Angelika Planitz United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Juita Korovulavula Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific International (FSPI ) Saroj Jha World Bank, GFDRR Abhas Jha World Bank Olivier Mahul World Bank, GFDRR Apurva Sanghi World Bank Neil Britton ADB Australia, Kanthan Shankar World Bank Tobias Haque World Bank May 2011 Mona Sur World Bank Angela Williamson World Bank Vivek Suri World Bank Demetrios Papathansiou World Bank Iain Shuker World Bank Charles Feinstein World Bank Allan Tobalal Oliver World Bank James Sweeting AusAID Jennifer Clancy AusAID Grant Morrison AusAID Sean Batten AusAID Paul Wright AusAID Susan MacDonald AusAID Duncan McCullough AusAID Kerry Leigh AusAID Alexandra Borthwick Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) Mary Kim DCCEE John Schneider Geoscience Australia Alanna Simpson Geoscience Australia Perry Wiles Bureau of Meteorology New Zealand, Deborah Collins New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (NZ-MFAT) Michael Hartfield NZ-MFAT May 2011 Willie John Morell NZ-MFAT Paul Eastwood NZ-MFAT Justin Kemp Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) New Zealand Doug Ramsay National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research  (NIWA) Andrew Tate NIWA Brenda Rosser GNS Terry Webb GNS Steve Ready New Zealand Meteorology James Luny New Zealand Meteorology World Bank regional Robert Guild ADB high-level dialogue on James Roop ADB DRM/CCA strategy, Marc Overmars ADB June 2011 James Sweeting AusAID Rebecca McClean AusAID Ryan Medrana AusAID Tukatara Tangi AusAID Yoshisuke Kondoh Embassy of Japan 62 Acting Today For Tomorrow Role Name Title/Organization World Bank regional Malcolm Ponton Delegation of the European Union (EU) for the Pacific high-level dialogue on Michel Matera GFDRR DRM/CCA strategy, Catherine Burtonboy GFDRR Aurrelia Balpe International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) June 2011 Ysabeau Rycx IFRC Richard Dirks New Zealand High Commission Fiji (cont.) Murari Lal Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD), University of the South Pacific (USP) Helene Jacot des Combes PACE-SD, USP Andie Fong Toy PIFS Scott Hook PIFS Russell Howorth SPC Brian Dawson SPC Netatua Pelesikoti SPREP Knut Ostby UNDP Garry Wiseman UNDP Angelika Planitz UNISDR Ferid Belhaj World Bank Charles Feinstein World Bank Abhas Jha World Bank Iain Shuker World Bank Shyam KC World Bank Cook Islands Mr. Vaitoti Tupa National Environmental Service Ms. Pasha Carruthers Puna Orama Island Futures Division Mr. Joseph Brider National Environmental Service Ms. Mii Matamaki National Environmental Service Ms. Deyna Marsh National Environmental Service Mr. Nooroa Soko Roi Chief executive officer Ms. Elizabeth Koteka Director, Policy and Planning Mr. Charles Carlson Director, Emergency Management Mr. Arona Ngari Director Mr. Maara Vaiimene Senior officer Mr. Jim Gosselin Secretary of foreign affairs Ms. Tepaeru Hermann Director, International Affairs Ms. Priscilla Maruariki Acting secretary of finance Ms. Dallas Young Manager, Budget and Economic Policy Mr. Mac Mokoroa Chief of staff, Office of the Prime Minister Ms. Priscilla Maruariki Acting secretary of finance, Ministry of Finance and Economic Management (MFEM) Mr. Tingika Elikana Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Mr. Alex Henry Public Service Commission Fiji Kelera Vakaloloma Ministry of Finance Alisi Vosalevu Department of Environment Kirti Chaya Department of Environment Alisi Pulini Department of Environment Samoa Hon. Faumuina Tiatia Minister of Finance Faaolatane Liuga Mr. Tupa’I Iulai Lavea Ministry of Finance Mr. Taulealea Laavasa Malua Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Ms. Sonja Hunter Samoa Tourism Authority Tupa'e Steve Brown Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Oscar Malielegaoi Ministry of Finance Henry Ah Ching Ministry of Finance Sealiimalietoa M Isara Ministry of Finance Noumea Simi Ministry of Finance Soane Leota Ministry of Finance Rosita Mauai Ministry of Finance Elita Tooala Ministry of Finance Sinapati Ulberg Land Transport Authority Faainoino Laulala Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Amia Samoa Tourism Authority Kari Samoa Tourism Authority Tamati Fau National Health Service John William Sala Samoa Water Authority Kassandra Betham National Health Service Tupaimatuna I Lavea Ministry of Finance Appendix 1 63 Role Name Title/Organization Samoa Vitaoa Pele Fuatai Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jasmine Sila Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (cont) Vaasilifiti Moelagi Jackson Samoa Umbrella of Non-Governmental Organisations/Faasao Savaii Society Anne Rasmussen Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Filomena Nelson Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jude Kohlhase Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Litara Taulealo Ministry of Finance Iloauila Aumua Ministry of Finance Jude Kohlhase Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Anne Rasmussen Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Vitaoa Pele Fuatai Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Josephine Stowers–Fiu Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Noumea Simi Aid Coordination and Debt Management Division, Ministry of Finance Henry Ah Ching Economic Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Finance Oscar Malielegaoi Budget Division, Ministry of Finance Rosita Mauai Accounts Division, Ministry of Finance Nick Roberts EU budget support advisor, Ministry of Finance French Polynesia Tekau Frere Environment Department Emilie Nowak Urban Planning Department, Ministry of Land Use Planning Eric Duverger Disaster Response, Division of Civil Protection, French Republic—High Commission International and Ms. Nileema Noble UN Resident Representative, Multi Country Office, Samoa regional organizations Kevin Petrini United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Samoa and Fiji) Armstrong Alexis UNDP Yvette Kerslake UNDP Aru Mathias Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fiasili Lam FAO Elisapeta Kerslake UNDP Ganesh Bhattarai FAO Stephen McCartnery World Health Organization (WHO) Greg Sherley UNEP Sue Vize UNESCO Steve McCartney WHO Yvette Kerslake UNDP Honami Izutsu UNDP Toily Kurbanov UNDP Moortaza Jiwanji UNDP Pacific Center (UNDP-PC) Karen Bernard UNDP-PC David Smith United National Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Helga Bara IFRC Radhika Murti International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Padma Lal IUCN Rex Horoi FSPI Roshni Chand FSPI Juita Korovulavula FSPI Peter Muller UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Angelika Planitz UNISDR Laura Nikansen UNISDR Malcolm Ponton EU delegation Cristina Casella EU delegation Rebecca McClean AusAID Ryan Medrana AusAID Tu’Tangi AusAID Kathryn Hawley Asia Foundation Tuiloma Neroni Slade PIFS Coral Pasisi PIFS Scott Hook PIFS Sanjesh Naidu PIFS Mosese Sikivou SPC Stephanie Zoll SPC Consultations in the HE Samson Pretrick Micronesian ambassador to Fiji margins of PIC Partners Saitofi Mika Ministry of Finance, Kiribati Meeting, Nadi, Fiji, July Chitra Jeremiah Consul General (Brisbane), Nauru 2011 Berilyn Jeremiah Social sector planning, Nauru Frank Mazigi Development cooperation, Papua New Guinea 64 Acting Today For Tomorrow Role Name Title/Organization Consultations in the Daniel Tovakuta National planning and monitoring, Papua New Guinea margins of PIC Partners Joseph Turia Foreign Aid Division, Papua New Guinea Meeting, Nadi, Fiji, July Annette Note Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Marshall Islands 2011 HE Ms. Amatlain Kabua Marshall Islands ambassador to Fiji Noumea Simi Ministry of Finance, Samoa (cont) Nelson Ari Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination, Solomon Islands Limasene Teatu Ministry of Finance, Tuvalu Lototasi Morikao Ministry of Finance, Tuvalu Johnson Naviti Strategic Policy, Planning and Aid Coordination, Vanuatu Sefanaia Nawadra SPREP, Samoa Jaindra Kumar Karan Development, Marketing, Communications, USP Kuini Rabo USP Felix Ries German Agency for International Cooperation Drew Havea Pacific Islands Association of NGOs (PIANGO) Emele Duituturaga PIANGO Toily Kurbanov UNDP Garry Wiseman UNDP-PC David Smith UNESCAP–Pacific Office Sandeep Singh Regional Environment Office, U.S. Embassy, Fiji Jane Sansbury World Bank Tuiloma Neroni Slade PIFS Alex Knox PIFS Appendix 2 65 Appendix 2. Outputs from the Policy and Practice Note Session at the Pacific Platform Meeting for Disaster Risk Management, August 2011 During session 6 of the Pacific Platform Meeting for Disaster Risk Management, August 1–5, 2011, in Auckland, New Zealand, participants contributed to the Policy and Practice Note on integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development in the Pacific. This appendix transcribes the participant sign-in sheet and notes from of the working group discussions. Name Affiliation Email Address Netatua Pelesikoti SPREP netatua@sprep.org Emilie Nowak FP Government Emilie.nowak@urbansme.gov.pf Sionetasi Pulehetoa Niue–Meteorology Service Sionetasi.pulehetoa@mail.gov.nu Warrick Harris Marshall Islands Warwick47@gmail.com Ikani Tolu Pacific Conference of Churches itolu@pcc.org.fj Maria Olsen EU/ECHO mc@echo.eu Chris Chiesa Pacific Disaster Center cchiesa@pdc.org Ram Krishna Bureau of