Institutional_Capacity_and_Policy_Strengthening_Report.Revised.2-17-16.pdf

i

Draft, 31 August 2015

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID). It was prepared by the Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) implemented by DAI for

USAID/Pacific Islands.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND

POLICY STRENGTHENING

REPORT & PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT

CONSIDERATIONS

FOR FIJI, KIRIBATI, PAPUA NEW

GUINEA, SAMOA AND TUVALU

i

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United

States Agency for International Development of the United States Government.

USAID PACIFIC ISLANDS COASTAL COMMUNITY ADAPTATION

PROJECT

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT &

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

DRAFT

SPONSORING USAID OFFICE: USAID/Pacific Islands

CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-492-C-12-00010

CONTRACTOR: DAI

DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUGUST 2015

AUTHORS: DAI & THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH

PACIFIC, PACIFIC CENTER FOR

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT (PACE-SD)

ii [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 COUNTRY POLICY ANALYSIS & CONSULTATION REPORTS

3.1 Fiji Country Profile

3.2 Kiribati Country Profile

3.3 Papau New Guinea Country Profile

3.4 Samoa Country Profile

3.5 Tuvalu Country Profile

4.0 REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY &

POLICY STRENGTHENING PORFOLIOS

4.1 Policy & Institutional Strenghtening

4.2 Institutional Capacilty Building

4.3 Climate Finance

4.4 Knowledge Management

1 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

CONSIDERATIONS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USAID Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) team is pleased to present this Institutional

Capacity and Policy Strengthening Report & Program Development Considerations deliverable, which highlights the critical gaps between Pacific Island Country government intentions—as interpreted from climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies—and the national reality, defined by the effectiveness of government ministries and the resilience of their constituents.

Beginning in March 2015—with focus on Fiji, Kiribati, PNG, Samoa and Tuvalu—the C-CAP team assessed each target country’s enabling environment for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) governance through policy analysis and in-country consultations; identified each country’s development priorities; and developed an approach for USAID to address national priorities through a broader regional program. This deliverable presents the outcomes of this assessment through:

Country Policy Analysis and Consultation Reports for Fiji, Kiribati, PNG, Samoa and Tuvalu which outline each country’s priorities for strengthening their enabling environment for climate change adaptation and DRR; and

Regional Institutional and Capacity Strengthening Portfolios which align individual country priorities into broader technical areas—Policy and Strategic Frameworks, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change

Finance, and Knowledge Management—and provide program development considerations that

USAID/Pacific Islands may apply when determining how to structure future climate change governance initiatives.

The technical areas listed above, presented as ‘components’ in the report, were designed to be mutually reinforcing. Activities under each component would contribute to what the C-CAP team found to be the most significant challenge to national governments’ climate change initiatives—transitioning policy into budgeted programs that can be implemented across line ministries and subnational government departments.

Through the program development considerations presented in Chapter 4, the C-CAP team outlines how each component addresses this challenge:

Policy & Institutional Strengthening—Moving beyond mainstreaming policy and white papers to help national government partners increase line ministry counterparts’ awareness of the ways in which climate change and natural disaster impacts cut across sectors; and produce mainstreaming guidelines for integration of climate change and DRR considerations into line ministry regulations and programs.

Institutional Capacity Building—Building from the previous component to strengthen line ministry and subnational government unit stakeholders’ capacity to transform the climate change and DRR initiatives that exist on paper into budgeted initiatives to be rolled out in practice. This technical area includes recommendations for capacity building including short-term training, embedded advisor support, and longer-term scholarship initiatives; as well as production of tools and guidelines on best practices and off-the-shelf initiatives.

Climate Finance—Helping national government counterparts to more directly identify and tap into climate change finance sources that can help fund their climate change adaptation and DRR policy, regulation and programmatic initiatives. This technical area features suggestions for building off existing climate change finance frameworks to help governments improve access to and management of climate change finance.

Knowledge Management—Finally, under this final ‘component,’ the C-CAP team introduces findings that demonstrate national governments’ ambitions to better track the climate change adaptation and DRR initiatives currently in place; analyze both the effectiveness of programs and the nature of constituents’ vulnerability; and to be a more informed and active donor recipient that can help development partners better target investments and reinforce national priorities.

Collectively, the recommendations within this report were designed to position USAID/Pacific Islands to close the gap between policy and practice, and to transform national governments’ climate change adaptation and DRR intentions into reality.

2 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

2.0 INTRODUCTION

USAID/Pacific Islands has applied lessons learned over the past two years from its Global Climate Change project portfolio to realign its Results Framework. The revised framework promotes an increased focus on a critical gap that has inhibited ongoing projects’ potential to achieve transformational impact and sustainability in partner countries: the enabling environment for climate change governance. As pictured in

Exhibit 1, USAID/Pacific Islands has added Integrated Result (IR) 1.2 – Policies and Institutions

Strengthened and IR 1.3 – Regional Institutions Strengthened to its Results Framework—two complementary results that can also nurture and sustain activities executed at the local level to achieve IR 1.1 – Resilience in

Communities Strengthened.

