COASTAL COMMUNITY ADAPTATION PROJECT (C-CAP)
QUARTERLY REPORT 6 01 January through 31 March 2014
April 2014C- CAP Quarterly Report 6 1
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.
Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) Quarterly Report 6 01 January through 31 March, 2014
PROGRAM TITLE: Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP)
SPONSORING USAID OFFICE: USAID/Philippines
CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-492-C-12-00010
CONTRACTOR: Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)
DATE OF PUBLICATION: April 2014
Cover Photo: Village leaders use mapping to explain the sources and effects of flooding during a C-CAP technical site visit to the Village of Daku, Rewa Province, Fiji on 23 January, 2014 Credit C-CAP.
This publication has been made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of DAI and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 i TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST ...... III
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 C-CAP Technical components ...... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
CONTRACT MONITORING PLAN UPDATE ...... 8
COMPONENT 1: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT/WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVED ...... 9 TASK 1.2 Develop a network of Social Mobilizers from partcvipating districts/communities ...... 14 TASK 1.3 Develop and apply criteria to identify and prioritize community-specific social and economic infrastructure activities ...... 14 TASK 1.4 Develop specifications, advertise, negotiate, award and monitor subcontracts for infrastructure rehabilitation, repair or upgrading and new construction activities ...... 17 TASK 1.5 Conduct activity management ...... 18
COMPONENT 2: DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRENGTHENED ...... 20 TASK 2.1 Risk identification – develop or update locally tailored assessments to improve understanding of current and future risks ...... 20 TASK 2.2 Options identification- identify gaps and opportunities to reduce vulnerability and risk over both short and long time scales ...... 20 TASK 2.3 Risk reduction: support for implementation of risk reducing adaptation activities at community level ...... 21
COMPONENT 3: RESILIENCE IN COMMUNITIES STRENGTHENED—CLIMATE RESILIENT LAND-USE PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ...... 22 TASK 3.1 Develop plan of action to integrate climate adaptation into land-use planning and building standards ...... 22 TASK 3.2 From year 2, facilitate integration of climate adaptation policies and practices into communIty land-use and/or development planning ...... 22
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ...... 23 Key personnel ...... 23 Project office personnel ...... 23
FINANCIAL SUMMARY ...... 26
ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL MEETINGS HELD IN THE REPORTING PERIOD ...... 27
ANNEX 2: INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIZATION SUMMARIES ...... 51
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 ii ACRONYM LIST
C-CAP Coastal Community Adaptation Project (USAID) CEO Chief Executive Officer CIE Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment (Nauru) CLO Community Liaison Officer (USAID/C-CAP) CLS Community Liaison Specialist (USAID/C-CAP) CM Country Mobilizer (USAID/C-CAP) CMP Contract Monitoring Plan CO Contract Officer (USAID) COP Chief of Party (USAID/C-CAP) COR Contract Officer’s Representative (USAID) CQAP Construction Quality Assurance Plans DAI Development Alternatives Inc. DCOP Deputy Chief of Party (USAID/C-CAP) DQA Data Quality Audit DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EDF Environmental Documentation Form EMMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan EU-GCCA European Union Global Climate Change Alliance GST Goods and Service Tax ICC In-Country Coordinator (EU-GCCA) IPI Infrastructure Prioritization Index IRC Internal Revenue Commission IT Infromation Technology MARSH MA Mangrove Rehabiliaton for Sustainablly-Managed Health Forests (USAID) MELAD Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development (Kiribati) MEO Mission Environmental Officer (USAID) MFATTEL Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Labour, Tourism, Trade and Environment and Labour (Tuvalu) MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAB National Advisory Board (Vanuatu) NPAC National Project Advisory Committee OB Office of the Pesident (Kiribati) OCCD Office of Climae Change and Development (PNG) PACE-SD Pacifc Center of Environment – Sustanable Development (USP) PNG Papua New Guinea SM Social Mobilizer (USAID/C-CAP) SMS Short Messaging System C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 iii STA Senior Technical Advisor (USAID/C-CAP) STA Samoa Tourist Authority STTA Short Term Technical Assistance TCS Total Construction Solutions TEC Technical Evaluation Committee USAID United States Agency for International Development USP University of the South Pacific V&A Vulnerability and Adaptation WO Work Order TAMIS Technical and Administrative Management Information System (DAI)
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 iv INTRODUCTION
The five-year (2012-17) Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) is funded by USAID/Philippines and implemented by DAI in partnership with the University of the South Pacific’s (USP) Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD). The project works directly with coastal communities across the Pacific region to: rehabilitate or construct new, small-scale community infrastructure that is resilient to the impacts of climate change; build capacity for disaster prevention and preparedness; and integrate climate resilient policies and practices into long-term land-use plans and building standards.