Meteorology AU r.krishna@bom.gov.au Geoffroy Lamarche NIWA NZ g.lamarche@niwa.co.nz Aseri Yalangono SI–MEHRD yalangono@gmail.com Jay Roop ADB jroop@adb.org Takale Tuna PNG Government Takale_tuna@planning.gov.pg Jan Bouwman FR–French Red Cross Rlt-pacific.frc@croix-rouge.fr Clare Richards Bureau of Meteorology AU c.richards@bom.gov.au Tu Tangi AusAID Fiji Post Tu.tangi@ausaid.gov.au Gandhi N Palau - Ministry of Finance gin@palaugov.net John Cambell University of Waikato NZ jrc@waikato.ac.nz Richard Hipa Niue Government Richard.hipa@mail.gov.nu Ian O’Donnell ADB iodonnell@adb.org Jutta May SPC/SOPAC jutta@sopac.org Aaron Buncle SPREP aaronb@sprep.org Roy Harris Nauru–DRMO roy.harris@naurugov.nr Angelika Planitz UNISDR planitz@un.org Leone Limalevu USP Limalevu_le@usp.ac.fj Frank Ecke BFDWIDKH f.ecke@vest-pacific.org Leveni Aho Tonga–NDMO levenih5@gmail.com Gavi Rosenthal USAID grosenthal@usaid.gov Marino Rechesengel Palau Government - Finance dbnt@palaugov.net Terry Hills Conservation International t.hills@conservation.org Padma Lala IUCN Oceania padma.lal@iucn.org Phil Glassey GNS Science p.glassey@gns.cri.nz Kathryn Hawley The Asia Foundation khawley@asiafound.org Dick Fuller The Asia Foundation dfuller@asiafound.org Esline Garaebiti Vanuatu Meteorology & Geohazards gesline@vanuatu.gov.vu Michael Bonte World Bank Jefferson Barton Marshall Islands jeffersonbarton@hotmail.com Warren Villagomez CNMI Warren.villagomez@dph.gov.mp Evan Dunn Pitcairn Islands Evan@pitcairn.gov.pn Degaiclarde J Vanuatu Red Cross redcross@vanuatu.com.vu Kristina Kekuena NOAA kristina.kekuewa@noaa.org Dave Hebblethwaite SPC/SOPAC dave@sopac.org Minute Alapati Taupo Tuvalu Ministry of Finance mtaupo@yahoo.com Louis Henley AusAID louis.henley@ausaid.gov.au Jale Rokoika Fiji jale.rokoika@govnet.gov.fj Grant Morrison AusAID Grant.morrison@ausaid.gov.au Knut Ostby UNDP Knut.ostby@undp.org Jeremy Collymore CDEMA Jeremy.collymore@cdemo.org Soteria Noaese Samoa Soteria.noaese@gov.ws Paula Holland SPC/SOPAC paulah@sopac.org Waverley Jones GNS Science w.jones@gns.cri.nz Martin Mose PNG–National Disaster Centre mmose@pngndmo.gov.pg 66 Acting Today For Tomorrow Name Affiliation Email Address Helga Bara Bragedolt IFRC Helgabara.bragedolt@ifre.or Pusineli Loafai Tuvalu Cristina Cosella EU Delegation Pacific Cristina.casella@ec.europa.eu Frank Iki PNG–Planning Frank_iki@planning.gov.pg Allison Gordon DDPEM-NDMO odpemnorth@yahoo.com Litea Biukoto SPC/SOPAC litea@spc.int Dallas Young CI-MFEM dallas@mfem.gov.ck Rajendra Prasad UNESCO-IOC r.prasad@unesco.org Vanai Paino Wallis & Futuna Paino.vanai@wallis.itfatacious.pof.gov.fs Todd Bosse Pacific Disaster Center tbosse@pdc.org Pene Letale Met Service NZ Ltd Pene.lefale@metservice.com Mac Mokoroa CI-PM Office mac@fmoffice.gov.ck Moortaza Jiwanji UNDP PC Moortaza.jiwanji@undp.org Bill Thomas Hawaii–PRIMO NOAA Pacific Sys Center Bill.thomas@noaa.gov Wiki Rattle CI Red Cross Secgenral@redcross.org.ck Samuel Grunder Nauru Samuel.grundler@naurugov.nr Marc Overmars ADB Movermars.consultant@adb.org Lesieli Tefui Faletau Tonga lfaletau@finance.gov.to Peter Kemp MFAT (NZ) pbbkiz@yahoo.com Alan Sharp Bureau of Meteorology AU a.sharp@bom.gov.au Nodel Neneiya Nauru–DoE Nodel.neneiya@naurugov.nr Peter Muller OCHA Muller2@un.org Roshni Chand FSPI Roshni.chand@fspi.org.fj Jiuta Korovulavula FSPI jiutak@fspi.org.fj Samantha Cook SPC/SOPAC Samantha@sopac.org Antonneth Arnhambat VU-MFEM aarnhambat@vanuatu.gov.vu Mike Frew Save the Children Mike.frew@savethechildren.org Gerard Van Grambery WVI Gerard_van_grambery@wvi.org Michael Foon KI–Strategic Risk Mgmt mfoon@ob.gov.ki Eric Duverger FP - High Commission Eric.duverger@polynesia.francaize.prof.gov.fr Kevin Petrini UNESCO k.petrini@unesco.org Pajiliai Dobui FJ-NDMO Pajiliai.dobui@govnet.gov.fj Kerry Leigh AusAID Kerry.leigh@ausaid.gov.au Liz Koteka CI liz@pmoffice.gov.ck Emele Duituturaga PIANGO emele@piango.net James Goff APTRC-UNSW j.goff@unsw.edu.au Haden Talagi Niue–PACC H_talagi@mail.nu Clarence Samuel RMI Jamila Homayun NGO Disaster Relief Forum jamila@cid.org.nz John Hamilton NZ-MCDEM john.hamilton@dia.govt.nz Rebecca McClean AusAID Fiji Post Rebecca.mcclean@ausaid.gov.au Barnabas Anga SI Government Psplanning@plains.gov.sb Laura Niskanen UNISDR niskanen@un.org Anthony Blake AFP/NCCA Anthonyblake@connect.com.fj Appendix 2 67 The following notes represent the responses of the sector policies and plans—MAINSTREAMING working group to five questions on disaster risk ■■ Capacity building is still critical as well and should reduction and climate change adaptation. be made more effective. 1. What are some key messages for DRR/ • Need to focus on horizontal as well as vertical CCA stakeholders working at national, linkages community, regional and development ■■ Mainstreaming partner levels? Example response: There • Strengthen connections between all and local must be relatively less emphasis on assessments and capacity building and more ■■ Identify opportunities for coordination between emphasis on tangible efforts to reduce national, community and regional development climate and related risks. partners ■■ Ensure community view represented at national ■■ Disconnect national policies to provisional level level. Community buy-in is essential ■■ Need to strengthen coordination amongst ■■ Peoples existing risk & potential vulnerability as stakeholders a starting point, with DRR/CCA wrapper around ■■ No linkages between national and community people level ■■ Needs to be placed within a broader ■■ Need awareness and increase understanding development structure DRM & CCA at all levels ■■ Communication, interaction and engagement ■■ Single Ministry for CCA & DRM across all levels ■■ Incorporation indigenous science and 21st ■■ Need recognition and strengthening of roles and century science in development of adaptation responsibilities creating enabling environment for strategies. stakeholders to interact, engage, collaborate etc. ■■ Requires high-level coordinating body ■■ Integration of CC/DM agencies ■■ Recognizing different needs, capabilities, and ■■ Elevating their status within government resources. ■■ Action on the ground • Cross-cutting issues/challenges ■■ Enhancing EW system ■■ Inclusive consultative mechanism for establishing ■■ Already policy but disconnected at the national strategy for DRR/CCA integration. implementation level • Protocols will be country-specific ■■ Need to step up capacity building & awareness • Shift from TA to mentoring so that outcomes ■■ Lack of effective core mechanisms can be firmly embedded. ■■ CCA/DRM – under/ ?? Long term “Vision� Planning inclusive of all national stakeholders. The planning must be inclusive of ■■ Coordination is important between ■■ Immediate 1. Partners 2. Levels Short ■■ Community buy in => essential ■■ Inclusive of Govt/NGOs ■■ Long term ■■ Mainstreaming essential, given scarce resources: Need to get the few people available to work together Vulnerability versus Resilience ■■ Also important to come under one roof to ensure Communities know what to do coordination + programs (doesn’t work if totally ■■ Focus on capacities (existing) rather than separate) vulnerabilities ■■ Needs to be in context of broader development ■■ Value of interdisciplinary teams. (DRM + CCA) picture for better efficiency, complementarily. Needs ■■ Remember vulnerability is increased by poverty to be enabled by institutional structure and ■■ A lot of awareness of CC but little knowledge— connections need to clarify what is DRR + CC and identify ■■ DRR and CCA should be integrated existing roles and responsibilities 68 Acting Today For Tomorrow ■■ To what extent should they operate jointly or ■■ Networks exist—get better integration of separately? In any case a longer term approach is scientific knowledge to communities needed ■■ Less technical assistance, more guidance/ ■■ Creating an enabling environment for DRR & CC mentoring of getting information to communities to interact productively ■■ Make language understandable/relevant ■■ Improving on the legal frameworks ■■ Greater connection with communities ■■ Enforcement of the legislation at the community ■■ Access to financing donor harmonizing, cut level (example building codes) bureaucracy & make funding easier to use. ■■ Better vertical integration ■■ Make greater use of local knowledge—they Top-Down & Bottom-up to respond to community know just need guidance real needs. ■■ DRR + CCA to be joined ■■ Better awareness at community level & better ■■ In the Pacific mainstreaming the issues preparedness ■■ A key champion within Government ■■ Dialogue to share best practices at all level ■■ Strengthen the link between local Government ■■ Better recognition of the relevance of CCA and + communities DRR and their linkage ■■ All levels of Government must be connected on ■■ Data & intelligence is key to preparedness & key messages planning & accuracy of warning systems ■■ Practical messages for the communities. What ■■ Better coordination at international level they can do?? ■■ DRM & CCA affects national & personal budgets ■■ It is the risk and its consequences that are ■■ Mainstreaming DRM & CCA through important—not its origin (natural, economic or communities needs & activities are integrated climate change) into national planning ■■ More we made connections at the right levels ■■ Donors of Government to ensure DRR/CCA are factored • Of local point into all decisions