Exhibit 1: USAID/Pacific Islands Results Framework

Since October 2012, the Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) has engaged 77 communities across nine partner countries—Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu—to strengthen community resilience to climate change and natural disasters

(IR 1.1). In line with USAID’s revised Results Framework, the C-CAP team has completed this project deliverable—Institutional Capacity and Policy Strengthening Report & Program Development

Considerations—which presents an analysis of opportunities for USAID to increase national and regional climate change governance capacity. In consultation with USAID/Pacific Islands, the C-CAP team selected

Fiji, Kiribati, PNG, Samoa and Tuvalu as the focal countries for this initial analysis. These countries represent the full range of Pacific Island Country contexts, which cover:

Representation of the diversity, and geography of the Pacific Islands region—with Melanesia (Fiji, PNG), Micronesia (Kiribati), and Polynesia (Samoa, Tuvalu);

A broad range of topographical profiles including low-lying coral atolls and mountainous islands of volcanic origin;

Ranges of population size, from 10,000 (Tuvalu) to PNG (6.5 million); and

Moreover, USAID/Pacific Islands and DAI deemed that the targeted countries would benefit most significantly from USAID engagement. This determination was made from a desktop analysis of institutional, capacity and political drivers for national-level engagement.

The C-CAP team assessed each target country’s enabling environment for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) governance through policy analysis and in-country consultations; identified priorities of each country across four broad aspects of the enabling environment—Policy and Strategic

Conducted February 2015 with USAID/OEECCA and USAID/C-CAP participation: rank scoring of nine Pacific Island countries across eight metrics for institutional and political opportunities for delivering effective development assistance at the national level.

USAID/Pacific Islands Goal Statement

More Climate Resilient and Healthy

Populations Supported

Development Objective

Negative Impacts of Climate Change

Addressed

IR 1.2

Policies and

Institutions

Strengthened

IR 1.1

Resilience in

Communities

Strengthened

IR 1.3

Regional Institutions

Strengthened

3 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Frameworks, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Finance, and Knowledge Management; and propose an approach for USAID to address each country’s concerns through a broader regional program.

METHODOLOGY

The C-CAP team’s approach to this assignment may be defined across three high-level tasks:

1. National Engagement Consultations – USAID/Pacific Islands representatives and members of the C-

CAP team facilitated consultations with national stakeholders from the public, private and non-profit sectors in each target country; and completed consultations with bi- and multi-lateral donors, regional organizations and NGOs that support regional initiatives.

2. Policy Analysis—The C-CAP team, with representatives from DAI and the University of the South

Pacific’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD), executed an analysis of each country’s enabling environment and identified priorities that are not currently being addressed through other donor programs.

3. Program Development Considerations—The C-CAP team analyzed national priorities and proposed program development considerations to inform USAID’s planning for future support of regional climate change adaptation and/or DRR programming.

Under the leadership of Contracting Officer’s Representative Cristina Vélez Srinivasan, C-CAP Chief of

Party Stephen Smith and Deputy Chief of Party Nick Hobgood, the team designed and implemented a consultation guide with targeted questions to illuminate:

Existence and sufficiency of management plans (for execution of policy);

Processes and protocols for CCA and DRR implementation across governance levels;

Existing capacity, tools, and resources for CCA and DRR implementation;

Budgeting and/or finance strategies and whether they are sufficient to meet implementation commitments; and

Mechanisms for knowledge management, to capture lessons learned, and to replicate best practices and successful approaches.

Consultations took place between March and May 2015. Within each country, the team met with ministries of environment/climate change, lead units for climate change adaptation, national disaster management offices, ministries of strategic planning and finance and other government stakeholders that support design, evaluation and/or management of climate change adaptation and DRR initiatives; NGOs; and donor organizations.

Following consultations and consultation reporting, COP Smith, DCOP Hobgood, and short-term technical advisors Morgan Wairu, Deputy Director of PACE-SD, Walter Weaver, Project Team Director for

Environment, DAI Asia Region, and Joey Manfredo, C-CAP Project Manager, DAI Asia Region completed a policy analysis and identified national priorities across the following technical areas: Policy and Strategic

Framework, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Finance, and Knowledge Management. The team analyzed policies, program evaluations and strategic plans for each country to identify high-level climate change adaptation and DRR priorities; compared priorities against ongoing or planned climate change adaptation and DRR projects taking place in the country to identify unmet needs; and presented priorities identified through consultations in the core technical areas introduced above.