The Pacific Island countries comprise the most vulnerable region in the world to climate change. The nature-based livelihoods and diverse cultures that have risen from these island nations, some of which stand only meters above sea level, are being challenged and in some cases overwhelmed by sea level rise, changing ocean temperatures and acidity, increasing air temperatures, shifting rainfall and storm patterns, and other impacts of climate change that are projected to increase over the next 100 years. Particularly vulnerable to these challenges are the low-lying areas of Fiji's Rewa Delta, coastal communities in Papua New Guinea and unplanned development areas in Tonga’s Popua. National adaptation strategies and policies are being put in place in many C-CAP countries, but implementation lags at the community level across the region as there is often a disconnection between national planning and community-level needs and support for implementation. The impetus for this program stems from the critical importance of building vulnerable coastal communities’ capacity to apply climate-smart decision-making to improve coastal zone and water resource management and strengthen disaster management. Through C-CAP, USAID will strengthen community resilience to climate change in 12 Pacific Island countries—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. In 90 communities across nine countries, USAID: builds local knowledge through community-based training and participatory risk mapping and analysis; cultivates adaptive capacity by helping local leaders factor climate change projections into traditional decision-making processes; and strengthens resilience to disasters and climate change impacts through implementation of built and natural infrastructure, disaster prevention and preparedness training, and land-use planning. The three ‘Compact of Free Association’ countries—FSM, Palau and RMI—will also receive disaster risk management and land-use planning support, bringing the total number of beneficiary communities to 120. In the first year of operations, C- CAP has focused on promoting climate resilience in 22 communities in PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. From C-CAP headquarters in PNG and a sub-office in Fiji, USAID champions the primary objective to build the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities in the Pacific region to withstand more intense and frequent weather events and ecosystem degradation in the short term, and sea level rise in the long term. This C-CAP Quarterly Progress Report 6 corresponds to Year 2 second quarter (2Q) technical activities, accomplishments, administrative issues and budget.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 1 C-CAP TECHNICAL COMPONENTS
C-CAP is comprised of three major technical components—each with multiple component tasks—in addition to overarching program management. These are: Component 1: Coastal Zone Management Improved/Water Resource Management Capacity Improved Task 1.1: Identify and prioritize districts and coastal communities for participation and activities for implementation Task 1.2: Develop a network of Social Mobilizers from participating districts/communities Task 1.3: Develop and apply criteria to identify and prioritize community-specific social and economic infrastructure activities Task 1.4: Develop specifications, advertise, negotiate, and award and monitor subcontracts for infrastructure rehabilitation, repair or upgrading and new construction activities Task 1.5: Conduct activity management.
Component 2: Disaster Management Strengthened Task 2.1: Risk identification – develop or update locally tailored assessments to improve understanding of current and future risks Task 2.2: Options identification – identify gaps and opportunities to reduce vulnerability and risk over both short and long time scales Task 2.3: Risk reduction – support for implementation of risk reducing adaptation activities at community level.
Component 3: Resilience in Communities Strengthened – Climate Resilient Land-use Planning and Building Standards Task 3.1: Develop plan of action to integrate climate adaptation into land-use planning and building standards Task 3.2: From Year 2, facilitate integration of climate adaptation policies and practices into community land-use and/or development planning.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
The following project administration activities were accomplished during the reporting period:
Working with subcontract partner USP, C-CAP recruited and identified five (5) Country Mobilizers (CMs) for Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru and Kiribati and a replacement CM for Vanuatu. Four CMs were officially appointed in the reporting period; the remaining CM (Tuvalu) will receive formal appointment in the next quarter. In a related action, C-CAP developed and conducted a six day CM training (31 March – 05 April) in Suva, Fiji. The C-CAP team led the five identified CMs in a comprehensive orientation in C-CAP methodologies and processes and well as administrative and reporting roles and responsibilities.
Owing to changes in the lease arrangements for the PNG headquarters offices, C-CAP negotiated a new office lease and relocated operations. The new office is co-located with the USAID MARSH activity, consolidating the USAID program activity at a convenient location on the street of the US Embassy. Physical relocation was completed in March in anticipation of an April 1 new lease commencement date.