and plans • No more assessments ■■ Governments need to commit to DRR/CCA at all levels plan community to local government and • More coordination at national level, and across all those elements ■■ More research involved. ■■ More capacity in country that we think => ■■ These have to be practical examples that can be capacity development implemented at community levels, suggested by ■■ Engage more with communities that =>where it finance, advice and leadership all starts 2. Over the past ten years, what initiatives KEY MESSAGES have worked well? Example response: DRR/ CCA interventions undertaken jointly at ■■ We cannot forget the importance of community level, such as in Community X. incorporating indigenous science and 21st century science into developing practical and ■■ Mangrove plantation has been inventor (for acceptable adaptation strategies. example in Fiji) ■■ Less technical assistance, more doing, greater use 1. Tangible community initiatives 2. Building on of monitoring existing knowledge and institutions ■■ Too many conditions on funding—stakeholders ■■ Separate budget based on NAP (DRM) know what needs to be done ■■ Initiation where there is effective governance ■■ Do gap analysis—find out what needs to be done ■■ Many initiatives are new and need to be fully as opposed to just talking about it monitor + evaluation ■■ Community engagement—connect with them to ■■ Tuvalu => water + sanitation dealt with together improve community resilience (DRM/CCA) and JNAP Appendix 2 69 ■■ Climate change is now within the mainstream ■■ The community approach has wide benefits that agenda transcend DRR ■■ Training & education at all levels (esp. community ■■ Community Level: The more the community is based) involved in the process of assessments of action ■■ Community engagement early & often plans, increase ownership and implementation by the community themselves, hit the ground level ■■ Introduction of CCA & DRM in school programs ■■ Government Level: Pulling DRM & CCA outputs ■■ Better vertical integration needed (top-down & into one ministry for better coordination JNAPS bottom-up) to respond to community needs ■■ Adaptation of early warning systems ■■ Insufficient coordination among ministries & sometimes unwillingness to share information ■■ Donors: Agreement by donors for better coordination ■■ Improvement of legal frameworks & enforcement at community level ■■ Cook Is: DRR/CCA one ministry ■■ Too dependent on donor aid. Government have ■■ Adaptation of EWS not taken ownership of the DRR/CCA problems + ■■ Agreement from donors on coordination commit sufficient funds ■■ Land use policy in Fiji with a participatory process ■■ Programmes on awareness and education ■■ Tonga etc. PCIDRR: Community programmes in ■■ Improved building codes and infrastructure DRR (for example mangrove planting) that have standards including disaster risks had side effects for CCA ■■ Improvements in awareness and education ■■ SOPAC—Integrated Maps of DRR/CCA ■■ Infrastructure standards ■■ Donors-separated fund streams for DRR + CCA ■■ Building codes, compliance but on the ground they will combine into one programme. ■■ Increased awareness of disaster reduction ■■ Integration of national action plans (Tonga, ■■ Increased efforts to coordinate amongst partners Cook Islands) ■■ Integration of CC/EM/Met/DMO at national level—CK, VU 3. What has not worked so well, or at ■■ Joint NAP all? Example response: Undertaking a ■■ Technical backstopping from partners robust prioritization of possible DRR/CCA ■■ Role of media (ongoing) interventions based, for example, on cost benefits analyses. ■■ DRR/CCA/ what Collaboration in Tuvalu under the JNAP ■■ At a community level, NGOs have implemented ■■ Quite a lot of resources etc. but hard to co- good on-ground programmes such as mangroves ordinate these into DRR/CCA replanting programmes(rather than seawall) ■■ There is a need for still more coordination ■■ Proven in Fiji during the last cyclone ■■ Requirements on NGO for applying for donor ■■ Tonga water Supply => DRR/CCA intervention funds. that increase rainwater harvesting through roof/ ■■ Assistance can be disappointed, with well gutter/tank approvals (proven deny droughts) coordinated programmes or projects (with strong ■■ Progress toward Joint National Action Plans leadership) will deliver benefits. ■■ Emerging scientific evidence base ■■ Some donors have specific tight criteria for the application of funds, which makes it difficult for ■■ Capacity building—Some NDMOs are now firmly them to collaborate with others in charge and directing policy e.g. In PNG i.e. Food and water security. In Samoa in community ■■ NGOs find it difficult to access some financial preparedness. facilities offered by other organisations ■■ Building codes applied—progress evident ■■ Integration of DRM/CCA ■■ Community awareness has improved, a bit from ■■ Duplication of duties a low base ■■ Lack of integration at all levels 70 Acting Today For Tomorrow ■■ A lack of bottom-up approach ■■ Reporting to donors needs to be effective in ■■ Climate uncertainty allows maceration presenting the case for funds ■■ Costal production (seawalls) ■■ Lack of specific budgets for DRR in government ■■ Efforts to prevent building on coasts ■■ Confusion with various funding windows ■■ Top-down planning with lack of a collaborative ■■ DRR + CC parallel processes (for risk community process management) driven largely by international processes + repeating MEA + UNFCC ■■ Lack of follow-through/benchmarks for plans ■■ Disaster management historically not part of ■■ Lack of budget line items on Risk Reduction development ■■ Clarity needed on sector budgets => risk ■■ Indicators to measure progress management ■■ Lowering of costs ■■ Parallel process and lack of clarity integration in principles and strategies ■■ Reduction in losses after natural disasters ■■ Number of households relocated to safer areas & Number of building retrofitted to withstand How do we deal with this? cyclone for ex ■■ Inter-ministerial with Finance ■■ The presence of DRR/CCA consideration included ■■ Climate adaptation communication— into development process & relevant documents procurement, actions ■■ Actual establishment of offices dealing jointly ■■ Absence of details OR related budget with CCA/DRR and coordinating ■■ Clarity in sector and other budgets climate ■■ Duplication of resources wasting time & money adaptation, risk management ■■ One-off projects, unsustainable, usually the same ■■ Doing actions on the ground without project is repeated again a few years later understanding the issues, e.g. seawalls, dredging ■■ Over consulting ■■ What does CC mean to Pacific Islanders? ■■ Donor coordination ■■ What are the implications of sea-level rise on ■■ Still too much focus on response and not enough atolls investing in risk reduction ■■ Not enough effort going into developing; need ■■ Change in Governments and Governments’ to have information on rainfall, elevation priorities (like cyclones) ■■ Include more technical sectors in these meetings, ■■ Government not listening to communities all the for instance engineers time ■■ Economic drivers increase vulnerability ■■ Too many conditions/donors/competing aims/ ■■ Mainstreaming of CCA/DRR in legislation and policy reporting requirements ■■ Lack of options ■■ Regional organization need to talk to each other ■■ Coastal protection, such as seawalls, that have and to coordinate better and too many missions collapsed over time + exacerbated erosion stretch local capacity at same time. ■■ Efforts to limit building on the coast have failed. ■■ Too many reports, financial, operational, administrative, technical as opposed to DOING! ■■ Not looking at full extent of environment impacts (including impacts on people) ■■ Mixed messages in the media on CC+ developed community. Vague or inconsistent terminology complicates the message 4. Given that the PPN will focus on the FIVE ■■ Transparency of NDMOs + governments in questions outlined in the presentation (see managing donor funds needs to improve handout) in what ways would the Policy ■■ Insufficient consultation and Practice Note be of use to you, and/or of use to others? Example response 1: The ■■ Insufficient engagement with communities Appendix 2 71 Note will be of limited use to climate change ■■ Higher impacts on infrastructure, environment, negotiators, but of great use to those working people, economies. on community-based DRR and CCA. Example ■■ Use Policy note to link to national/community response 2: The World Bank will use the Note initiatives to help justify funding requests to inform the implementation Strategy of their Pacific Portfolio. ■■ Provides a space to show positives & best practice ■■ Can be used as an advocacy tool to all key stakeholders ■■ If it answers the question, it provides a common fragment for community to work toward. Will ■■ Help justify funding requests allow large meeting to be more effective ■■ Show case—best practice ■■ Assist with resources mobilization ■■ Advocacy tool ■■ Might assist with justification for budgets at the ■■ Still, difficult to know now as it is not finalized national level ■■ World Bank will benefit from it ■■ Learn climate adaptation approaches and experiences used elsewhere KEY MESSAGES: ■■ Consider their relevant application in own We cannot forget the importance of incorporating situation indigenous science and 21st century science