After completing country reports, the team identified short-, medium- and long- term priorities for each country that met the following conditions:

Fell within core climate change adaptation and DRR priorities outlined in the C-CAP team’s policy assessment;

Are not being addressed by an ongoing or planned donor-funded project; and

Were identified as a priority through national consultations.

The C-CAP team defined short-term priorities as those that could be supported through a one-year donor-funded initiative; medium-term priorities that those which would take one to three years to accomplish; and long-term priorities as those that would require five or more years of support. In the final level of analysis, the C-CAP team presented project development considerations for USAID to consider when designing

4 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT technical support initiatives in the following areas: Policy and Strategic Framework, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Finance, and Knowledge Management.

REPORT STRUCTURE

This report is presented in two primary sections:

1. Country Policy Analysis & Consultation Reports; and

2. Regional Institutional Capacity & Policy Strengthening Portfolios.

The Policy Analysis & Consultation Reports section is broken into subsections for each target country.

Reports present country background; the country’s climate profile; an overview of support provided to the country by the US Government; an overview of the country’s policy framework; a presentation of the donor landscape; and reporting on national consultation findings.

The Regional Institutional Capacity & Policy Strengthening Portfolios includes subsections for the following technical areas: Policy and Strategic Framework, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Finance, and

Knowledge Management. Each subsection is outlined as follows:

Background on the technical area;

Program development considerations;

Objectives aligned to the program development considerations;

Implementation tasks; and a

Cost and sustainability assessment.

5 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

3.0 COUNTRY POLICY ANALYSIS &

CONSULTATION REPORTS

6 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

3.1 FIJI

COUNTRY PROFILE

The Republic of Fiji has 330 islands (approximately one third are inhabited) scattered within an exclusive economic zone of 1.3 million sq. km. Fiji has a total land mass of 18,333 sq. km, with Viti Levu (10,429 sq.

km) and Vanua Levu (5,556 sq. km) constituting 87 percent of the total. The population—which is primarily settled in coastal communities—is approximately 837,000 people with an annual growth rate of

0.8% percent. The iTaukei (indigenous Fijians) constitute 57 percent of the population, Indo-Fijians make up

37.5 percent, and other ethnicities fill out the remaining 5.5 percent (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2012). The urban population is currently estimated at 52 percent of the total population and is primarily concentrated in the two major cities, Suva and Lautoka, both located on the main island Viti Levu.

More than one quarter of the country’s population lives below the national poverty line (31 percent in 2008-

09). Despite these poverty levels, Fiji is among the most developed of the region’s economies. Tourism and the sugar industry are the primary economic drivers of Fiji’s economy, with additional contributions from fisheries, forestry, mining, and, in recent years, remittances from Fiji’s overseas resident population.

Between 1971 and 2012, the GDP growth rate averaged 2.4 percent but political instability within Fiji has undermined country’s economic performance. For example, between 2006 and 2010 the Fiji economy grew by only 0.1 percent. This has been attributed to: the impact of disasters (including estimated losses of FJD 75 million resulting from Cyclone Evan in 2012); loss of the professional workforce through migration; low investment confidence; and international sanctions by the Commonwealth and the Pacific Islands Forum levied after the 2006 government coup.

Fiji has been ranked the 19th most vulnerable country in the world to natural hazards and disasters by the UN

World Risk Index, 2011. Fiji is located in the Pacific ‘ring of fire’ and is exposed to hazards including tropical cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides. Since 1950 Fiji has experience 101 hazardous events. The majority of these (56 percent) have been tropical cyclones and storms. Fiji on average experiences one tropical cyclone per year. Earthquakes and floods accounted for 23 percent and 15 percent of all events, respectively. The remaining 6 percent comprise droughts and tsunamis which account for 3 percent each. Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of these events.

CLIMATE PROFILE

Fiji has an oceanic tropical climate with a dry season from May to October and rainy season from November to April. Fiji’s relative location has a strong influence on both seasonal and inter-annual variations in climate, particularly rainfall, where the southeasterly trade winds carry moist air into the islands. Fiji is also prone to El Niño events and tropical cyclones relative to the country’s location in the South Pacific

Convergence Zone (SPCZ). During an El Niño- Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, conditions are generally drier and hotter than normal from June to August. During the November to April wet season, Fiji is normally traversed by tropical cyclones.

Climate change is likely to affect the coastal resources of Fiji in a variety of ways. Sea level rise and extreme sea level events may lead to increases in coastal erosion and coastal inundation, increased exposure to wave action (as coral growth lags behind sea-level rise), and, in some cases, the retreat of mangroves. Projected increases in sea surface temperature may lead to a rising incidence of coral bleaching. Coral bleaching, together with the lag in coral growth, may in turn lead to a reduction in sediment production necessary for maintaining shoreline stability. Coral bleaching is also likely to have adverse effects on coastal biological diversity and fisheries. Changes in the patterns of storms, such as an increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones, may cause greater incidence of coastal inundation and erosion events. These processes may be exacerbated by reduced reef protection.

