GFDRR Project December 2009 53207 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands THE WORLD BANK / REgiONAL sTOcKTAKE / EAsT AsiA AND THE PAciFic REgiON GFDRR Global FaCIlITY FoR DISaSTER REDUCTIoN aND RECoVERY Acronyms and Abbreviations AOsis Alliance of Small Island States AusAiD Australian Agency for International Development cBDRM Community-based disaster risk management ccA Climate change adaptation ccAiRR Climate Change Adaptation through Integrated Risk Reduction (Framework) csiRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia) cLP Community Lifelines Program, SOPAC cRP Community Risk Program, SOPAC DRM Disaster risk management DRR Disaster risk reduction EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation FsPi Foundation of the People of the South Pacific International gcM General Circulation Model icsU International Council of Scientific Unions iDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction iNc Initial National Communication on Climate Change isDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations iPcc Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JicA Japan International Cooperation Agency M&E Monitoring and evaluation NAP National Action Plan (for DRM) NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action (for CCA) NcsP National Communications Support Program for Climate Change NgO Nongovernmental organization NiWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research NZAiD New Zealand Agency for International Development O&iP Oceans and Islands Program, SOPAC PAcc Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Program PiccAP Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Program sOPAc Secretariat of the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission sPc Secretariat of the Pacific Community sPREP Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Program UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNFccc United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UsP University of the South Pacific WMO World Meteorological Organization contents introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 i. Perspectives on ccA and DRR issues ........................................................ 6 ii. Framework for Analysis .................................................................................... 8 iii. The Regional stocktake .................................................................................... 10 iV. Opportunities for investment.......................................................................... 14 Appendix A. Model and Framework for the country Assessments ...... 21 Appendix B. Regional stocktake issues ........................................................... 26 Appendix c. status of in-country Arrangements for Risk Reduction 30 Appendix D. Project Team and People consulted ........................................ 33 References and select Bibliography .................................................................. 35 4 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands introduction T his Regional Stocktake highlights arrangements evidence of systemic difficulties from many Pacific is- for supporting hazard and climate change risk land countries in establishing an enabling environment management leading to disaster risk reduction and cross-sector focus for DRR and CCA activities de- (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) mea- spite clear leadership commitment at the national and sures in Pacific island countries. Specifically the report regional levels. In many countries it is becoming clear identifies country and regional needs for supporting that, in spite of several promising starts, sustainable risk reduction programs, the primary players who are and systematic risk reduction (i.e., on other than an ad supporting such programs, gaps in delivering support hoc basis) will not occur without stronger government and possible synergies, and comparative advantages commitment and efforts at the policy and regulatory among agencies active in this activity. levels. Among the priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), one factor is to promote in-country The focus of the Regional Stocktake is on risk reduc- government arrangements demanding risk reduction tion (as opposed to disaster management measures to considerations across all sectors and promoting com- prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster events munity-based, risk reduction initiatives through pro- when they occur). The report reviews regional mecha- vincial and local government and through civil society nisms supporting in-country government arrangements and all stakeholder groups. As discussed below, while and activities and identifies potential improvement there is increasing interest in dealing with many com- measures. While several specific sector activities are ad- mon issues and challenges from a regional perspective, dressed as they were encountered, the report does not much more nurturing is still needed. provide a comprehensive summary of sector-by-sector activities. Other reports have done that and are appro- This report is a companion to the seven country assess- priately referenced. ment reports that assess the extent to which risk reduc- tion activities (including the enabling environment) The synthesis report Preparedness, Planning, and have progressed in seven Pacific island countries--Fiji, Prevention: Assessment of National and Regional Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Efforts to Reduce Natural Disaster and Climate Islands, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu. The reports were Change Risks in the Pacific (World Bank, 2009a) prepared under the auspices of the World Bank's Reduc- presents profiles of the DRR/CCA systems in the sev- ing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the en countries reviewed in this Regional Stocktake. From Pacific Islands. The team of project consultants met with these profiles as well as the other works cited in the syn- representatives of key regional agencies and visited the thesis report, it is clear that both a national and regional seven island countries in carrying out the assessments perspective are needed among all stakeholders in order during the period February to July 2008. The reports to have a comprehensive operational framework. At the identify possible initiatives for improving the outcomes same time, given several factors (distance, size, socio- of in-country DRR/CCA activities. These are com- economic linkages, cultural, institutional and other mented on further in the Business Plan Commentary characteristics), it should be acknowledge that in the (World Bank, 2008), which is intended as a basis for dis- early phase the potential for regional DRR and CCA cussion between countries and stakeholders for decisions initiatives among the Pacific islands is not as promising on funding of particular initiatives. As discussed in this as it is for individual country initiatives. report, the initiatives might support better arrangements for understanding hazard-related information (to inform In the seven country assessment reports, the focus on DRR and CCA activities), or strengthening the enabling in-country government arrangements arises from clear environment (to improve risk reduction focus and activ- Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 5 ity within or among countries) and "on-the-ground" ac- assessment of regional proposals for enhancing the tivities (to actually reduce risk). support available to countries (Chapter IV). Appendix A expands the framework used in each of the country The structure of the Regional Stocktake starts with the assessments. A similar framework was used for the Re- historical and emerging perspectives of climate change gional Stocktake. Appendix B contains a summary of adaptation and disaster risk reduction (Chapter 1) and detailed issues from the regional stocktaking. Appendix setting a framework for analysis (Chapter II). It follows C provides a status of in-country arrangements of risk with the key findings from the regional stocktaking of reduction as published in three other regional reports. the country and regional needs and gaps for support- And Appendix D lists the project team and the people ing in-country activity (Chapter III) and leads to an consulted in the preparation of this report. v 6 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands i. Perspectives on ccA and DRR issues I n the case of climate change adaption, climatologists Another major consequence of this perspective was and atmospheric scientists in the first instance were that global climate change was earlier viewed primar- the driving force behind the coalescing interna- ily as an environmental problem. Thus, the first major tional concerns about anthropogenic climate change international assessment of the "greenhouse effect" in the 1980s. And the International Decade for Natu- in the 1980s was carried out by the United Nations ral Disaster Reduction 1990-99 caused international Environment Program (UNEP) along with the World focus on disaster management to turn its attention to Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Inter- the issue of disaster risk reduction. Following is a per- national Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). The spective on each. chapters of this study and the subsequent IPCC re- ports were initially organized around bio-physical im- pacts on natural ecosystems, managed ecosystems, the climate change adaption cryosphere, and hydrology. The international response From the perspective of the climatologists and atmo- followed similar environmental lines. The Climate spheric scientists, the problem was most easily char- Convention evolved from the 1992 Earth Summit. acterized as a slow, gradual change in climatic means Filtering down to national governments, the mandate (e.g., global-mean temperature or global sea-level for climate change issues is typically assigned to envi- change). This was because issues of detection and at- ronment ministries or departments. tribution of past changes based on observations, as well as projections of future changes based on model- As illustrated in Table 1, the conventional view of ing, were most easily addressed through analyses of climate change adaptation is "top-down", a process climate variables averaged at a global scale. in which the challenge is to anticipate and adjust to gradual changes in average climate; this conventional This perspective had a "bounce-on" consequence to view has given way to an emerging perspective that those in the scientific community concerned with cli- climate change adaptation involves a dynamic process mate change impact and adaptation analyses. During of adjusting to additional risks posed by changes in cli- the 1980s and 1990s, the preponderance of such anal- mate and sea level over time. Today, it is increasingly yses involved overlaying scenarios of average changes evident that while the driving forces of climate change in climate and sea level on various sectoral concerns are global, adaptation is largely local. Moreover, at this such as agriculture, water, and ecosystems in order to scale, information about the average changes in climate ascertain impacts (for example, on average crop yields, is by itself not as important as how climate variability water supply, or biome changes) and to suggest adap- and extremes may change locally and thus contribute tation options. This `top-down" way of formulating the to the risks--from droughts, floods, cyclones--already problem became imbedded in the three working group faced by nations and communities. structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in which the Working Group I (Sci- From the "coal face", it also becomes clear that ad- ence of Climate Change) created scenarios of future aptation goes beyond such overt actions as building climate change and passed them down to Working a sea wall or changing farming practices. It is a com- Group II (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) plex, dynamic process that includes awareness raising, for their impact and adaptation assessments and to capacity building, mainstreaming into development Working III on Mitigation of Climate Change. plans, acquiring knowledge and data, and assessing risk at all levels. Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 7 Table 1. Two Perspectives of climate change Adaptation The threat The response The promotion Adaptation involves... ...adjusting to slow, gradual ...adopting discrete measures ...providing external changes in average climate to reduce impacts (e.g. assessments of impacts and Conventional and sea level by... change crop type) by... "shopping lists" of options for perspective reducing them. Adaptation involves... ...reducing the additional ...a dynamic process ...internalizing adaptation within risks from climatic hazards that includes awareness communities, governments, and (e.g., cyclones, droughts, raising, capacity building, development agencies (e.g., Recent perspective floods) due to climate and mainstreaming into policies ADB, World Bank) in order to sea-level change through... and plans, monitoring, risk "climate-proof" develop- assessment and knowledge ment projects over time acquisition by... There are clear signs of this perspective shift in the velopment policy and planning and prompted several IPCC (2001) Third Assessment Report and again in disaster preparedness activities. A decade later, the its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007). There understanding and literature appear to have outpaced is also evidence that the international CCA funding commensurate action on disaster risk reduction. mechanisms and the related programs of development agencies and regional organizations are moving in this The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005­2015 iden- direction (e.g., World Bank, 2006; ADB, 2005). These tified key areas--governance, hazard and risk under- issues are reflected in the Pacific Islands Framework for standing, early warning, knowledge, and education-- Action on Climate Change 2006-2015 approved in June as being necessary to reducing underlying risk and 2005 and endorsed by the Pacific Forum Leaders in strengthening preparedness. These issues are reflected October 2005. in An Investment for Sustainable Development in the Pacific Island Countries Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management--A Framework for Action 2005- Disaster risk reduction 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communi- Despite scientific advances, and improved data col- ties to Disasters (SOPAC 2005) adopted by the Pacific lection and analytical skills, the traditional focus on Islands Forum in October 2005. preparedness and response has clearly not been suffi- cient to deal with the increasing losses and impacts of In 2006 The World Bank Policy Note "Not If, But disasters. Especially for developing countries, disaster When" identified perverse incentives, poor institu- losses that exceed 10 percent of gross domestic prod- tional arrangements, and lack of instruments as major uct (GDP) were having serious adverse impact on constraints limiting the adoption of natural hazard already fragile development programs, most particu- risk management in the Pacific Islands Region. larly in small island developing states. Comparatively, disaster losses seldom approach 1 percent of GDP in While there is evidence of policy development and industrialized countries. planning in most Pacific island countries, in-country capacity, institutional arrangements, and information The 1994 the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action remain major constraints, and risk reduction action is a product of the International Decade for Natural on the ground remains elusive despite major efforts Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). It identified disaster by donor and stakeholder institutions at both the na- prevention and preparedness as integral aspects of de- tional as well as regional levels. v 8 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands ii. Framework for Analysis F rom the DRR and CCA perspectives, it is evi- major components, or preconditions, that are neces- dent that the two pathways are converging in sary to provide the enabling environment which al- relation to climate hazards. As shown in Figure lows sustainable, "on-the-ground" reductions in risk. 1, the desired outcome of both is risk reduction. In the These components are: context of the Pacific Islands Region and elsewhere, the ultimate outcome is sustainable development. The n Knowledge, data and tools; prevalent understanding is that a significant impedi- n Risk and vulnerability assessments; ment to sustainable development is risk from diverse n Mainstreaming into plans, policy, legislation, regu- hazards; and the area of common concern with regard lations; to disaster risk reduction and climate change adapta- n Monitoring and evaluation; and tion is climate-related hazards. n Awareness raising and capacity building. Viewed in this way, the difference lies only in tim- To the degree that these do not exist or are deficient, escale: disaster risk reduction is concerned primarily they could be targeted by governments, donors, NGOs, with risks from present climate variability, geographi- and international and regional organizations for invest- cal and related extremes; whereas climate change ad- ment and action to encourage risk reduction. aptation is primarily more focused upon the increas- ing extremes of climate events and the future changes In addition, there are structural, institutional, or pro- in those risks that should be taken into account in cess issues that are necessary to provide for and promote development programs. Conceptually, they share a lot sustainable risk reduction. These processes are: in common. n Governance and decisionmaking, Preconditions for risk-reduction n Coordination among government agencies, The processes of risk reduction, particularly related n Coordination among donors and key stakeholders, to meeting the preconditions for DRR/CCA-related and actions, are very similar. Figure 1 illustrates the five n Planning and budgetary processes. Figure 1. Areas of common concern and process in reducing risks for sustainable development Focus Risk-reduction Process Outcome Knowledge, data, tools Hazards Capacity Risk sustainable Assessments Building reduction development Climate-related implementation risks Evualuation & Mainstreaming Monitoring Present (DRR) + Future change (ccA) Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 9 These components and processes served as a frame- v accountable performance budgeting, work for data collection and analysis for each of the v participatory planning and inter-sectoral coor- seven country assessments and informed this regional dination mechanisms, stocktake. Appendix A elaborates on the framework, v available financing and appropriate institu- which has many elements in common with the two tional set-ups, 2005 frameworks for action on climate change and v staff capacity and national champions, and disaster risk reduction outlined in the previous sec- v enforceable legislation, standards and codes. tion. Both of these latter documents recognize exist- n Support to decisionmaking with: ing limitations and capacity constraints faced by most v public awareness to support initiatives; of these countries and the need for `mainstreaming' v context specific information targeted at deci- DRR/CCA measures into national policies and plan- sionmakers; ning processes. v relevant analysis, mapping, and risk evaluation instruments; and v implementation support tools. Mainstreaming The term mainstreaming is widely used and often in- What has become clear from the seven country assess- terpreted to include any initiative bringing risk reduc- ments is that, while some countries have developed tion activity to the community level. In the policy note policies and others are developing a National Action "Not If, But When," the World Bank (2006) makes the Plan (NAP) for Disaster Risk Reduction and/or a Na- point that risk management of natural hazards can only tional Adaptation Plan for Action (NAPA) for Cli- become effective on a national scale once it is reflected mate Change Adaptation, in all cases the institutional in key economic and social planning instruments.1 It frameworks and in-country capacity for supporting defines mainstreaming of risk management as the in- mainstreaming are in need of substantial development clusion of natural hazards (including climate change) assistance. This is true even for Kiribati where a sub- ramifications when considering the following: stantial commitment to assist in the implementation of n National development plans and strategies; its Kiribati Adaptation Project over several years is re- n Sectoral and spatial (including community level) portedly having some difficulty in achieving targets due plans--with budget commitment; to weak institutional arrangements and lack of capacity. n Policies, regulations, and codes of practice--with In other countries, as implementation commences, at- enforcement; and tention to these issues will be important. More positive n Programs and projects for sectors, infrastructure, experience with infrastructure projects in Samoa and civil society, and donors with appropriate hazard Cook Islands appear to be more successful because of assessment and design. in-country government commitment and sustained in- stitutional support for engagement with communities. It identifies prerequisites in the form of: These are necessary ingredients. v n Strengthened national enabling environment through: 1 In-country evidence supports this view. The lack of cohesion between structures set up to address the external frameworks and the internal national planning and budget structures was stark. In Vanuatu steps were being promoted at the Ministry Directors-General level to begin addressing this, and it should be supported. 