into ■■ Engagement and facilitation developing practical and acceptable adaptation ■■ Socialise strategies. ■■ What is the roll-out plan? ■■ See what kind of things the WB is doing in ■■ Policy note based on issues discussed today it regions would be useful ■■ PPN will give guidance as whole funding can be • PN includes guidelines on how to address accessed issues passed ■■ Practical/Realistic targets—Country specific/ ■■ Guide the WB’s support to regions including community relevant resources/funding ■■ Incorporated dispute ■■ Coordination is important between ■■ Make no progress in adapting to DRR/CCA 1. Partners 2. Levels ■■ Evidence of behavioural change ■■ Community buy in => essential ■■ Evidence of what has been achieved ■■ Mainstreaming essential, given scarce resources: ■■ It should argue the pro’s and con’s of integrating Need to get the few people available to work ■■ It should also provide key national level together recommendations (Practical measures) ■■ Also important to come under one roof to ensure ■■ It should target all stakeholders on how to coordination + programs (doesn’t work if totally integrate separate) ■■ It is but one resource and should not be the ■■ Needs to be in context of broader development overarching guide picture ■■ It should inform the roadmap but also take on ■■ Who is the note serving? Who will use it? What decisions made concerning the roadmap value will it add? How will it serve the region? ■■ The PPN will provide guidance to national ■■ It must take the issue forward in some sense governments for the integration of DRR and ■■ What is the roll-out plan? It will need to be CCA. It should explain the risks of not doing it as socialized well as the benefits NOT ACTING TODAY ■■ It could inform a regional policy approach (such ■■ More losses as the roadmap). It cannot be the policy. ■■ Higher costs 72 Acting Today For Tomorrow 5. What indicators might we use to measure ■■ Proportionate. Indicate inputs how well we are doing with reducing climate ■■ Human and economic loss is reduced (starting and related risks to development? Example point 2011) response: % of national budget allocated to integrated DRR and CCA interventions. ■■ Relevant ministries and agencies are able to integrate CCA/DRR into their policy action strategies, implementation and evaluation plans ■■ Human and economic loss is reduced, use 2010 ■■ Integration of DRR/CCA into curricula as base year ■■ Agency/Ministry tasked to coordinate and find ■■ All Ministries integrate DRM/CCA into action out how the country is doing with reducing plans climate and related risks to development ■■ Incorporate CCA/DRM into school curriculum/ ■■ DRR/CCA/ what Collaboration in Tuvalu under programs. the JNAP ■■ Number of countries that develop/adopt a ■■ At a community level, NGOs have implemented national strategy for CCA/DRR good on-ground programmes such as mangroves ■■ Financial monitoring system to track DRR/CCA replanting programmes (rather than seawall) => expenditures proven in Fiji during the last cyclone ■■ Social benefits are measured, tracked (But how to ■■ Tonga water supply => DRR/CCA intervention do this?) that increase rainwater harvesting through roof/ ■■ Number of new agreements for partnership gutter/tank approvals (proven deny droughts) ■■ Number of policies being used (US just ■■ % of plans that reflect explicit info recommended) ■■ % of local action that reflects scientific info ■■ Number of houses relocated to identified “safer� ■■ Simple but possible cost-benefit analysis areas, refitted to withstand cyclones etc., ■■ Change in livelihoods access to water, sanitation, ■■ Use existing indicators form HFA and Pacific sustainable crops. Regional Framework for Action. ■■ Human development indicators ■■ Combination of output and process ■■ Better vertical integration needed (top-down & ■■ Quality and quantity of data available to support bottom-up) to respond to community needs policymaking ■■ Insufficient coordination among ministries & ■■ National Budget allocation sometimes unwillingness to share information ■■ Existence of national integrated platform and ■■ Improvement of legal frameworks & enforcement integrated framework and whether there is at community level cabinet/legislative commitment ■■ Too much dependent on donor aid. Government ■■ Communities—should have integrated plans have not taken ownership of the DRR/CCA ■■ Well-functioning information sharing system. problems + committed sufficient funds ■■ How well is available risk based information used ■■ # of new partnership developed with agreements in planning programming, actions and decisions to collaborate in projects to address climate including for livelihoods—local, social, economic aspects ■■ % national plans and programmes reflect explicit ■■ # of policies developed (recommended being used of available risk-based information used) ■■ % of local actions are based on robust scientific ■■ Mechanism to track the progress of information and traditional knowledge implementation evaluation/reporting (progress monitoring) ■■ Progress Indicator OF WHAT??? ■■ % participation (schools, administration) for ■■ How ‘well’—How to define doing reducing framework climate risks to development ■■ Number of communities benefited from CB ■■ Target—donors, CROP prospect vulnerability profits action plans ■■ Indications of performance by the target groups Appendix 2 73 ■■ Progress in addressing CCA in development ■■ Adequate resourcing to implemented plans issues at national level, as shown in national • Measure implementation rate strategies & plans – # Projects implemented ■■ Use existing indicators in national plans, Pacific plans international benchmark – # Successful outcomes ■■ Government policies in place for residence – What benefits achieved evidence (building codes etc.) + enforcement ■■ Evidence of behavioural change ■■ Budget dedicated to DRM/CCA. ■■ The existence of national platform mechanisms ■■ Training & education at all levels (esp. community ■■ As legislation or policy a framework (national- based) action plan) ■■ Community engagement early & often ■■ Community examples: land use controls, ■■ Introduction of CCA & DRM in school programs mangrove planting ■■ Key elements are in place (example NAP) ■■ Indicators: Community plans DRR/CCA is factored into these plans. (Integrated DR/CC village ■■ Functional integrator structures in place at plans). appropriate levels ■■ A well-functioning system of information sharing. ■■ DRR/CCA incorporated evaluation curriculum at all levels ■■ Budget allocation ■■ Enforcement of building codes ■■ Existence of national coordination mechanism ■■ Consistency of budget allocation ■■ Existence of legislation or national strategy that guides or drives integration ■■ Interaction of DRM/CCA at community level => example community discussion ■■ DRR/CCA would be factored into community plans. ■■ Rebuilding in the same location after a disaster ■■ There would be a well functioning mechanism ■■ DRR/CCA are criteria within development for sharing experiences and examples. ■■ Country-specific metrics 74 Acting Today For Tomorrow Appendix 3. Summary Overview of the Collective Roles of CROP Agencies in Relation to Climate Change The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) the region on the important matter of accessing is the permanent chair of the Council of Regional and managing climate change financing. Further Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) and continues to action by PIFS is needed to strengthen the enabling play a general coordination role among stakeholders environment at the regional level so that PICTs (including CROP and development partners) in the can reap the full benefits of integrated DRR, CCA, region, guided by PIFS leaders’ decisions and regional and development. It is especially important that policy under the Pacific Plan. Through its political PIFS provide the political authority and leadership convening power as secretariat to the leaders, PIFS needed to root DRR and CCA in regional debates on coordinates the negotiation of development-partner development and economy. policy on the Pacific region, which often guides where partners allocate their development assistance to the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Pacific. Over the last five years, negotiations have Programme (SPREP) is the lead regional coordinating involved specific agreements on climate change for agency in climate change. It works in collaboration a number of large development partners, including with all CROP agencies (through the established Japan and the European Union. mechanisms) to ensure regional collaboration and to harness each CROP agency’s area of comparative The work of PIFS in climate change is guided by advantage for integrated support in response to the annual decisions of forum leaders, ministers, PICTs’ priority climate change needs. SPREP also and officials on the issue. In the most recent years offers experience and expertise in the areas of (2010–2011), this work has largely focused on mainstreaming climate change into sector policies strengthening access to and management of climate and linking to national sustainable development change resources for member countries. Emphasis processes; identifying adaptation priorities through has been placed on accessing international financing vulnerability and adaptation assessments; and