Fiji, especially Viti Levu, already suffers from human-generated coastal ecosystem degradation. High population growth rates, intensive urban development, deforestation of catchments, pollution and increased exploitation of biological and physical coastal resources have exposed large areas of coast to erosion and inundation events. These human-generated stressors have reduced the resilience of coastal systems to cope with climate variability, sea-level rise and other impacts of climate change.

7 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Observed climate trends and projections for Fiji (at the country scale), as reported by the Pacific Climate

Change Science Program (PCCSP) may be found in the table below.

Table 1 Climate Trends and Projections – Fiji (Source: PCCSP, 2011)

Variable Forecast

Annual and Seasonal

Rainfall

Annual and seasonal rainfall trends are not statistically significant, but on average 63-percent of Suva’s rain and 77-percent of Nadi Airport’s rain falls in the wet season between November and April;

Little change in rainfall is predicted by most models; floods are mostly associated with tropical cyclones.

Annual and Seasonal

Mean Air Temperature Annual and seasonal mean air temperatures have increased between 1950 and 2009, with the most pronounced increases occurring in the wet season.

Annual mean temperature is projected to be 0.7o C.

Sea level Satellite observations suggest a sea level rise of 6mm/year from 1993-2010, though the sea level record is short and is therefore not a strong indicator of long-term SLR.

PCCSP projections include the following climate scenarios for Fiji:

By 2030, the most likely projected change for Fiji is for warmer temperatures with annual mean temperature increases of 0.7˚C. Projected mean annual rainfall changes—as predicted by 69percent of the models—are negligible at -1 percent.

By 2055, the majority of the models (69 percent) continue to project warmer temperatures and little change in rainfall, with annual mean air temperature increases of 1.0°C and annual mean rainfall decreases of 1 percent.

By 2090, the majority of the models projected hotter temperatures and little change in rainfall, with annual mean air temperature increases of 1.9°C and annual mean rainfall decreases of 1percent.

By 2100, global sea level changes are expected to range from 0.21 to 0.48 meters (according to the fourth IPCC assessment report). However, there is significant uncertainty surrounding ice-sheet contributions to sea level rise; a larger rise than that projected cannot be excluded.

US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TO DATE

According to the Department of State, the United States has provided the following assistance to the

Republic of Fiji:

From 2006 through 2014, the United States provided relatively little direct bilateral development assistance to

Fiji, but contributed through its membership in multilateral agencies and USAID funding of regional environmental projects [including C-CAP, the Pacific America Climate Fund (PACAM) and funding for two

Peace Corps Response Volunteers]. Small U.S. grants continue to contribute to civil society, journalism, environmental protection, and anti-human-trafficking efforts. Law enforcement cooperation assists port security, rule of law professionalism, intellectual property rights, and disaster preparedness and response.

Assistance in 2014 included grants to support voter education and elections observers. There is a Peace Corps program in Fiji.

Through C-CAP, USAID coordinates with the iTaukei Affairs (Indigenous Affairs) which leads a

Conservation Officers program. The program decentralizes climate change adaptation support through locally-based Conservation Officers who facilitate community vulnerability assessments and climate adaptation planning. In addition to increasing climate change awareness, building capacity to apply decision-support tools for climate change adaptation, and supporting the creation of disaster preparedness plans, USAID is supporting the initiatives outlined in the table below.

Table 2 C-CAP CCA Interventions in Fiji

Community Vulnerability Profile CCA Intervention Timing

1. Buretu Communities’ primary reported climate vulnerabilities:

Extreme precipitation events:

Increased rainfall and resulting flooding was reported especially in low lying areas near rivers and in estuarine environments.

Riverbank protection to reduce the impacts of storm surge, high tides and associated wave action.

Completed / DRR plans complete –drills Complete

2. Daku Flood gate rehabilitation and construction to better manage the impacts of high tides and sea level rise.

Completed / DRR plans complete –drills Complete

3. Vunisinu/Nalase

Completed / DRR plans complete –drills Complete

8 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

4. Korotasere Storm surge and sea level rise:

Increased wave action has accelerated coastal erosion and loss of vegetation.

Increased cyclone activity - Damage to buildings caused by higher intensity cyclone activity.

Longer dry seasons – Lack of precipitation negatively affecting crop production and availability of potable water

Coastal and riverbank protection to protect the community’s assets from increasing coastal erosion.