10 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands iii. The Regional stocktake T he synthesis report, Preparedness, Planning, and underway, it is clear that current regional and donor- Prevention: Assessment of National and Regional support arrangements are not working as well as they Efforts to Reduce Natural Disaster and Climate should be. Collaborative discussions needed to find Change Risks in the Pacific (World Bank, 2009a), a com- solutions can take place once this is acknowledged and panion to the 7 country assessments (World Bank, the possible reasons reviewed and assessed. 2009b), calls attention to areas of progress in each country and on barriers and impediments to sustainable risk reduction. In the fundamental areas of the institu- Engaging in the process tional arrangements and in-country capacity to support At the regional level, three groups are responsible mainstreaming, the country assessments reach similar for regional stocktaking of DRR/CCA activities. For conclusions discussed in "Not If But When" (World hazard risk, the mandated agency is the Secretariat of Bank, 2006); GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission Program Framework (GEF, 2008), and Integrated Wa- (SOPAC), which manages its Community Risk Pro- ter Resources Management in Pacific Island Countries: gram and other related activities in the Community A Synopsis (SOPAC, 2007). Details from these 3 re- Lifelines and Oceans and Islands programs. The Sec- ports are found in Appendix C. retariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) is the mandated agency for climate change, It is clear from these three regionwide reports that the which includes climate risk and adaptation activities. issues are understood across a number of sectors. They are fundamental issues, and efforts over the past 10 The second group comprises the key donors fund- years to address them have apparently had little impact ing regional initiatives through SOPAC, SPREP, and on the outcome so far. In several initial national com- other stakeholders or direct funding of bi-lateral in- munications for climate change prepared earlier in this country initiatives. The third group, the stakeholders, decade, many of these issues were identified as oppor- are active in the Region and in-country and include tunities for development. In the country assessments, sector agencies and NGOs that can play critical roles it is noted that the capacity in some areas (particularly in supporting implementation of programs and en- in hazard monitoring and assessment) seems to have gaging at the community level. diminished rather than increased, over that time. The Regional Stocktake team visited SPREP and There is concern that with increasing hazard risks due SOPAC in February 2008 prior to its visits in the 7 to land use and population pressures and the actual countries in connection with the assessments. This and potential increase in climate extremes, progress Regional Stocktake has been informed by the coun- in these critical areas remains elusive. This is difficult, try assessments. Donors and stakeholders were met crosscutting work, and both in-country commitment by the project team in association with the regional and sustained support from all stakeholders will be meetings with SPREP in Apia and SOPAC in Fiji. necessary if the risks to the many vulnerable Pacific In-country counterparts were met as appropriate dur- communities are to be addressed. ing the country visits. The people and agencies met in connection with the reporting of the Stocktake are This Stocktake reviews many of the main regional listed in Appendix D. supporting mechanisms for country activities in the Region. While there are many positive initiatives Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 11 Key findings at country and regional SPREP nor SOPAC, as the mandated regional levels agencies, appears to have the focus or resources This section addresses the key findings from the re- to provide for these tasks. This is a crosscutting gional stocktake as they relate to country needs and area for national development planning which to broader regional needs. They principally address should also address such issues as accountable the fundamental issues of capacity and coordination, performance budgeting, participatory planning, institutional strengthening and hazard data. For more and inter-sectoral coordination. detailed commentary of these and wider issues refer (3) Support for the development of in-country capac- to Appendix B. ity. This has been a major focus of external re- sources over the past decade with mixed results Country needs and gaps. The major common im- so far. Consequently, new approaches are needed. pediments to achieving sustainable hazard and cli- Many past activities are perceived to have been mate risk reduction appear to be lack of in-country supply driven and project based with not enough capacity, weak institutional arrangements for main- attention being given to the underlying national, streaming and poor understanding of explicit hazard sector, and related policy framework. The Vanu- risk needed to assist in the decisionmaking process. atu-sought approach for sustained support that To assist in these, the following areas are identified for addresses country priorities is showing some greater regional assistance: promise. Resources currently available to SPREP (1) Integration of the demands for CCA and DRR. Cli- and SOPAC appear insufficient to provide this mate change adaptation and disaster risk reduc- type of support to all their member countries, and tion are elements of hazard risk management that so more assistance in this area will be needed. requires similar information systems, skills, and (4) Support for hazard monitoring, analysis tools, infor- institutional arrangements. Countries with sepa- mation systems, and codes or guidelines for practice. rate strategic and planning frameworks embed- Available evidence shows a deterioration of the ded in separate departments, which prepare and information system and analytical tools in most implement both NAP for DRR and NAPA for Pacific island countries over the past 10-15 years. CCA, could streamline their response and avoid Since they are part of the institutional requirements costly duplication of scarce resources. Integrating for mainstreaming and risk assessment for plan- in-country systems and making these compatible ning and decisionmaking, an appropriate support with regional country-support arrangements will package is needed. Instead of simply trying to con- require concerted local, national, regional leader- tinue past approaches and practices, given the tech- ship and support. nological improvements made over past decades, (2) Support for the development of appropriate insti- such support should include studies of alternative tutional arrangements for mainstreaming hazard ways of data collection and analysis (e.g., through risk management. Given the importance of this regional and/or third parties) and providing the rel- issue and the capacity and resource constraints evant information required by the countries in their in many Pacific island countries, they will need planning, budgeting, investment, and maintenance help in establishing, operating, and maintaining activities. Past and current support arrangements appropriate structures and mechanisms commen- with Australia and New Zealand could be the basis surate with their level of development. Neither of a new focus and strengthened support. 12 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands (5) Donor coordination and in-country program fund- to benefit the member countries. While improved ing. To the degree that hazard risk reduction also coordination among all stakeholders could be a has a regional dimension despite donors' reluctance good initial step, integrating and mainstreaming to bi-laterally fund NAP and NAPA implementa- of DRR and CCA initiatives into the national tion, there is a need at both the country and re- and regional systems is needed for sustained gional levels for addressing the issue and examining maximum benefits. Any momentum should not program-funding options for sustained support. be lost in the comparative advantage of SOPAC as a science-based agency actively engaged in sup- (6) Monitoring and evaluation. Given the need for porting in-country projects. sustained support for the country initiatives that have so far shown minimum commitment, there (2) Stronger regional governance to support progress is need to identify the main reasons for this, per- of hazard risk management programs. Current in- haps using improved basic monitoring and evalu- dications are that the regional mandated agencies ation mechanisms to assist all parties to better are weak with limited cooperation and minimal understand the issues and address them. coordination between them, as well as among cli- ents. To promote institutional frameworks at the country level, stronger strategic and operational (7) Regional needs and gaps. The existing country planning is needed. Currently neither SPREP nor support arrangements for CCA and DRR ini- SOPAC appears to have performance budgeting tiatives through SPREP and SOPAC have been with meaningful measurable outcomes (although effective in developing plans, creating awareness, the SOPAC Community Risk Program has in- and maintaining reporting systems needed to ful- ternal assessment measures). Program support ar- fill international obligations. They have also been rangements to countries tend to be passive and effective for individual project delivery in several reactive. For example, the SPREP-prepared 2005 countries--despite resources being spread thinly Action Plan for the Implementation of the Pacific over these countries. The Stocktake review indi- Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change cates that the existing regional CCA/DRR sup- 2006-2015 remains in draft version 12 with no port mechanisms are unfortunately not very effec- measures and no commitments to action in the tive in the critical areas of helping to develop and current year's budget. There is a need to strength- support institutional capacity for mainstreaming en the coordination mechanism of the Council climate change adaptation and disaster risk re- of the Regional Organizations in the Pacific and duction and for supporting downstream tasks. provide for monitoring of progress and achieve- ment of expected outcomes along with appropri- The primary needs and gaps identified at the regional ate feedback loops to facilitate any required cor- level follow: rective measures. (1) Integration or coordination of regional CCA and Current requirements from the Pacific Islands Fo- DRR activities. This need, which runs parallel rum call for arrangements to be developed to split with the first above-listed country need, is an issue SOPAC between SPREP and the Secretariat of as much for donors and international agencies as the Pacific Community (SPC). This could be an it is for the regional