mechanisms and facilitating improved management supporting members in carrying out adaptation of these resources at the national level through programs on the ground. In collaboration with other national systems wherever possible, e.g., budget CROP agencies, the United Nations Development support or national trust-fund arrangements. The Programme (UNDP), and key donors such as the organization’s work over the coming year will focus Australian Agency for International Development, on the practical application of these preferred the U.S. Agency for International Development, national options through case studies; to support this and the European Union, SPREP is also involved in work, regional options will also be further explored, monitoring. SPREP supports members in planning including the practical application of a regional trust- and implementing renewable energy activities in fund arrangement. collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), UNDP, and other partners, PIFS is currently the coordinator of the Resources and assists with greenhouse gas inventories to Working Group of the Pacific Climate Change support national communications reporting. SPREP Roundtable (PCCR). This role requires facilitating and also supports national meteorological services in monitoring the implementation of PCCR decisions on managing and disseminating weather and climate climate change resourcing. From 2011 to 2013, the role information; it assists with relevant knowledge will focus on the development of a regional technical management, education, and awareness consistent support mechanism and support under the United with the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Climate Change and the Pacific Islands Meteorology (UNFCCC) to member countries on climate change Strategy, and also supports PICTs in meeting their financing issues. All of these activities are undertaken in obligations under UNFCCC. consultation and collaboration with member countries, CROP agencies, and where appropriate, development SPREP’s 2011–2015 strategic plan reflects PICTs’ partners and others stakeholders. climate change priority actions—those intended to strengthen PICTs’ capacity to respond to climate In addition, PIFS has taken a lead advisory role to change through policy improvement, implementation Pacific island countries and territories (PICTS) and of practical adaptation measures informed by Appendix 3 75 assessments, enhanced ecosystem resilience to manage these risks. SPC’s existing programs and the impacts of climate change, and low-carbon expertise can be applied to build climate resilience development. for PICTs in a number of sectors. SPC brings a wide range of expertise—especially scientific, technical, SPREP is also coordinating the Pacific Climate and data management skills—that can help PICTs Change Portal in cooperation with CROP. Regional fill climate change–related knowledge gaps. SPC and national institutions in the Pacific islands region is already supporting members in climate change– possess an enormous amount of climate change– related responses across different sectors. Its related information and many relevant tools. The decentralized mode of service delivery is particularly information, however, is not always readily accessible. suited to working on the ground with members at There are also gaps in information, particularly at the the national level. national level. The portal will provide a platform for institutions and governments in the Pacific region SPC’s work covers almost all the key economic, to easily share climate change–related information environmental, and social sectors. These include the and to fill information gaps, by linking for example natural resources sector (agriculture, aquaculture, to the SPC PRISM database, the Pacific Adaptation fisheries, forestry, water resources); the human and to Climate Change Project, the Pacific Islands Global social development sector (education, health, water Ocean Observing System, and others sources of data. supply and sanitation, culture, gender and youth issues, human rights); the economic development This effort is expected to improve and strengthen sector (energy, information and communication understanding of the issues related to climate change technology, infrastructure, transport); the oceans for a great number of people in the Pacific region. and islands sector (coastal zone management, Improved access to information is in turn expected geological assessments, seabed mapping, maritime to strengthen and enhance the communication and boundary delineation); cross-cutting areas (disaster collaboration needed to cope with climate change risk reduction, statistics and demography, food regionally and locally. security, climate change), and research, policy The major target groups expected to use the analysis, and advice. All the sectors are vulnerable to portal are national stakeholders (PICTs), regional existing climate variability and to the changes that stakeholders (CROP agencies), and development are projected to occur over the course of this century. partners. A broader group of users, however, is not Key areas of susceptibility include food and water excluded. security; human health; exposure of critical economic infrastructure to extreme weather events; sea-level The objectives of the portal are these: rise; energy, transport, and communication security; and the social and cultural impacts of climate change. ■■ Publicize challenges and promote activities related to climate change, both globally and The Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) established its regionally climate change program following endorsement by its governing council. The program focuses primarily ■■ Act as a hub for climate change information and on promoting the role of tuna fisheries in building knowledge sharing resilience against climate change threats. The rationale is that tuna (and billfish) are increasingly ■■ Assist decision makers by providing information threatened by both accelerating levels of fishing and on climate change adaptation and mitigation oceanographic/climatic changes. The impacts are ■■ Identify gaps in current program activities becoming a real threat to PICTs, particularly the most vulnerable economies, which are highly dependent ■■ Facilitate enhanced cooperation on climate on oceanic fisheries not only for subsistence but change in the region also for the financial benefits they offer and the contribution they make to gross domestic product. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) is the leading technical organization in the Pacific and has FFA has an important role in climate change as it for many years implemented activities that directly relates to effective management of tuna stocks. or indirectly address the climate change–related risks Through its climate change program, FFA provides and constraints facing PICTs; it has been particularly the necessary support to its members in the areas involved in building national capacity to identify and of mainstreaming climate change into domestic 76 Acting Today For Tomorrow fisheries legislation and strategic policies and plans; in crop and fisheries productivity, water resource facilitating transformational changes in the fishing management, ocean acidification, human health, industry to reduce hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) etc. The research seeks to improve understanding gases and improve onshore cold storage and of the projected adverse impacts of climate change supporting service facilities; facilitating commercial in the region with a view to formulate appropriate developments and fishing ventures to better strategies and implement sector-specific community position vulnerable countries to sustainably develop climate change adaptive actions in as many as 15 and exploit tuna resources, given predictions that Pacific members of the EU-ACP. stocks may move across FFA members’ exclusive economic zones because of oceanographic and Pacific Aviation Safety Office (PASO) is a regional climatic changes; facilitating capacity building and aviation oversight organization representing 13 substitution to better implement effective policies Pacific island countries and carrying out work in 10 and implement effective climate change activities in to help them meet their national and international tuna fisheries; undertaking necessary bioeconomic aviation compliance obligations. Through global evaluation and modeling to better understand the aviation frameworks, regional programs to reduce impact of oceanographic and climatic changes; and carbon emissions in the aviation sector have been providing analyses and advice on best practices and developed; these are the programs to which the management options (including implications) to Pacific island countries can contribute. address impact of climate change on tuna fisheries. In October 2010, the International Civil Aviation University of the South Pacific (USP), the premier Organization (ICAO), at its 37th General Assembly, tertiary institution in the region, is supported by 12 adopted a resolution relating to practices and PICTs. Its current enrolment consists of over 20,000 procedures for the protection of the environment. students spread over 14 campuses, with the majority Specifically, it endorsed the global goal of an annual at its main campus in Laucala, Suva. Through