In tender / DRR plans complete –drills Complete process

5. Karoko In tender process / DRR plans complete –drills pending

6. Vusasivo In tender process / DRR plans complete –drills pending

7. Vunisavisavi Cyclone proofing of homes Under construction / DRR plans complete –drills pending

8. Yaqaga Multipurpose evacuation center to be used in the event of cyclone threat

Under construction / DRR plans complete –drills pending

9. Nakasaleka Evacuation centers for shelter during cyclone events.

In design phase / DRR plans planned –drills pending

10. Nasegai In design phase / DRR plans planned –drills pending

POLICY FRAMEWORK

The C-CAP team consulted the following core policies, strategies and plans in drafting this report:

Fiji National Disaster Management Plan 1995

Fiji’s First National Communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change 2006

National Capacity Self-Assessment - National Strategy and Action Plan: Final Report: Fiji 2009 The

Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development (RDSSED 2009-2014)

Fiji Climate Change Policy: Fiji 2012

Fiji’s Second National Communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change 2013

Fiji Green Growth Strategy 2014

Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review 2014.

Institutional Responsibilities for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction and Response (DRR)

Prior to introducing the policies, it is important to note the institutional responsibilities regarding climate change and DRR implementation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation’s Climate

Change Division (CCD) is responsible for leading implementation of the National Climate Change Policy

(NCCP) and coordinating climate change projects in Fiji. It is advised by the National Climate Change

Coordination Committee (NCCC) with a range of sub-committees and representatives from other

Government ministries, NGOs and academia.

The National Disaster Management Council (NDMC) is the national body responsible for disaster management policy—which is derived from the National Disaster Management Plan (1995) and the Natural

Disaster Management Act (1998). The National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) serves in the secretariat role for NDMC and is the implementation-facing disaster management organization. The NDMO

Director is Secretary to the NDRRC. The NDMO derives its authority from the National Disaster

Management Act which sets out the framework for handling all aspects of disaster management for the preparedness (before), in-process (during), and response (after) phases. NDMO implements the NDMC policies and sets up the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC) during emergencies. The

NDMO/NEOC is assisted by Disaster Service Liaison Officers (DSLOs) from government agencies, as the main point of contact for liaison and coordination.

Outside of work on specific donor-funded projects, there is limited policy or strategic coordination between

CCD and NDMO; this is pronounced during the budgeting process, when a lack of coordination can result in duplicated programming. Ideally, coordination should take place prior to each department’s budget submissions to the Ministry of Finance and Strategic Planning.

The Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) Report in 2014 recommended that to enhance coordination and efficiency, Fiji may consider creating a single climate change office and exercising

9 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT a reorganization to pull climate change functions from other ministries. This new streamlined entity could set national priorities on climate change adaptation and DRR and achieve greater coordination and efficiency.

Mainstreaming and Cross-Sectoral Policy

The National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) 2012—the overarching policy document for climate change issues—was developed to outline an integrated approach to addressing climate change issues in Fiji. It was also intended to facilitate progress against relevant performance indicators identified in the Roadmap for

Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development 2009 – 2014 (RDSSED). In reviewing the policy, strategy and assessment documents and consultations with key government departments, however, it is apparent that climate change and disaster risk management are not fully mainstreamed into all levels of planning and policy in government. Equally problematic, the Climate Change Division (CCD)—due to limited technical and financial resources—was not able to operationalize the policy. This has limited the

Government’s ability to elevate the importance of climate change adaptation and DRR, to increase awareness, and to improve access to climate change finance.

Due to the absence of policy implementation, RDSSED has been constrained in its efforts to increase national resilience to disasters and climate change. As a stand-alone document, it does not completely address climate change adaptation and DRR and does not provide clarity on how other sector plans, such as

Annual Corporate Plans and Business Plans, should address climate change adaptation and DRR.

The Fiji government is in the process of drafting a National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) that will replace the RDSSED. The C-CAP team contends that it will be essential for this new strategy to apply lessons learned from the RDSSED experience—particularly in regard to guidance for implementation and resourcing climate change adaptation and DRR activities. The government has begun consultations designed to formulate a strategy. In 2014, Fiji developed its National Green Growth Framework, an additional policy tool to accelerate integrated and inclusive sustainable development. The framework provides an outline to building resilience—across sectors—to the anticipated adverse effects of climate change and social improvement; reducing poverty; and promoting economic growth. The Framework is in line with the Rio+20 outcomes, which state that green growth should be a tool to support sustainable development. The National

Green Growth Framework, along with lessons learned from RDSSED, is being applied to guide development of the new National Sustainable Development Strategy.

Sectoral Policies and Plans At a sectoral level, specific policies and plans for climate change adaptation and DRR exist but as the Fiji’s

Second National Communication (SNC) Report to the UNFCCC (2013) notes, significant constraints exist in translating them into action. The SNC Report 2013 and CPIER 2014 raised the following challenges:

Relatively weak institutional capacity;

Poor institutional coordination, networking and collaboration;

Inadequate funding for environmental and sustainable natural resources management projects;

Limited systematic research and monitoring;

Insufficient training and education programs, with poor integration of climate change adaptation and

DRR content in curricula and training courses;

Relatively low awareness and understanding of climate change adaptation and DRR issues at all levels;

and

A lack of enforcement of existing environmental legislation that supports climate change mitigation and adaptation.