agencies. Regional leadership opportune juncture for addressing the overall re- is needed to acknowledge and then address the is- quirements of the reconstituted organizations, in- sue to ensure the available synergies are obtained Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 13 cluding the integration of disaster risk reduction and land use decisions is woefully lacking. This and climate change adaptation in a more stream- is a fundamental issue for risk reduction initia- lined process as noted above. tives in the Region--without data there can be no full understanding of changing risks. Given (3) Provision of leadership for the coordination of the the general degradation of these networks over regional support for country CCA and DRR ac- the past decade, a regional overview is needed to tivities, including donors and international agen- assess if the individual country-operated facilities cies. In order to address country as well as regional and systems in their present form are still relevant needs, an appropriate regional leadership mecha- in light of recent technological advances; or there nism is necessary to provide guidance to regional is also the possibility of third parties helping to agencies and the countries in addressing the is- provide most of the data that the countries need sues of critical hazard risk management. Such a as input for their respective plans. While SPREP mechanism could also include an overview system has a role to support in-country meteorological for regional needs and co-funding for implemen- services, it is severely under-resourced and does tation of regional CCA/DRR programs. not appear to be able to appropriately respond to Available evidence indicates that the SOPAC- client needs. It will therefore need assistance in sponsored Pacific Disaster Risk Management Part- order to help client countries. nership Network and the SPREP-sponsored Round (6) Development of regional and local climate projec- Table for Climate Change Adaptation may not be tions, taking account of topographic/orographic considered appropriate for this integrated approach effects, to inform local potential effects of climate leadership role. These are just 2 of 14 such regional change. For the larger hilly nations of Fiji, Papua groupings comprising donors, stakeholders, and New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, countries trying to foster greater cooperation and the local climate models using General Circula- information sharing, but they still appear to main- tion Model (GCM) projections cannot differ- tain general silo structures and are answerable to the entiate potential effects across different topo- respective sponsoring agency. graphical parts of the country. Development of (4) Development of common programs, information a long-term regional model is needed to better systems, and codes of practice. Common systems or inform local understanding of potential changes programs can be efficiently developed at a region- to climate extremes, including the incidence of al level and adapted for individual country uses. droughts and extreme rainfall. While this is rec- However, neither SPREP nor SOPAC appears ognized as a major exercise, the practicalities of to be appropriately resourced to provide for such building on Australian and New Zealand models needs. through the Commonwealth Scientific and In- dustrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and the (5) Regional support for the critical meteorological and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Re- hydrological networks in the member countries. As search (NIWA), respectively, should be addressed noted in each of the 7 country assessment reports, to help improve knowledge of such factors. v the availability of analyzed data to facilitate local climate hazard assessments, infrastructure design, 14 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands iV. Opportunities for investment A mong the country and regional needs in the (3) Progressively develop regional and local climate previous chapter, several require further dis- projections within the larger topographically di- cussion at the regional level to identify the verse countries; way forward while others can be implemented within (4) Develop, disseminate, implement, and monitor re- country agencies. Further discussion should center on gionally consistent technical guidelines and codes those needs regarding CCA and DRR integration, for infrastructure and buildings, incorporating key strengthening of regional governance, regional leader- DRR/CCA elements that facilitate later main- ship, and supporting institutional arrangements and streaming; and capacity development. Discussions on these issues might identify opportunities for investment. (5) Develop collaborative regional institutional ar- rangements with DRR/CCA focus in profession- The following five potential opportunities for regional al development and knowledge adoption. investment have been identified. each with a practical application to meet a core need: In the following matrices, each of these opportuni- (1) Review existing regional hydrological and me- ties is expanded to provide preliminary information teorological service systems, assess how they are on indicative costs, first-order actions and tasks, and being used in formulation of NAP and NAPA timeframes. This information is a preliminary step and identify any gaps for sustainable operation to toward the development of more detailed proposals meet priority needs for Pacific island countries; and terms of reference should any stakeholder wish to pursue any of these opportunities for investment. v (2) Develop a sustainable regional program funding mechanism for NAP and risk implementation in Pacific island countries; Proposal: R1 Review existing regional hydrological and meteorological service systems and needs for Pacific islands Sector: Regional: Hazards monitoring and advice Goal and purpose: strengthen hazards monitoring and advice capacity to inform ccA and DRR issues Lead agencies: WMO, sPREP, sOPAc, BOM/NiWA/NZ Meteorological service Cost and duration: Us$250 000 over 6 months Cost Time- Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks US$k frame Cyclone Improve monitoring Inadequate monitoring Review the state of meteorological and 250 December network for weather, networks to provide hydrological monitoring networks across the 2008 Storms rivers and climate credible data region and: Flooding change Inadequate institutional · identify minimum requirements on a Tsunami Improve capacity for arrangements to support a regional scale to inform weather, hazard hazard advice credible service management and climate change needs Earthquakes Improve arrangements Insufficient capacity and · identify minimum requirements broadly Volcanic eruptions for managing the resources to manage the at a country level to inform country Wave surge services networks assessments Coastal inundation Insufficient capacity to develop advice to inform Drought DRR/CCA issues ­ including climate change effects for all these hazards Continues Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 15 16 Proposal: R1 Review existing regional hydrological and meteorological service systems and needs for Pacific islands Sector: Regional: Hazards monitoring and advice Goal and purpose: strengthen hazards monitoring and advice capacity to inform ccA and DRR issues Lead agencies: WMO, sPREP, sOPAc, BOM/NiWA/NZ Meteorological service Cost and duration: Us$250 000 over 6 months cost Time- Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks Us$k frame Cyclone Improve monitoring Inadequate monitoring Review the state of meteorological and 250 December network for weather, networks to provide hydrological monitoring networks across the 2008 Storms rivers and climate credible data region and: Flooding change Inadequate institutional · identify minimum requirements on a Tsunami Improve capacity for arrangements to support a regional scale to inform weather, hazard hazard advice credible service management and climate change needs Earthquakes Improve arrangements Insufficient capacity and · identify minimum requirements broadly Volcanic eruptions for managing the resources to manage the at a country level to inform country Wave surge services networks assessments Coastal inundation Insufficient capacity to develop advice to inform Drought DRR/CCA issues ­ including climate change effects for Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands all these hazards Continues Proposal: R2 Develop a sustainable regional program funding mechanism for NAP and risk reduction implementation in Pacific island countries Sector: Regional: Hazards, climate change Goal and purpose: To facilitate the implementation of National Action Plans for DRM (including DRR) through establishing a multi-donor programmatic funding arrangement Lead agencies: World Bank, Donors Cost and duration: Us$80,000 over 6 months cost Time- Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks Us$k frame All hazards Overcome sustainable Difficulty in getting bi-lateral Review and set out the funding issues from a funding mechanism funding in-country for DRM country and regional perspective constraints for activity Develop possible funding mechanisms in 80 3rd Qtr program funding for With 2 NAPs completed consultation with donors and countries 2008 implementing NAPs and 4 being prepared, Identify a preferred option, obtain donor buy-in funding arrangements and implement for implementation are inadequate Credibility of the NAP development process is at risk while adequate funding arrangements for implementation are not in place Continues Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 17 18 Provisional Proposal: R3 Progressively develop regional and local climate projections within the larger topographically diverse countries Sector: Regional: climate modeling Goal and purpose: Better understand local climate projections of climate variability through progressively extending New Zealand and Australian regional modeling to address orographic influences in the larger island states. Lead agencies: Regional and local Cost and duration: NiWA, csiRO Proposal: Us$1.5 million over 3 years (suggested expansion of the NZ/Australian climate change Modeling) cost Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks Us$k Time-frame Cyclone Improve understanding Regional climate models Establish a regional agreement for December of changing climate not developed to address collaboration on this work 2008 Storms variability within larger local orographic influences Extend New Zealand and Australian regional Flooding island states in large island states models progressively to include orographic Tsunami Addressing adaptation Sparse local data to influences of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, measures with better populate regional and local Solomon Islands, and Fiji Wave surge focus projections Populate the models with available historical Coastal inundation Reducing potential for Lack of capacity