the average fuel efficiency improvement of 2 percent Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable until 2020, with aspirational goals beyond this date. Development (PACE-SD),a center of excellence in multidisciplinary aspects of climate change, USP As ICAO member states, the PASO member countries has for the last decade offered courses and training are encouraged to develop state action plans programs in disaster risk management, resource identifying practices and procedures to contribute to management, environmental management, and the ICAO global target of emissions reduction. PASO sustainable development at the postgraduate level. has a strong focus on improving levels of compliance PACE-SD helps PICTs to enhance their capacity in and meeting ICAO resolution obligations, and human resource development to meet the growing encourages and assists states in the development of need for trained human resources for climate action plans toward this end. change adaptation. In addition, since 2006, PACE- SD has led an initiative in Fiji’s rural communities PASO also works with states to ensure cooperation, to create awareness of, and to implement, climate where possible, with other initiatives to lessen change adaptation measures targeted at sustaining environmental impact. One such initiative, designed to livelihoods. improve aircraft operational efficiencies and thereby reduce fuel use and resulting carbon emissions, USP is currently engaged in creating a cadre of skilled seeks to improve route efficiencies associated with professionals as climate leaders able to support and air navigation practices and routing aircraft through guide national governments, nongovernmental airspace. organizations, and regional organizations in their efforts to adapt to climate change and to train Pacific Power Association (PPA) represents other stakeholders in mainstreaming of adaptation, 25 electric utilities in the region and has been especially at the community level. It is also actively collaborating with other CROP agencies in the energy engaged in applied research supported by the sector in the Pacific. In its work with electric utilities General Secretariat of the Africa, Caribbean and in PICTS, PPA has implemented, and will continue Pacific–European Union (EU-ACP) Secretariat on the to implement, activities that directly reduce climate impacts of climate change, of associated extreme change risks. These activities aim to increase energy events, and of changes in the southwest Pacific efficiency in both supply-side and demand-side Appendix 3 77 management; they will not only reduce greenhouse impact tourism development (such as SPC in the gas emissions but also improve utility performance. areas of renewable energy, water, and sanitation). PPA is currently promoting the use of renewable Fiji National University–Fiji School of Medicine energy by ensuring that the utilities are ready to take is currently engaged in various activities related to on increased generation capacity from renewable the health effects of climate change, although the energy sources. This work involves regulatory, historical role of the health sector in responding to technical, and policy changes in the utilities. such effects has been largely reactionary. This has been particularly true in the Pacific, where health South Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO) is the ministries have been hard pressed to formulate cost- regional body mandated to promote and develop effective solutions to the health impacts of climate tourism in and for PICTs. The region’s tourism change in addition to their ongoing efforts to address destinations depend on the natural environment as existing health problems. their core asset, and the environment is very sensitive to climate variability and change. Climate change Among the climate-related activities of the Fiji School is expected to impact environmental resources that of Medicine are these: are critical attractions for tourism, such as coastlines (beaches and mangroves), wildlife (bird watching, ■■ Medical education and training. Climate change whale watching) and biodiversity. and health issues are now integrated into relevant programs offered by the Department of Since the environment is such a critical resource for Public Health. tourism, climate-induced environmental changes will have profound effects on tourism at the destination ■■ Policy analysis. Academics are partnering with and regional level. The territory of SPTO member relevant counterparts within ministries of health countries includes tiny atoll islands, which are highly and other ministries in PICTS to identify policy vulnerable to sea-level rises. Climate change impacts, gaps and, where possible, revise and implement which could include changes in water availability, policies to support the health sector response to biodiversity loss, reduction of the natural beauty of climate change. landscapes, increased natural hazards, coastal erosion ■■ Research. Research activities have focused on and inundation, damage to infrastructure, and the strengthening health systems, ensuring early increasing incidence of vector-borne diseases, will all warning of and response to climate-sensitive impact tourism to varying degrees. diseases, and assessing the environmental health To address climate change impacts on regional impacts of climate change. tourism, SPTO seeks to do the following: The Fiji School of Medicine recognizes the health ■■ Increase awareness. SPTO conducts workshops component of climate change projects and has and educational programs—in the form of encouraged staff to actively participate, where training and advocacy initiatives—to share possible, on advisory committees, as well as play information on the impact of climate change on lead roles in ensuring that there is sufficient and the tourism industry. appropriate guidance (with respect to health) on climate change activities in the region. The academic ■■ Mainstreaming. SPTO helps national governments institution’s collaborative activities will likely and tourism departments include climate inform—and help Pacific island health professionals change in their tourism development policies— implement—activities that seek to reduce the health for instance, by facilitating and taking on an impacts of climate change in the region. advisory role in initiatives that relate to tourism development planning. Pacific Islands Development Programme (PIDP) was established in 1980 with the mission of assisting ■■ Adaptation. SPTO works with other CROP PICT leaders in achieving and sustaining equitable agencies to deliver technical assistance to tourism social and economic development consistent with industry operators on adaptation measures, and the goals of the people of the Pacific islands region. it also works closely with relevant organizations PIDP began as a forum through which island leaders and other stakeholders whose programs/activities could discuss critical issues of development with 78 Acting Today For Tomorrow a wide spectrum of interested countries, donors, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector actors. Today, PIDP’s role as a regional organization has expanded to include carrying out secretariat functions for the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders, where climate change issues have been discussed; for regional and national assessments of the impacts of climate change on PICTs; and for education and training on climate change tools and applications that will improve livelihoods. Appendix 4 79 Appendix 4. Notes on “Acting Today for Tomorrow�: High-Level Dialogue and Meeting on Climate- and Disaster- Resilient Development Jointly Hosted by the SPC, SPREP, and WB, Holiday Inn, Suva, Fiji June 4–5, 2012 Overview ■■ All stressed that, rather than putting forward new messages, the PPN highlights the urgency On June 4–5, 2012, the World Bank (WB), of doing business differently in order to gain Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and traction on messages that have been evident for Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment many years. Program (SPREP) jointly hosted a high-level dialogue with representatives of Pacific island country and ■■ All three organizations are engaged in initiatives territory (PICT) governments, regional organizations, to make CCA and DRR cross-cutting issues within donors and development partners, and civil society their structures and programs. organizations. The overall objective for the high-level dialogue and meeting was to bring together relevant ■■ Priority issues in achieving climate- and disaster- stakeholders and actors to build consensus on resilient development in the region are: actions that can serve as catalysts for change within • Seek high-level political leadership an organization (government, regional organization, donor, development partner) in order to • Address risk, regardless of whether the source is disaster, climate change, or other stressors 1. Design and implement more-integrated • Avoid reinventing the wheel; there has been approaches to disaster risk reduction (DRR) progress in integrating regional frameworks for and climate change adaptation (CCA) climate change and disasters, notably the first joint meeting of the Pacific Climate Change 2. Advance the achievement of climate- and Roundtable and Pacific Platform for