DONOR LANDSCAPE

The major bilateral development partners that support the government capital expenditure program are

China, the European Union (EU), the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government and the

Japanese Government through the Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA).

While coordination mechanisms do exist, such as the Climate Change donor coordination group which is facilitated each month by UNDP-Suva, aid resources are insufficiently uncoordinated and often delivered in parallel to national policies. Successful application of foreign aid is also hindered due to a limited absorptive

10 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT capacity of national government. The following table lists a selection of significant climate change adaptation and DRR regional projects that include implementation support for Fiji:

Table 3 Regional climate change adaptation and DRR programs providing support to Fiji

Title Donor / Development Partner

Implementer Description Status

Pacific Risk Resilience Program

DFAT (Australia) UNDP/Live & Learn

Risk governance approach to climate change and disaster risk management

Ends 2018

Enhancing Resilience of Rural Communities

UNFCCC Adaptation Fund

UNDP Integrate climate change adaptation and DRR in current flood/drought risk management through information and generation, training

Ends 2017

Building resilience to climate change for food security in the Pacific region

USAID SPC Build capacity on food security and climate change

Ends 2015

Coping with climate change in the Pacific Island Region

GIZ SPC Build capacity cope with the effects of climate change and combat its causes.

Ends 2015

Building Safety and Resilience in the Pacific

EU SPC Reduce the vulnerability as well as the social, economic and environmental costs of disasters caused by natural hazards

Ends 2018

EU-GCCA Project EU USP Capacity building, research and community engagement in climate change

Ends 2017

NATIONAL CONSULTATION FINDINGS

The C-CAP team conducted national consultations in Fiji between 17 and 19 March, and on 29 April 2015.

The table below lists the meetings held. This is followed by an introduction to consultation findings and narrative descriptions of findings for the following technical areas: Policy and Strategic Framework, Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Finance, and Knowledge Management.

Table 4 Fiji Consultation Report

Name Title Organization USAID/C-CAP Participant

Aminiasi Qareqare Acting Director for Environment Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Environment

Cristina Velez Srinivasan

– USAID Climate Change Officer

Michael Denham – USAID Development Specialist

Stephen Smith – C-CAP

COP

Nick Hobgood – C-CAP

DCOP

Col. Kurusiga Deputy Chief Executive Officer Ministry of iTaukei Affairs

Semi Rogoyawa Manager, Provincial Services Division (PSD)

Viliame Kaiyabia Principal Assistant Secretary, PSD

Alisi Rabukawaqa Conservation Officer

Mr. Akapusi Tuifagalele

Director, National Disaster Management Office

Ministry of Rural, Maritime Development and National Disaster Management

Peter Emberson Director, Climate Change Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Climate Change Division

Jason Brenden – Regional Environment Officer, US Embassy Suva

Sandeep Singh - Regional Environment and Climate Change Policy Specialist

– US Embassy Suva

Cristina Velez Srinivasan

– USAID Climate Change Officer

Michael Denham – USAID Development Specialist

Nick Hobgood – C-CAP

Vossa Waisea Policy Officer (Climate Change)

11 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Common themes represented in the consultations include mainstreaming—in line with the Green Growth

Policy Framework and the Strategy for Resilient Development in the Pacific (SRDP), which will be completed by the end of the year—and decentralization. All interviewed identified decentralization of climate change adaptation assistance and services to the local/community level through iTaukei Affairs as a priority. The Climate Change Division and National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) were particularly supportive of decentralization, indicating an interest in collecting data and monitoring vulnerability from the village level, and supporting community-based disaster risk reduction, respectively. More targeted challenges and opportunities are presented in the sections below.

POLICY AND STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Policies and strategic frameworks that were developed by relevant sector departments are in place, but implementation continues to lag due to institutional capacity and infrastructure constraints; a lack of institutional coordination, networking and collaboration; and limited availability of funding for environmental and sustainable natural resources management projects. There is also a greater need for alignment between policies on climate change adaptation and DRR and the allocation of resources to implement them. Policies and plans are not costed, resulting in the lack of coherence over the funding necessary to implement them (CPEIR, 2014).

Further, specific strategies like the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS) could be strengthened by a deeper analysis of whether its community-based climate adaptation and sustainable resource management approaches are achievable and cost-effective (NCSA, 2008). The NCCAS is still in draft and without endorsed plans and strategies in place, implementing agencies are less inclined, or obligated to implement strategies.