in-country country data and progressively with new data Drought having "regrets" about to address local projections Establish a mentoring or "buddy" arrangement adaptation measures of climate variability ­ including climate in-country with New Zealand and Australian missed through lack of change effects for climate scientists to enhance in-country understanding all these hazards capacity for climate variability projections Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Continues Provisional Proposal: R4 Develop, disseminate, implement, and monitor regionally-consistent technical guidelines and codes for infrastructure and buildings Sector: infrastructure, Building and Public Works Goal and purpose: sustainable infrastructure and built environments, by providing regionally consistent technical guidance for reducing risks to infrastructure and buildings Lead agencies: Cost and duration: Proposal: Us$400,000 over 2 years cost Time- Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks Us$k frame Geotechnical Provide regionally Technical manuals, Review status of existing documents in terms 50 1st half (earthquakes, land- consistent technical guidelines and building of: institutional origins, date of preparation; 2009 slips, tsunami) guidelines for roads, codes are out of date source of original materials; authorship for bridges and other preparation Extreme weather Poor utilization of existing 50 1st half related infrastructure events guidelines and codes Assess departmental and sectoral 2009 works and building within governmental bodies requirements for up-to-date technical High winds codes and by consultants and guidelines and building codes that embed 160 2nd half Storm surge Build public and private contractors DRR, and climate proofing 2009 sector capacity to Flooding Lack of mainstreaming Redraft guidelines/codes and associated ensure DRR/CCA 110 Ongoing technical standards to regulatory supporting documents Fire mainstreaming 2009- reduce risks Establish collaborative arrangements with 2010 governmental bodies, consultants and 30 Last contractors to optimize utilization of revised quarter documentation 2010 Promulgate schedules for roll-out and take up of generically developed guidelines, codes and supporting regulations and enforceable processes and procedures Continues Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 19 20 Provisional Proposal: R5 collaborative regional institutional arrangements with DRR/ccA focus for professional development and knowledge adoption Sector: Regional: institutional-Higher Education and Research sectors Goal and purpose: institutional strengthening and capacity building by building collaborative regional partnerships to support professional development and knowledge adoption in DRR-ccA Lead agencies: Cost and duration: UPNg, UsP, national sectoral research institutes, key donors Proposal: Us$280,000 over 1 year Hazards targeted Actions to reduce risks Key gaps/barriers Tasks Cost Time- US$k frame Geological Collaborative delivery Limited range of Identification and engagement of institutional 50 1st Quarter (earthquake, of professional professional development partners for collaborative activities in 2009 landslips, tsunami, development programs, courses, professional development education and volcanic) research and training training, applied research and research training Enhanced professional activities in higher and knowledge adoption Climatic variability development in DRR 20 1st Quarter educational institutions and CCA Evaluate the status of professional 2009 Extreme weather Poor coordination of development education and training and events Embedded institutional 50 2nd Quarter professional development institutional arrangements capacity in DRR CCA 2009 Storm surge at regional and national Formalize partnership arrangements for Proactive knowledge scales Flooding collaborative professional development, adoption 160 2nd half Accredited professional research and research training and knowledge Drought 2009 qualifications in DRR CCA adoption activities Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Bush fires Initiate collaborative workshop activities to draft a program of activities and identify appropriate funding to roll-out collaborative professional development and knowledge adoption activities Continues Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 21 Annex A. Model and Framework for the country Assessments I n order to carry out the Regional Stocktake and The processes of risk reduction for both disaster risk country assessments, a common framework was reduction and climate change adaptation are similar required that was sufficiently comprehensive to as illustrated in the resulting framework shown in capture the major factors and processes involved in Figure A1. decisions to reduce risk, whether from present haz- ards (DRR) or from future climate change (CCA). From Figure A1 there are five major components, or For these purposes, the project selected a modified pre-conditions, that are necessary to provide the en- version of the Climate Change Adaptation through abling environment that allows sustainable, "on-the- Integrated Risk Reduction (CCAIRR) Framework ground" reductions in risk. Insofar as these compo- (Warrick, 2000; 2006). This framework was origi- nents need to be adjusted, they can be targeted by gov- nally proposed at the 2nd Alliance of Small Island ernments, donors, NGOs, international and regional States (AOSIS) meeting in 2000 in Apia, Samoa. organizations for investment and action to encourage The CCAIRR Framework was subsequently tested risk reduction. These components are: and applied successfully in case studies of risk re- n Knowledge, data and tools; duction in the Federated States of Micronesia and n Risk and vulnerability assessments; the Cook Islands in which issues of present climate n Mainstreaming into plans, policy, legislation, variability and future climate change were effectively regulations; integrated (ADB, 2005). It was also used as an or- n Monitoring and evaluation; and ganizing assessment framework in the recent Inter- n Awareness raising and capacity building. governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Australia and New Zealand (Hennessy and others, In addition, there are structural, institutional, or pro- 2007). cess issues that are necessary to provide for and promote Figure A1. Framework and approach to the country assessments Knowledge, data, tools Knowledge, data, tools Knowledge, data, tools Capacity Assessments Building Capacity implementation Assessments Building Capacity implementation Assessments Building implementation Evualuation & Mainstreaming Monitoring Evualuation & Mainstreaming Opportunities--What are the possible solutions? Monitoring Evualuation & Mainstreaming Diagnosis--What are the gaps and impediments? Monitoring current situation--What is the current situation and capacity? Process issues (arrows) · Governance · Donor and stakeholder coordination · Coordination between government agencies · Planning and budgetary processes 22 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands sustainable risk reduction. These processes are the in- community level to provide information and for stitutional frameworks for: warnings? n Governance and decisionmaking, Vulnerability and risk assessments. This component n Coordination among government agencies and comprises the ingredients needed to assess vulnera- levels of government, bilities and risks and identify risk-reducing measures. n Coordination among donors and key stakehold- Using the existing knowledge, data, and tools, such ers, and assessments are designed to portray what is known n Planning and budgetary processes. about the hazards and risks in a fashion relevant to issues related to policy and decisionmaking. These components and processes served as a frame- work for data collection and analysis for each of the n What are the key risks and vulnerability of the 7 country assessments and informed this Regional country? Are there adequate assessments of who is at Stocktake; each component and process evoked in- risk, and where? dicative questions, as follows. n Is there an adequate understanding and risk profile on these issues? components n What risk data are available? What kind would Knowledge, data and tools. This component com- be needed to better understand the situation? prises the basic ingredients needed to understand (for example financial/economic losses; socio- hazards and historical events to provide for the assess- economic; human; assets at risk etc) ment of vulnerability and risk. It includes monitoring and the scientific understanding of hazards and their n Which institutions are involved in providing effects, observational data, and models, as well as tra- technical data needed for DRR/CCA? (list various ditional knowledge. types of information needed, including weather/ climate/other hazards; forecasting, observations, n What are the key hazards of the country? Is there modeling/interpreting international data, risk adequate monitoring of these hazards to inform mapping). vulnerability and risk assessments? n What are the estimated average annual losses n Is there an adequate understanding of the hazard attributable to natural hazards? profile across the country including hazard mapping? n Who is carrying out the required analyses? n Is historical disaster information readily available? n Are models and tools available to answer key Mainstreaming into policies, plans, legislation, and questions? regulations. Mainstreaming involves the incorpora- tion of DRR and CCA into policies, plans, legislation, n Is access to information and technical advice readily and regulations in order to help provide an enabling available? environment in which decisions and action regarding n Can information be readily promulgated across sectors risk reduction can be made. to inform decisions? n Do DRR/CCA feature in national and sectoral n Can information be readily promulgated to the development plans? Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 23 n Does the government have a policy on DRR/CCA? n Does the government systematically inform the public on DRR/CCA? Is this information enhanced n If so, is it being implemented? At all levels? Which periodically? What mechanisms are used to carry out levels are not yet including these aspects and what is public awareness? needed to make them participate--what are the key impediments? n Which agencies are engaged in this awareness raising? n Are there adequate legal provisions? Are they n Does it systematically include all key groups in society appropriate? [i.e., not too old as to preclude risk (geographically and socially)? reduction; clear enough to be interpreted by all n Does it include outreach to the private sector? needing to use them; clear guidance on roles responsibilities and accountability; inclusive of key n Does it engage civil society? ministries and community implementation] n Does it include the education sector? And any others? n Have land-use regulations, building codes and risk- n What is the level of attention given to training and design standards taken account of DRR/CCA? If not, capacity building? what are the impediments? n What is the retention rate and sustainability of n Are they enforced? capacity built? Monitoring and evaluation. In this context, moni- toring and evaluation (M&E) seeks to determine the extent to which the outcomes (i.e., risk reduction) are Process issues being achieved (as opposed to, say, monitoring for There are various coordination or process issues that data collection, like sea-level monitoring, or project or can act as barriers or impediments to effective imple- program auditing). It thus serves to provide feedback mentation of risk reduction measures. for adjusting programs and risk reduction activities over time. Governance and decisionmaking. Given that DRR/ CCA are development issues requiring mainstreaming n Are hazards and impacts systematically monitored? of action, clear governance and institutional arrange- By whom? Where does the information reside? Who ments assigning functions, accountabilities, and deci- monitors during and post disasters? sion processes across sectors and levels of government n Who carries out damage assessment and, if they get are necessary to set support an enabling environment. assistance, from whom? n Is there clear government policy for DRR/CCA n Are impacts of risk reduction efforts systematically setting functions and accountabilities across sectors? monitored? n Is there a decision-making body across the relevant Awareness raising and capacity building, including sectors and is it effective? stakeholder engagement. The capacity, awareness, and n Is there a sound institutional and planning structure engagement of the various stakeholders and decision- for addressing DRR/CCA across sectors at the makers is vital to ensuring that other preconditions national, provincial and local levels? (such as risk assessments) are met and risk-reducing measures are enacted. 24 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Coordination among government agencies. Given Planning and budgetary process. The extent to which the multi-hazard, multi-sectoral dimensions of DRR/ plans are formulated and implemented depends heav- CCA, coordination between government agencies is ily on budgetary allocation. necessary for effective implementation. n How is DRR/CCA budgeted ­ separately and n Which key government agencies are currently engaged recognizable or are there provisions for the recipients in DRR/CAA? When there is more than one, do they to allocate to these activities if and when needed? And coordinate and how (especially between the disaster if so, do they do so? risk and climate change entry points)? n What is the average yearly budget for DRR/CCA? n Is there a coordination forum? How are other parts of Is there a difference in event years from non-event the government involved/participate before/during years? and post disaster event? n Do planning and budget complement each other? n What are the mandates of the various levels of [Infer from who proposes budget and how final government in DRR-CCA implementation and are budget is then approved--discuss with finance they supported by appropriate legislation and policies? and planning ministries] n If there are recommendations for improving policies/ legislation, how would you describe these? Implementation. The above components and pro- n Do these agencies have a structure to engage at lower cesses provide the preconditions, or the enabling envi- levels of government and with nongovernmental ronment necessary for sustainable risk reduction. The actors (including participatory planning down to the ultimate goal is to promote the process of implemen- community-level)? tation of actual risk-reducing measures. These could include, for example, changes in land use, engineer- n Do these agencies have appropriately skilled human ing protection structures, strengthened buildings, "cli- resources? mate-proofed" infrastructure, warning systems and ef- fective behavioral response to them, and avoidance of Coordination--donors and key stakeholders. Do- settlement in high-risk zones. As part of the country nors, and international and regional organization play assessments, therefore, attempts were made to judge key roles in the Pacific island countries and territories the extent to which implementation of risk-reducing in facilitating DRR and CCA. measures is, or is not, happening; and, to the extent that implementation is not happening, to relate it n Who are the key donors, international and regional back to the components and processes of the enabling organizations engaged in/investing in disaster risk environment that may be acting as impediments. In- reduction and adaptation? dicative questions, in this regard, include: n What are their current programs? Do they focus on institutional aspects, policy, data, early warning n Do line agencies (e.g. Public Works, Agriculture, systems, and investments? What is the monetary Fisheries, Health, etc) engage in DRR/CCA? value of support, if available? Under which sectors/ What structures do they have for implementation at themes? national/regional and community levels? n What investments are they making? Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 25 n Do they have the right information and human Approach resources for effective DRR/CCA? The components and processes, along with their guiding questions, served as the framework--a simple n Do they have adequate budget to response to disasters three-part, crosscutting approach to the country as- but also importantly to mitigate for and prevent sessments. For each of the components and processes disasters? described above, the following questions were asked: n Do they make systematic use of risk information? n Current situation: What is the current situation and If yes, what type of risk information is available to capacity? them? Given the country's vulnerability, what type of information should they have access to? n Diagnosis: What are the gaps, barriers or impediments to effective risk reduction? n Do these agencies have appropriately skilled human resources? If not, what skills are lacking? n Opportunities for investment: What are the possible opportunities for investment to overcome the barriers n Are there programs and activities that focus directly and fill the gaps? on risk-reduction implementation, and, if so, how extensive and effective are they? Overall, this approach leads to the development of a n Do they adequately bridge the gaps among region, set of investment opportunities to implement activi- national and community action? ties to encourage risk reduction. v n What provisions exist for early warning--systems at the national and lower levels? What are they? If not adequate what else is needed? 26 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Annex A. Regional stocktake issues P rocess issues, and then content issues are dis- n When activities are "down-loaded" to the national cussed with regard to the structures, and pro- level, a similar "silo effect" is the rule, with DDR cedures that can facilitate or impede risk reduc- concerns housed in a separate ministry or line agen- tion at a Pacific regional perspective. cy from that of CCA, with little communication or understanding between them. Process issues This situation is producing the potential for duplica- The key programs and activities of the mandated agen- tion and lost opportunities for synergies that otherwise cies involved in DRR and CCA, once quite separate, are could be gained through outcome-driven, rather than tending to merge conceptually, with risk reduction serv- mandate-driven, regional agencies. ing as the common theme and intended outcome. This is reflected in: There are many international agencies and NGOs in the Pacific Region that are now beginning to integrate cli- n Two Frameworks for Action that are nearly identi- mate change into their programs and activities. This is cal in content and direction; reflected in: n A large overlap in content and approach of their re- n The WHO regional offices in Samoa and Fiji are spective plans of action (as reflected, for example, in cognizance of the mandate expressed by WHO at similarities between NAP for DRR and NAPA for the global level and are becoming actively involved CCA); in CCA initiatives. n An emerging commonality of language between the n The FAO, which has had a long-term concern with agencies concerned with DRR and CCA; DRR, is now taking on CCA, both from directives n An expressed recognition on the part of key players from global headquarters and regionally from Heads in these organizations of their common interests. of Agriculture and Forestry from each country. n UNESCO, with its new strategic plan, addresses While converging in concept and planning, operation- climatic change adaptation. ally the DRR and CCA agencies remain quite separate. There are significant regional governance issues around Especially in the case of CCA, there is a "disconnect" be- expectations on the regional agencies, their roles and tween the primary mandated regional agency and the accountabilities and a plethora of passive coordination growing number of other UN agencies, regional organi- mechanisms. This is evidenced by: zations, and NGOs that are incorporating climate change n Two separate regional agencies having the respec- into their activities. This growing lack of coordination tive mandates for DRR and CCA and driving their and cooperation between the two groups of agencies own separate programs and activities, albeit often to appears to be outpacing the attempts to inject coordi- the same end (risk reduction) for the same expressed nation and commonality of purpose through regional outcome (sustainable development). partnerships and networks. n Little evidence of substantive collaboration and co- With respect to the mandated agencies for DRR and ordination between the mandated regional agencies CCA, the proportion of project funding in relation to pro- that would be expected given the similarities of ob- gram funding is relatively large and increasing, with the jectives. potential to stifle pro-active, innovative work for the Re- Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 27 gion. The increasing emphasis on re-active, short-term meaningful assessments and hazard maps necessary to projects, while providing direct service at the request implement risk-reducing measures. One of the biggest of Pacific island countries, makes it more difficult to regionwide constraints is the lack of high-resolution maintain capacity and to introduce new and innovative elevation data (for both near-shore and land) neces- programs to the Region. There is some danger that this sary to identify hazard zones at a scale appropriate for situation may overly increase the service provider func- implementing risk-reducing measures, for both present tion of the regional organization at the expense of their climate variability and long-term