Two (2) Short term Technical Assistance (STTA) were conducted in the reporting period. An STTA was developed and completed to support technical implementation; and a brief (5 days on site) STTA was completed to support Information Technology (IT) relocation related to the office move (see previous item).
PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES
The following programmatic activities were accomplished during the reporting period:
C-CAP made significant technical advances during the quarter:
a. Selecting an additional 14 sites; b. Completing 33 climate change risk and asset mapping exercises; c. Conducting 24 Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) selections; d. Signing six (6) Community Agreements; e. Completing three (3) and initiating eight (8) and infrastructure designs; and f. Initiating construction at four (4) sites, while making substantial progress towards construction completion at an additional four (4) sites (the retention period remains in effect to address any required corrective actions). (See Task 1.3)
During February, C-CAP commenced development of the project’s approach to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR); the methodology is designed to build on C-CAP’s established ‘coastal community’ engagement process being honed to meet the specific community requirements.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 3 DRR is a central focus (Component 2) for the USAID / C-CAP activity; activities under this component are intended to help communities develop disaster management capabilities and plans; to strengthen linkages with local and national disaster management and responder organizations; and to facilitate disaster preparedness and responses drills/exercises. Where possible, C-CAP will attempt to develop or enhance early warnings and alerts through SMS. The DRR approach will be applied in all 120 C-CAP communities.
C-CAP partnered with subcontractor to produce a MAI TV (Fiji) eight-part series on climate change adaptation in Fiji communities, which features C_CAP initiatives. Filming of C-CAP’s work in Fijian communities commenced during the reporting period and will continue through the next quarter.
In January, C-CAP conducted open tenders for two (2) subcontracts focus on water supply for four PNG villages encompassing approximately 9,500 residents; 21 bidders participated. In total, the contracts will deliver 51 rainwater catchment tanks (representing 400,000 liters of storage) and accompanying catchment structures to the communities. The contract for PNG#003 (Gabagaba, and Tubusereia ) was awarded in March with the award for PNG#004 (Boera and Lealea) expected in April 2014.
C-CAP designed and coordinated three events to promote project work and the role of USAID in regional climate changes activities. A facility completion ceremony was held in Pari Village (PNG) on 07 March and project handover and project demonstration events were held on 27 March in Samoa and Fiji, respectively; high-level USAID and State Department official participated in all three events. (See Task 1.1 USAID C-CAP Events)
DELIVERABLES SUMMARY
Each project deliverable due through to the end of the current reporting period, along with implementation statuses and due dates can be found below in Table 1. Additional details are provided in relevant subsections of the Component chapters that follow.
TABLE 1: YR2/Q1 DELIVERABLE SUMMARY
Deliverable by Task Target Month Status
Component 1 1.1.A.1 Identify three 12 Oct 2012 Completed and approved. priority C-CAP districts in each country of operations 1.1.B.1 Rank five priority 20 Nov 2012 Completed and approved. communities in each selected district for USAID approval 1.2.A.1 Identify Social 20 Dec 2012 Completed and approved: Submitted 21 March Mobilizers in selected 2013. communities 1.2.B.1 Facilitate Group 4 Jan 2013 An initial training program was conducted on 25
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 4 Deliverable by Task Target Month Status
Training/Action Planning January 2013 to position EU-GCCA program Seminar in each country ‘In-Country Coordinators’ to acquire requisite of operations skills for mentoring C-CAP Country Mobilizers once hired. Experiential training was provided to each of the In-Country Coordinators during risk mapping exercises conducted in their respective ‘Year 1’ country (PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu). 1.3.A. Develop 1 Mar 2013 Draft submitted on 29 April 2013 and USAID Infrastructure Prioritization provided comments on 5 May 2013. Final Index for USAID approval version approved on 17 July 2013. 1.3.B. Establish formal 12 Apr 2013 See Component 1, Task 1.3 on progress with Agreements with C-CAP IPI for identifying priority infrastructure in each communities community. 