Government sectors do have work plans and budgets, but they are not always appropriately aligned to overarching climate change policy or strategy—such as the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) 2012 and the Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development. Work planning and budgeting would benefit from improved coordination between line ministries and the Ministry of Finance and Planning, which controls the government purse strings. This can result in misplaced budgeting priorities. For instance, NDMO allocates only one percent of expenditure to risk reduction/preparedness activities while programming 99 percent of their budget for disaster recovery/rehabilitation and communications equipment.

The NDMO sees the current Regional Strategy for Resilience Development (SRDP) which is awaiting the

Pacific Island Forum Leaders endorsement in September 2015 as a way to mainstream a number of cross cutting issues across sectors. The Climate Change Division also refers to the National Green Growth

Framework—which includes “Building Resilience to Climate Change and Disasters” as one of 10 themes— as a driver of mainstreaming across sectors, including Energy, Transportation, Forestry, Agriculture and

Health. These strategies will guide Fiji’s formulation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy in

2015. Donors may consider this opportunity—potentially through embedded advisors—to support mainstreaming and implementation-focused planning and budgeting processes across key ministries. Donors may also consider supporting the Climate Change Division’s work to review and revise the National Climate

Change Policy.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

The CPEIR report (2014) noted that entities responsible for climate change adaptation and DRR are understaffed and have limited capacity to execute against their full mandate—to implement policies, programs and projects domestically while also engaging in climate change negotiations to advocate for Fiji’s priorities at regional and global levels. Strengthening capacity through increasing staff numbers will enable

Fiji to be better prepared and respond to climate change adaptation and DRR adequately. The individuals in the offices addressing climate change adaptation and DRR must also have the technical and project management skills to be effective.

In addition to the challenge of financing for sufficient staff numbers, the government is facing the challenge of retention of specialized skills due to the demand from outside government and abroad. While this will remain a long-term issue, the design of climate change adaptation and DRR related projects should take this

12 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT into account and have necessary plans to either hire and train incoming staff, or acquire short term experts and include these costs in implementation budgets. Other institutional capacity challenges include:

Insufficient technical staff with relevant expertise in climate change;

Inability of sectors to retain, support and develop skilled personnel; and a

Limited core funding to support and sustain established climate change personnel in government sectors.

These challenges were evident from C-CAP’s consultation with government partners.

Climate Change

Despite the CCD’s challenging mandate to lead implementation of the National Climate Change Policy and to facilitate coordination of all climate change projects in Fiji, the Division only has funding for one full-time staff member; its other 12 staff, including the Director of the Division, are funded on a project-basis. The single government-funded post has been constant since CCD’s inception. The CCD has indicated the need for budget support to increase its core staff roster with personnel who have the following skills:

Climate policy experts, who would support interagency mainstreaming of sector policies;

GIS specialists;

Climate change mitigation experts, to support development of the Intended Nationally Determined

Contributions (INDCs) for Fiji; and

Project management experts—coupled with training for project management of donor funding—to support financial management of donor-funded climate change adaptation and DRR projects.

iTaukei Affairs, in coordination with CCD, leads local implementation of climate change adaptation in Fijian communities. USAID, through support to Peace Corps – Fiji, has contributed to iTaukei efforts to support the institutional development of the Conservation Officer program, including development of a vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning methodology. In consecutive years, Peace Corps Response Volunteers supported iTaukei efforts to develop and launch the program that is currently supporting Conservation

Officers in six of nine provinces. The Officers facilitate V&As in their target area’s communities and work with donors and government to attempt to source funding for interventions.

iTaukei Affairs has indicated the need for funding or other forms of support to finance Conservation Officers in the remaining three provinces. They are also indicating interest in training Roko Tuis and Assistant Roko

Tuis in the V&A methodology, which will further advance their goals to increase the knowledge, awareness and capacity of their constituents for addressing climate change. There is also a need to build capacity and technical assistance for climate change adaptation and DRR integration in development planning at divisional, provincial and district levels for improving risk management for sustainable development.

Linked to these subnational training efforts, NDMO identified the Conservation Officers as potential DRR trainers. This would require support for coordination between NDMO, CCD and iTaukei Affairs as well as training of trainers (TOT) program design and facilitation.

DRR

The NDMO employees 12 staff but the current organizational structure does not include divisional or district offices. The NDMO is charged with completing disaster risk mapping exercises within the next two years— and requires additional human and technical resources to complete the assignment. NDMO also has the responsibility, but again lacks the personnel, to integrate findings from existing environment impact assessment studies—many show evidence of mangrove clearing which increases flood risk—into disaster risk reduction exercises. Current and incoming NDMO staff would also require training as the office explores new approaches to DRR. The NDMO has indicated interest in the Comprehensive Hazard and Risk

Management (CHARM) tool for national level coordination of DRR activities. There may be an opportunity for donors to support general capacity building and CHARM-related training.