change. In particular, leadership and mentor roles. At worst, it could put the this situation is crucial for assessment of: sustainability of the regional programs at risk. n Coastal hazards, including erosion and storm surge risks, which pervade the Pacific Island Region; and content issues n Flooding risks, which concern nearly all high islands In terms of basic knowledge, data, and models, one of the of the Region. major gaps is lack of data collection and systematic under- standing of hazards and information regarding how cli- The opportunity exists for supporting a regionwide mate changes will affect the risks posed by climatic haz- program to identify key "hot-spots" that are high-pri- ards. This situation reflects the gap that has separated ority for hazard mapping, and to provide the support the DRR and CCA agencies in the Pacific Region. for the development of high-resolution digital eleva- This is evidenced by: tion maps that are prerequisite to hazard mapping, risk assessments, and promotion of risk-reducing measures. n The lack of concrete, quantitative information about the additional risks posed by climate change in the In terms of DRR/CCA mainstreaming into development national communications and NAPAs from Pacific policies, planning, and projects, there are signs that, at a island countries; regional level, the needs for mainstreaming are clearly n The absence of climate change issues in the NAPs being recognized and action has begun. This is evidence of Pacific island countries; by: n The absence of substantive, quantitative informa- n The assistance with elements of governance provid- tion about climate change risks in the work of the ed to Pacific island countries and territories by both regional agency mandated with jurisdiction of DRR, mandated agencies for DRR and CCA; other than general advice to countries; n The inclusion of mainstreaming in the pilot climate- n The failure of the regional agency mandated with proofing projects of ADB and generally through jurisdiction of CCA to build systematically upon mainstreaming CCA into its own development the large and substantive foundation of knowledge policies and projects; about climatic hazards as a starting point for its con- n The World Bank adaptation work in-country, par- sideration of climate change; ticularly in the Kiribati Adaptation Program. n Lack of access to regional hazard profiles and their development at the country level is seriously lack- Nonetheless, at a country level where implementation ing. of risk-reducing measures takes place, the overall up- take by countries in the region still remains low. There In terms of assessments to support decisionmaking, one is now opportunity to move from individual one-off of the major gaps for both DRR and CCA is the lack of pilot cases to a concerted regional program designed to 28 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands accelerate CRR and CCA mainstreaming--preferably hoc, either as a one-off component of a project or a in an integrated fashion rather than separately--at the narrowly focused sectoral activity. The gaps are four- national level. fold: (a) there is a general lack of overall coordination of awareness-raising and capacity-building activities; (b) In terms of monitoring and evaluation, it is clear that there is a lack of connection between DRR and CCA large gaps exist. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E), if in these activities; perhaps most importantly, (c) there it exists, is designed for programmatic and project pro- is the lack of sustainable capacity and (d) lack of be- cesses, procedures, and auditing. There is little in the havioral change at the institutional level and also at the way of internal, consistent on-going M&E of outcomes community level. There is lack of incentive for those to verify whether risk-reducing measures are being ad- whose capacity is built up to remain on the job. A re- opted and risks reduced. In other words, there is no sys- current theme throughout the Region is the ephemeral tematic way of determining the large expenditures in nature of capacity built; once trained, people often seek DRR and CCA are producing on-the-ground benefits. better positions elsewhere. This situation has to be re- This is evidenced by: solved if sustainable capacity building is to be achieved. n The lack of M&E information in all agencies con- A major effort is required to determine what measures tacted during the stocktaking; have to be taken to retain (or re-engage) the skilled hu- man resources, and then to take positive steps to imple- n The admission by those key individuals interviewed ment them. Otherwise, the benefits of the present, large in the regional organizations and agencies; expenditures on capacity building will come to naught. n The gaps identified by the PIFS. In terms of implementation of risk-reducing measures, In terms of awareness raising and capacity building, the large, top-down flow of resources into the Region, and both the mandated regional organizations, and nearly thence to countries, has had relatively minor effect at the all the other UN, regional organizations, and NGOs in- local and community level where risk-reduction occurs. terviewed, are actively involved through programs and For many countries there is a large gulf between the vil- projects. This is evidenced by: lage or community level and the provincial or national level at which scientific knowledge, mainstreaming, n The programs of both the mandated regional orga- and capacity building are usually directed. This gap has nizations for DRR and CCA, as responding to their been identified and some effort is underway to fill it, as respective Frameworks for Action for which they reflected in: are responsible; n An emerging emphasis on "community-based adap- n The inherent function of the University of the tation" for CCA, as pursued by the Red Cross; South Pacific as a tertiary education institution with a programmatic focus on oceans and islands as well n The community-based resource management and as earth sciences; risk-reducing work carried out by the University of the South Pacific (USP); n The projects undertaken by the burgeoning number of UN agencies and NGOs in the Region. n The increasing number of NGOs, like the Founda- tion of the People of the South Pacific International However, despite the widespread attention to awareness (FSPI), whose entry point for engagement is the raising and capacity building, much activity is rather ad community level; Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 29 n World Bank and ADB have a CBDRM input into or incentive to engage the capacity. Often it is the their projects. manner or form in which information or assistance is provided, which is inappropriate to the cultural One of the major reasons for this state of affairs is or organizational context. A major effort is required the lack of institutional arrangements and capacity at to integrate across scales in order to bridge the gulf the national and local level, or the lack of opportunity noted above. v NOTES: DRR and CCA are at different stages of establishment in the Pacific Region. DRR has been around longer and has more firmly established frameworks and pathways to risk-reduction, as compared to CCA. So, despite its constraints, DRR has steps which lead to implementation. In contrast, CCA is still constrained by the Stage 2 lid on funding via the GEF main funds, and still has difficulty identifying exactly what constitutes climate change adaptation. The opportunity, one would think, is for CCA to piggyback onto DRR in order to get adaptation on the ground. This requires both conceptual understanding of the commonality of interests in terms of risk reduction and additional risks posed by climate change, as well as a re-shuffle of regional organizations along outcome-driven instead of their current mandate-driven (i.e., DRR vs. CCA) lines. 30 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Annex c. status of in-country Arrangements for Risk Reduction T he following status of in-country arrangements Additional constraints identified include inadequate for risk reduction derives from three recent re- enabling environment in many institutions in the Pa- gional reports--the World Bank (2006) policy cific and the absence of essential top-down and bot- note, "Not If, But When", GEF (2008) "Pacific Alli- tom-up approaches. The mainstreaming of risk man- ance for Sustainability Program Framework", and "In- agement is not afforded the highest priority, and donor tegrated Water Resources Management in Pacific Is- development assistance does not encourage risk reduc- land Countries: A Synopsis" (SOPAC 2007). All raise tion behavior. similar issues. At the country level, the institutional arrangements are crucial, and potential overlaps exist between coordination Not if, But When on climate change adaptation (lead by environment min- The background to the terms of reference for this Re- istries) and on disaster risk management (led by National gional Stocktake paraphrases the World Bank policy Disaster Management Offices). It notes that proactive note "Not If, But When". It notes adaptation to climate disaster risk mitigation has attracted limited funding and change and risk management of natural hazards is a that the problems are compounded by limited capacity to core development issue for Pacific island countries. The implement risk management activities. CCA and DRR activities are differentiated from devel- opment activities by the fact that they seek to reduce a Furthermore, experience has shown that stand-alone recognized actual or developing risk associated with a climate and disaster risk programs or strategies are known hazard or expected impact of climate change. often undermined by unfavorable national policies or investments. To be effective, climate and disaster risk It notes the regional work on climate change builds on management need to be incorporated into the national work under the Pacific Islands Climate Change Assis- processes that are crucial to decisionmaking. Main- tance Program (PICCAP) from around 1998. The two streaming processes also need to be linked to invest- 2005 frameworks--Pacific Islands Framework for Action ments on the ground. on Climate Change 2006-2015 and Disaster Risk Reduc- tion and Disaster Management Framework for Action The policy note concludes by pointing out that climate 2005-2015: An Investment for Sustainable Development and disaster risk management requires an enabling na- in the Pacific Island Countries--reflect the strong over- tional environment under which key players--commu- laps and common challenges between risk management nities, government, and private sector--can implement of climate change adaptation and natural hazards. risk-reduction behavior. It points out there are three aspects that might need to be in place before risk man- While at a national level, many countries are developing agement can be effective: (a) accountable performance national strategies on risk reduction (through