DRM being disaster-resilient development in the Pacific held in 2013, and an MOU to ensure that at local, national, and regional levels the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on The discussion was informed, in part, by the key Climate Change (PIFACC) and Pacific Disaster messages and recommendations of “Acting Today Risk Reduction and Disaster Management for Tomorrow: A Policy and Practice Note for Climate Framework for Action (RFA) are integrated by and Disaster Resilient Development in the Pacific 2015 Islands Region� (PPN), produced by the World Bank. • Strengthen partnerships at all levels The event marked the launch of the PPN, which is • Move from planning to implementation now freely available in hard copy and online at http:// go.worldbank.org/0Y19F5LU80. • Shift the emphasis from disaster response to preparedness and integration of DRR and CCA In addition to promoting a dialogue, the event into national budgets included two substantial working group sessions. ■■ The PPN will be used by SPREP in its strategic Discussions on June 4, 2012, were facilitated by planning and development. SPREP looks forward Mr. Garry Wiseman, manager of the UNDP (United to working with the WB and other partners to Nations Development Program) Pacific Centre. implement the PPN. Discussions on June, 5, 2012, were facilitated by Mr. James Roop, climate change adviser, Australian ■■ PIFS endorsed the PPN and is committed to Agency for International Development (AusAid). making the PPN an area of focus in the region. Introductory remarks (SPC, SPREP, WB) ■■ SPC endorsed the PPN and recognized its timely and significant contribution to their ongoing ■■ All endorsed the PPN, recognizing its value in efforts to better understand and reduce the progressing the integration of DRR, CCA, and vulnerability and risks facing island countries. development in the region 80 Acting Today For Tomorrow Political Prominence of Disaster and What is needed to overcome barriers to integration Climate Risks and to achieve political leadership? (This session included active participation of CROP ■■ CROP agencies need to use their comparative CEOs) competencies Perspectives on the political commitments that will ■■ Regular consultation with a wide range of be required at a regional level to support PICTs’ stakeholders efforts to foster strong political leadership for resilient development: ■■ Strengthening technical capacity in the long term ■■ The Forum Economic Ministers’ Meeting leaders ■■ Long-term research regarding global trends in the discussed the need for better coordination and region integration of DRR, CCA, and development ■■ Global financing is essential—there is very during their meeting in 2011 and in 2009 when little capacity to respond in the Pacific without they endorsed the Pacific Plan. However, there’s engagement of the global community been no specific effort to take action and the message needs to be presented to leaders in a Exploring Opportunities for Improved compelling form at this year’s meeting. Coordination and Partnerships ■■ Recent work on public financial systems Barriers to effective coordination and partnerships supported by the IMF has helped national highlighted by PICTs: economies to withstand serious impacts of global crisis. This is analogous to type of work ■■ Projects and programs do not always reflect being promoted in PPN and is a useful format for national development priorities. Donors need to regional work. make advocacy for DRR and CCA an integral part of any programs they support. ■■ Political leadership must be long term rather than focused around short electoral cycles. Donors ■■ Inefficiencies created by the same staff attending should encourage longer-term programs that climate change and disaster committee meetings encourage building institutions that can retain staff in order to maintain capacity. ■■ Lack of information sharing ■■ Merging of key policy frameworks is necessary— ■■ Nonintegration of DRR and CCA institutions good examples are JNAPS and the merging of increases cost inefficiencies the PIFACC and the RFA by 2015. ■■ There is a gap between regional documents and ■■ High-level political leadership needs also to research, and implementation driven by donors, ensure line agencies continue to be strengthened. that needs to be closed Barriers to achieving political leadership: ■■ Donors need to have fewer preconceived ideas about use of funds and be more responsive to ■■ Terminology and characterization of the message countries’ needs is important when addressing Pacific leaders and politicians since the immediacy of disaster ■■ Donors often focus on the activities themselves at language often lacks the forward-looking aspects the expense of a focus on outcomes of reducing social and economic costs. ■■ PIFS is leading the development of a matrix of ■■ The donor community responds to catastrophic tasks being undertaken within CROP agencies to events, discouraging budget provisions for clarify what is being done and what each of us prevention. The PPN does a good job of should be doing to avoid duplication. This will conveying this message in language that political be useful for member countries and development leaders can understand. partners as well as CROPS. ■■ Integration leading to resilience is a big job and a big challenge since long-term objectives do not buy political votes. Appendix 4 81 Strategies for improved coordination of DRR and Grounding Risk Considerations in Development CCA based on experiences at the country level: Factors that have facilitated integration of risk ■■ Vanuatu is pursuing integration of the National considerations in development at the country level: Committee on Climate Change and the National Task Force on DRM into the National Advisory ■■ Developing good relationships with finance and Board for DRR and CCA, cochaired by the planning agencies, including getting the minister directors of the National Disaster Management of finance on board Office (NDMO) and Vanuatu Meteorological ■■ Finding good champions for change, including and Geohazards Division (VMGD), with a getting the minister for the NDMO and climate secretariat that includes a project management change on board and involving the heads of all unit to administer externally funded projects and ministries programs. ■■ Putting the NDMO or climate change office into ■■ The Cook Islands developed a DRM policy with a high-level office with close proximity to national a focus on all-agency and all-hazard approach. development policy and planning is important The NDMO was moved to the Office of the Prime for visibility and for expediting political and Minister to increase high-level visibility. bureaucratic processes ■■ The Solomon Islands restructured and combined ■■ All actors—church, youth, women—need to be the NDMO and Ministry of Environment, Climate brought into the development process. Budgetary Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology, planning processes often do not engage in and placed dedicated provincial disaster officers enough of these efforts. in provinces to improve the partnership between provincial government and communities. ■■ The “Wantok� system is important to successful integration of institutional functions. For ■■ Papua New Guinea established the Office of example, in Vanuatu the colocation of NDMO Climate Change and Development in 2010 and VMGD in the same building has enabled a in order to bring risk considerations into strong relationship and communication between development; the office holds annual meetings to the respective directors ensure work plans are aligned among agencies. Interagency technical working groups oversee ■■ A large gap remains at the provincial level in DRR projects and initiatives to aid mainstreaming of and CCA support DRR and CCA, each province has a CCA and DRR officer, and a climate-compatible development ■■ Government needs to be able to guide donor plan is being developed. activities in a unified way. The lack of institutional integration over time has prevented many of Pathways for improved coordination at a regional the activities laid out in DRR and CCA plans level: from being implemented, as donors have been selective in what they fund and have not always ■■ Three elements are essential to achieving aligned with government priorities. Integration improved donor coordination: (1) a common of DRR and CCA functions helps to achieve this objective between donors regarding what they are working toward in different countries; (2) ■■ Ensuring alignment of sector and central work better understanding among donors of their own plans early in the process. If this is not achieved comparative advantage; (3) common regional it can be difficult to get line agencies on board benchmarks to measure outcomes of initiatives later on, since risk management is not reflected in their work plans. Climate change offices—or ■■ Countries and regional organizations need equivalent—should play a coordinating role in to play a part in telling donors what their this. comparative advantage is. ■■ Establishing MOUs with the Office of Provincial Affairs to ensure engagement of provincial authorities 82 Acting Today For Tomorrow ■■ In Papua New Guinea, a National Development ■■ Project teams need to realistically account for Partner’s forum for climate change meets once the challenges of implementation in remote