CLIMATE FINANCE

Internal resources to finance policy/program implementation The CPIER Report noted that budget allocations for climate change adaptation and DRR have remained flat over time and budget requests are not calibrated based on programming needs. The CCD has not fully addressed the budget implications resulting from their leadership role on implementation of the National

Climate Change Policy. The implementation cost of the NCCP has not been fully calculated, which has

13 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT served as a significant roadblock for implementation. The CCD does not factor implementation costs into their annual budget requests and thus operates with limited resources of only FJ$200,000 per year, which are allotted for operational expenses.

The Department of Environment (DoE) also has environmental management and climate change responsibilities, but is challenged with implementation. DoE is a national-level organization without a subnational presence. Provincial Administrations do not receive funding support from DoE. The only core funding received by Provincial Administrations is for basic operational costs. Without better coordination with DoE, or increases in core funding, they are unable to support local implementation of DoE programs.

The CCD, NDMO, iTaukei Affairs and DoE have all expressed need for additional funding to carry out their mandates. Consultations indicated that most funding would be programmed for hiring technical staff.

Capacity to access climate finance

Fiji’s reliance on donor funding is low with only 0.7 percent of its revenue coming from cash grants (CPEIR, 2014). The Government provides most of the funding for climate change adaptation and DRR—primarily for capital projects. The allocation to capital projects has increased significantly from 20 percent of the total budget in previous years to 36 percent in 2014 (CPEIR Report 2014). Other climate change adaptation and

DRR funding falls outside the financial system, going directly to projects implemented by development agencies, local governments, NGOs and the private sector.

Fiji has developed a Financing Guideline to provide clear instructions on the current financial process; the guideline also reflects the current process of managing climate change funding through the Ministry of

Finance. At the same time Fiji is also working with the UNDP, UNEP and WRI on their readiness program for the Green Climate Fund. They are reviewing the Fund’s fiduciary standards and hope to earn status as a

National Designated Authority and National Implementing Entity. Fiji will continue to require support for these efforts.

Government systems and capacity to manage funding

The Government has embarked on a reform program to further strengthen the Public Finance Management

(PFM) system and to implement recommendations from the CPIER. A strong PFM system will help raise the confidence of the international community and attract global and bilateral funding for climate change adaptation and DRR.

Fiji has also developed a Green Growth Framework in 2014 to focus efforts on sustainable, climate-resilient and low-carbon economic development. The government is also considering establishment of a National

Fund to support green growth and streamline decision-making and finance on climate change.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Key climate change adaptation and DRR agencies are faced with significant challenges in monitoring and evaluating activities as well as disseminating and providing adequate up-to-date information to all stakeholders including communities. Further, there is a greater need for understanding of the root causes and patterns of vulnerability in relation to different community groups such as women, persons with disabilities

(PWD), youth and the elderly. Fiji could benefit from more developed knowledge management guidelines for climate change adaptation and DRR and does not have a uniform knowledge management system, or data sharing protocol which exacerbates challenges of tracking program progress and monitoring vulnerability.

NDMO expressed that the government requires support for establishing a risk information system to facilitate planning and coordination amongst sector agencies and stakeholders involved in climate change adaptation and DRR work in the country. CCD and iTaukei Affairs indicated the need to improve their collaboration on data collection and management protocols, and on joint-work to develop a V&A database.

iTaukei Affairs is presently managing V&A data collection in Fiji communities; they have collected data from 94 communities to date. The agency’s goal is to expand their reach to each of Fiji’s 1,171 indigenous communities and 500 plus settlements. Ideally, V&A data from each of these communities would feed into a new database from which they and CCD can track adaptation and other indicators over time.

14 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Outside of data collection, knowledge management for donor project tracking and coordination is limited.

The CPIER report highlighted that the bulk of funding support for climate change adaptation and DRR is through donor assistance and is not channeled through the Ministry of Finance, Strategic Planning, and

Statistics. This limits the government’s ability to track funding—and thereby presents challenges for preventing duplication between donor- and government-funded projects. Furthermore, the government experiences difficulty in monitoring outcomes and collecting data for community-based programs that are implemented by other development agents, NGOs, and private sector. This is a major challenge for Fiji’s national development planning process.

15 [DRAFT] INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND POLICY STRENGTHENING REPORT & PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

3.2 KIRIBATI

Kiribati is a coastal atoll nation, consisting of three main island groups scattered over three million km of the Central Pacific. Kiribati is comprised of 33 low-lying coral islands (21 inhabited), 10 of which are coral atolls. The atolls are clustered into three groups: the Gilbert Group in the west; the Line Group in the east;

and the Phoenix Group. The total combined land area of all atolls is about 800 km , while the distance between the most westerly atoll of Banaba (Gilbert Group) and Kiritimati (Line Group) in the east is a vast

4,000 km. Most of the islands are no more than two km wide, or more than six meters above sea level, except

Banaba, which is the only raised limestone island in Kiribati, rising 87 m above mean sea level.

The…