the NAP budgeting; (b) participatory planning; and (c) pre-ex- for disaster risk and/or the NAPA for climate change), isting inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms. few have begun to implement their national strategies on risk reduction. What is missing are practical mea- sures that countries can take to inform their national gEF Pacific Alliance for sustainability development policies and strengthen their programs Program Framework against the risk of natural hazards, including climate The 2008 GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability report change. Also missing, according to the policy note, is a on future investment programs contains a number of ob- concrete regional collaborative mechanism. servations and lessons learned from the past 15 years of Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 31 activity in the Pacific Region. It notes interventions have by communities and government. The report sum- achieved limited impact even as global and linked na- marizes barriers that have had to be addressed to tional environment problems in these countries remain meet both national aspirations and GEF require- unresolved. Among the many lessons learned, the fol- ments. These include: lowing have been drawn from the report: - Balancing community-focused actions, country n It is often difficult to fulfill international obligations drive, regional coordination, and delivery of related to the Conventions and deliver global en- global benefits; vironmental benefits while also addressing national - Programmatic versus project-based approach; priorities. - National versus regional projects; - Planning versus action; n Many national efforts designed to improve environ- - Increased absorptive capacity; mental performance and to contribute to sustainable - Limited co-financing; development have been undermined because they - Sharing expertise; and are located in junior or weak ministries. - Sharing information. n Initial emphasis should be placed on ensuring ad- equate in-country capacity; "country teams" can of- ten play fundamental and crucial roles; preference integrated Water Resources should be given to the use of national and regional Management in Pacific island experts who have received the advanced training countries--A synopsis that allows them to play critical roles. This 2007 SOPAC report prepared with UNDP, UNEP, and GEF on the progress of the 2002 Pacific n More importance should be placed on establish- Regional Action Plan on Sustainable Water Manage- ing and using fully functional and comprehensive ment notes several barriers to integrated water resources information bases, including their use in building management in the Pacific, including: understanding of the priority issues and appropriate responses. n Limited and fragile water resources susceptible to over- exploitation and pollution, but with little technical n Resources made available by Governments to devel- management capacity to exploit and protect them; op and maintain management and research capabili- ties are often inadequate. Instead there is a tendency n Vulnerability to climate variability resulting in rapid to rely extensively on external assistance program. onset of flooding and droughts; Such a reliance on external funding is untenable in n Insufficient political and public awareness of the the long term. critical role of water; n A weak project design will usually necessitate sig- n Fragmented national water governance due to little nificant subsequent changes. formal communication and coordination among government departments; n A robust project design, based on regional coordina- tion and cooperation with national implementation, n Conflicts between national versus traditional rights; can often be more effective and efficient. n Weak linkages to other stakeholders, within the wa- n Five-years timeframe is considered too short for a ter sector but particularly to other economic sectors, medium-size project that requires major knowledge public health, and the environment. 32 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands The report also identifies the following solutions relat- also notes that a much greater political and financial ed to integrated water resources management: building commitment was required at both the country level and upon existing activities and improving the coordinat- internationally. v ing, and integrating of planning and management. It Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 33 Annex D. Project Team and People consulted Regional Stocktake Project Team Alf Simpson Consultant Australia John Norton Consultant New Zealand Graham Shorten Consultant Australia Richard Warrick Consultant New Zealand Supported by: Terry Hills AusAID Mahendra Kumar Australian Department of Climate Change Noud Leenders SOPAC Persons Consulted in Apia, Samoa, February 26-29, 2008 Bruce Chapman SPREP Espen Ronneberg SPREP Dean Solofa SPREP Paul Tomane FAO Stephen Rogers FAO Georgina Bonin UNDP Essayas Taye UNDP Easter Galuvao UNDP Leilani Duffy UNDP-GEF Suresh Raj UNEP Keneti Faulalo UNEP GEF Hans Thulstrup UNESCO Sue Vize UNESCO Tasha Shon WHO Asaua Faasino WHO Henry Taiki WMO Persons Consulted in Suva, Fiji, March 3-8, 2008 Cristelle Pratt Director, SOPAC Mosese Sikivou Programme Manager, CRP SOPAC Noud Leenders CRP, SOPAC Michael Bonte CRP, SOPAC Kathryn Hawley Program Director, TAF/OFDA Paul Fairbairn Programme Manager, CLP, SOPAC Marc Overmars CLP, SOPAC Paul Eastwood CLP, SOPAC Tagaloa Cooper SOPAC Robert Smith O&IP, SOPAC Jens Kruger O&IP, SOPAC Narendra Singh SPC 34 Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands Tevita Kete SPC Marita Manley SPC Valerie Tuia SPC Roshni Chand FSPI Takashita Teiji Resident Representative, JICA Nariaki Mikuni JICA Hiroki Sannomaru JICA Peter Muller Regional Disaster Response Adviser, UNOCHA Dr. Pa'olelei Luteru Dean Faculty of Islands and Oceans, USP Prof. Patrick Nunn Geography USP Prof. Randy Thaman Geography USP Dr. Eberhard Weber Geography USP Duncan Williams Geography USP Prof. Bill Aalbersberg IAS, USP Dr. Tony Weir PACE-SD, USP Fine Lao PACE-SD, USP Dr. Kenneth MacKay IMR, USP Dr. Joeli Veitayaki IMR, USP Alan Resture IMR, USP Frank Kennedy IFRC Asenaca Ravuvu UNDP Ruth Lane UNDP Richard Phelps ADB Tina Seniloli ADB Dr. Ken Chen Regional Representative, WHO Dr. Corinne Capuano WHO Steven Iddings WHO Assoc. Prof. Zac Morse Fiji School of Medicine Dr. Padma Lal Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Richard Mendani Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Regional Stocktake -- Eas Asia and the Pacific Region 35 References and select Bibliography ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2005. Climate Proofing: A Risk-based Approach to Adaptation. Pacific Studies Series. Asian Development Bank, Manila. 191pp. ADB. 2004. Pacific Region Environmental Strategy 2005-2009: Executive Summary. ADB. 2005-06. Country Environmental Analysis. Reports from various countries. Australian Greenhouse Office. 2007. Climate Change Project Development and Implementation Workshop for Pacific Island Countries. Apia, Samoa July 20-21, 2007. Bettencourt, Sofia, Richard Croad, Paul Freeman, John Hay, Roger Jones, Peter King, Padma Lal, Alan Mearns, Geoff Miller, Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, Alf Simpson, Nakibae Teuatabo, Ulric Tritz, Maarten Van Aalst. 2005. Not If, But When: Adapting to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Island Region. World Bank. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2008. GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability - Program Framework. GEF/UNDP 2006. PACC ­ Report of In-Country Consultations. Reports from various countries. Hennessy, K., B. Fitzharris, B.C. Bates, N. Harvey, S.M. Howden, L. Hughes, J. Salinger, and R. Warrick. 2007. "Australia and New Zealand." In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess- ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 507-540. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Re- port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 104 pp. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 398 pp. ISDR 2008. Private Sector Activities in Disaster Risk Reduction ­ Good Practices and Lessons learned SOPAC (South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission). 2008. Approved Work Programme and Budget for 2008 SOPAC. 2007. Integrated Water Resources Management in Pacific Island Countries- A Synopsis ­ and related Country Diagnostic Reports. SOPAC. 2005. An Investment for Sustainable Development in the Pacific Island Countries Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Manage- ment-- A Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. SOPAC Miscel- laneous Report 613 (revised July 2008). www.sopac.org/RfA+2005+2015 SPREP (Secretariat to the Pacific Regional Environment Program). 2008. Approved Work Programme and Budget for 2008 SPREP. 2006. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006-2015 ­ Draft Version 12 SPREP. 2005. Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006-2015 UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2007. NCSP Workshop on the Second National Communications and Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments for Pacific Island Countries, Apia, Samoa 16-19 July 2007 Warrick, R.A. 2006. "Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in the Pacific: Recent Breakthroughs in Concept and Practice." In Chapman, R., Boston, J. and Schwass, M. (eds) Confronting Climate Change: Critical Issues for New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Warrick, R. A. 2000. "Strategies for Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment in the Context of National Communications." Asia- Pacific Journal for Environment and Development. 7 (1), p. 43-51. World Bank. 2009a. Preparedness, Planning, and Prevention: Assessment of National and Regional Efforts to Reduce Natural Di- saster and Climate Change Risks in the Pacific ­ A Synthesis Report. East Asia and the Pacific Region. Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2009b. Country Assessment for Pacific Island Countries. Separate reports for Fiji, Kiribati, Marshal Islands, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste. East Asia and the Pacific Region. Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2008. Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands ­ Business Plan Commentary, A GFDRR Project. East Asia and the Pacific Region The World Bank 1818 H St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20433 http://www.worldbank.org/eap Special thanks and appreciation are extended to the partners* who support GFDRR's work to protect livelihood and improve lives: ACP Secretariat, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, canada, Denmark, European commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, spain, sweden, switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United states, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and The World Bank. *In bold, GFDRR Donors