per month, which helps to facilitate alignment. provinces when planning. Careful and realistic Also Papua New Guinea has a matrix of DRR and planning and forethought are required CCA projects and programs to keep tabs on who is doing what and where. This has helped to Overcoming obstacles in the implementation phase: avoid duplication. ■■ Donors need to be flexible in project design to ■■ Donors and governments need to partner with accommodate issues as they arise, since much other in-country organizations—NGOs, church can change between the conception of a project organizations, community-based organizations, idea and the beginning of implementation donor groups— to minimize the costs and ■■ Projects must build on existing national policies, logistical problems of implementation in isolated strategies, and plans communities. ■■ Results orientation is important, so we must ■■ Experience with community-based projects— prioritize establishing baselines for monitoring such as a relocation project in the Torres Islands and evaluation. Success should be measured in Vanuatu—has shown that participatory by the continuation of changed business as consultative processes are key to ownership usual following project completion. Therefore, and that a range of sectors other than DRR and structures and institutions need to be CCA need to be involved. Technical information strengthened at provincial and national level needs to be translated to a form communities can understand and projects need to build from ■■ Capacity building needs to occur at all levels, traditional governance structures. village to national, and should be two way; development partners need to learn from Implementation Lessons from Project and countries and vice versa Program Interventions ■■ Coordination and cooperation between partners Overcoming obstacles in the preparation phase: is important to avoid projects and programs ■■ Development partners need to work more on becoming a burden. For example, GIZ [German being responsive to countries’ needs rather than Society for International Cooperation] partners conceiving projects remotely with SPC and SPREP and aims at a programmatic approach including joint programming, joint ■■ Planning must be participatory—done in missions, and joint concepts where funds from partnership with the people involved—and different donors complement each other incorporate local knowledge in order to ensure buy-in at all levels ■■ Support multisectoral steering structures ■■ Project design must be outcome oriented ■■ A dedicated Project Management Unit is required for effective in-country coordination. Projects ■■ Donors want to fly their own flags, but countries should not rely on existing in-country staff but need to guide adaptation projects strategically, need to establish dedicated project staff either and this should occur in the design phase on full- or part-time basis. It is very important to find a home for coordinators and other project ■■ Build upon assessments that already exist, such staff after a project has finished to prevent loss of as the Asian Development Bank (ADB)–supported capacity climate-proofing work in the Federated States of Micronesia ■■ Factor political uncertainty into design and planning by enabling adaptable plans to ensure ■■ The planning stage must move quickly to projects are able to progress regardless of implementation or it is difficult to get traction political change ■■ Land issues must be resolved very early in implementation phase. Appendix 4 83 ■■ Development partners need to better use their ■■ Concluding Comments and Next Steps (SPC, own comparative advantages at a national and SPREP) regional level—for instance, ADB’s strengths include building infrastructure, while its capacity ■■ The PPN will inform the roadmap process toward building ability is weaker. Doing the right things the integrated strategy for CCA and DRR in the is as important as doing things right region, for which consultations are starting soon. ■■ It is important to differentiate between two ■■ The challenge remains to put the messages of types of capacity building: capacity to deliver the the PPN into action. project, and technical capacity achieved through ■■ An important takeaway lesson is that this region the project is well supported by regional organizations, Climate and Risk Information and Tools donors, and partners to assist PICTs in integrating DRR and CCA. Support is just an email away. ■■ The Australian Department for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the World Bank presented updates from the Pacific Climate Change Science Programme (PCCSP) and Pacific Catastrophic Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) 84 Acting Today For Tomorrow Appendix 5. Studies Reviewed for the Analysis Summarized in Table 3.3 The order in which the works below are listed reflects 7. World Bank. 2006. “Not If But When: Adapting their order in table 3.3. to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Islands Region.� Policy Note, East Asia and Pacific 1. UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Region. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/Natural-Hazards- 2009. Interim Regional Synthesis Report on report.pdf. the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia and the Pacific (July 2007 to 8. IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and September 2008). First Session of the Committee Red Crescent). 2011. Law and Disaster Risk on Disaster Risk Reduction, March, 25–27, Reduction at the Community Level: Background Bangkok, E/ESCAP/CDR/INF/4. Report. Prepared by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in 2. Gero, A., K. Méheux, and D. Dominey-Howes. consultation with the International Committee 2010. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate of the Red Cross. Geneva. Change Adaptation in the Pacific: The Challenge of Integration. ATRC-NHRL Miscellaneous Report 9. Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for 4, University of New South Wales. Disaster Reduction. 2009. “Clouds but Little Rain . . .� Views from the Frontline: A Local Perspective 3. UNISDR and UNDP (United Nations International of Progress towards Implementation of the Strategy for Disaster Reduction and United Hyogo Framework for Action. Teddington, UK: Nations Development Programme). 2011. Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Institutional and Policy Analysis of Disaster Risk Disaster. Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific Island Countries. Report prepared by Global Network of Civil Society Organisations 10. J. E. Hay. http://www.unisdr.org/files/18869_ for Disaster Reduction. 2011. “If We Do Not Join institutionalandpolicyanalysisofdrr.pdf. Hands . . .� Views from the Frontline: A Local Perspective of Progress towards Implementation 4. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Teddington, for Disaster Reduction). 2009. Risk and Poverty UK: Global Network of Civil Society Organisations in a Changing Climate: Invest Today for a Safer for Disaster Reduction. Tomorrow. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR. TearFund and UNISDR (United Nations 11. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 5. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy 2007. Institutional Donor Progress with for Disaster Reduction). 2011. Global Assessment Mainstreaming DRR. Report prepared by P. Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Venton and S. Latrobe. Teddington, UK. Redefining Development. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: 12. GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and UNISDR. Recovery). 2009. Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands: The 6. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy World Bank Regional Stocktake, East Asia and for Disaster Reduction). 2011. HFA Progress the Pacific Region. Report prepared by World in Asia Pacific—Regional Synthesis Report Bank and SOPAC. Washington, DC. 2009–2011. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/ publications/21158. Appendix 5 85 13. SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional SOPAC and UNDP (Pacific Islands Applied 15. Environment Programme). 2010. Pacific Geoscience Commission and United Nations Islands Framework for Action on Climate Development Program). Forthcoming. Change (PIFACC) and the PIFACC Action Plan: A Review of the Regional Disaster Risk Findings, Options and Recommendations. Management Mainstreaming Programme Report Prepared by J. E. Hay. Rarotonga, in the Pacific. Draft report prepared for the Cook Islands. UNDP Pacific Centre and SOPAC Disaster Risk Programme. Asian 14. Development Bank. 2009. Mainstreaming Climate Change in ADB Australia DCCEE (Department of Climate 16. Operations—Climate Change Implementation Change and Energy Efficiency). 2011. Plan for the Pacific. Mandaluyong City, “Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change: Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Past Approaches and Considerations for the Future.� Discussion paper prepared by J. E. Hay. 1818 H Street, NW 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 202 477-1234 Telephone: 202 458-0640 Facsimile: 202 477-6391 Facsimile: 202 522-3227 Internet: www.worldbank.org Internet: www.gfdrr.org www.worldbank.org/pi E-mail: drm@worldbank.org E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org