1.4.A. Develop 12 Apr 2013 See Component 1, Task 1.3 on progress with infrastructure plans, IPI for identifying potential infrastructure. specifications for approved projects 1.4.B. Develop activity- 12 Apr 2013 Completed and approved: Submitted 7 August specific Quality Assurance 2013. Plans 1.4.C. Environmental 1 Apr 2013 Completed and approved: Submitted 7 August Monitoring and 2013. Implementation Plan 1.4.D. Hold pre-tender 4 May Pre-tender meeting for engineering design and subcontractor information 2013 oversight services conducted on 5 July 2013. session for small local Pre-tender subcontractor information sessions construction companies in for small local construction in PNG completed in each country YR2/Q1. Component 2 2.1.A.1 Conduct gap 20 Jan 2013 Completed 21 March 2013. analysis of existing vulnerability assessments across C-CAP communities 2.1.B.1 Lead participatory 20 Jan 2013 Completed: March 2013. risk mapping exercise across C-CAP communities 2.1.C.1 Update community 20 Jan 2013 Completed 20 March 2013. hazard, risk and/or vulnerability maps 2.2 Create C-CAP 20 May Draft submitted on 29 April 2013. Final draft— Prioritization Index for 2013 with USAID comments incorporated—submitted Risk Reduction Measures 17 July 2013 and approved. Community across C-CAP implementation details for the IPI can be found communities under Component 1, Task 1.3.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 5 Deliverable by Task Target Month Status
2.3 Gather baseline socio- 20 Jun 2013 Completed for Year 1 Countries: PNG, Fiji, economic data in advance Samoa, Tonga in September/early October of activity implementation 2013.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 6 TABLE 1: YR2/Q1 DELIVERABLE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Deliverable by Task Target Month Status
Component 3 3.1 Conduct preliminary 1 Jun 2013 To be completed with the assistance of Country analysis of existing Mobilizers in Year 2. policies on land-use and building codes Communications Deliverables November 2012 Project 1 Nov 2012 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Newsletter November 2012 Success 1 Nov 2012 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Story December 2012 Newsletter 1 Dec 2012 Submitted to USAID: Approved. December 2012 Success 1 Dec 2012 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Story January 2013 Newsletter 1 Jan 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. January 2013 Success 1 Jan 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Story February / March 2013 1 Mar 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Project Newsletter February / March 2013 1 Mar 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. Success Story April 2013 Newsletter 1 Apr 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. April 2013 Success Story1 1 Apr 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. May 2013 Newsletter 1 May 2013 Submitted to USAID: Approved. June 2013 Newsletter 1 Jun 2013 Completed: Submitted 27 September 2013 and approved. July 2013 Newsletter 1 Jul 2013 Completed: Submitted 29 September 2013 and approved. August 2013 Newsletter 1 Oct 2013 Completed: Submitted 29 October 2013 and approved. September 2013 Newsletter 1 Nov 2013 Completed: Submitted 20 November 2013 and approved. October 2013 Newsletter 1 Dec 2013 Completed: Submitted 04 December 2013 and approved. November 2013 Newsletter 1 Jan 2014 Completed: Submitted 09 January 2014 and approved. December 2013 Newsletter 1 Feb 2014 Completed: Submitted 16 March 2014 and approved. January 2013 Newsletter 1 Mar 2014 Completed: Submitted 31 March 2014 and approved.
1 This was the final success story required per notice from the COR. C-CAP is now only required to submit annual "Transforming Lives" articles commencing in Year 2. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 7 CONTRACT MONITORING PLAN UPDATE
Contract Monitoring Plan (CMP) indicator data is compiled on an annual basis. Year 1 indicator targets and results were presented in the Quarterly Progress Report (YR1/Q4) and are summarized in Table 2 below. During the reporting period, C-CAP incorporated the changes recommended in the Data Quality Audit (DQA) of 7 November 2013 and resubmitted the CMP for USAID approval. Changes to the CMP are reflected in Table 2 (below).
During the annual CM training event, which was held at the end of March 2014, C-CAP briefed all nine Country Mobilizers (CMs) on the C-CAP monitoring plan; each were given a copy to use as a guide for data collection during activity implementation. Updated data entry tools were also distributed in order to maximize efficiency in data entry and compilation into the C-CAP Technical and Administrative Management Information System (TAMIS). During the next quarter, the CMs will enter existing data and submit for inclusion in the TAMIS database. A preliminary report of these findings will be included in the next quarterly report.
TABLE 2: CONTRACT MONTORING PLAN - YEAR 1 INDICATOR TARGETS AND RESULTS
Indicators / Targets Actual Number Target Number
1. Number of community members with increased capacity to 15,000 (2013) adapt to the impacts of climate variability and change. Direct: 674 40,000 (2014)
2. Number of land-use plans taking climate change into account by local government, communities and other 0 15 (2014) concerned stakeholders 3. Number of C-CAP activities focused on coastal/water resource management and other related livelihood activities that supports community-level adaptation strategies and 0 12 (2014) infrastructure projects with increased capacity to withstand/recover from extreme weather events 4. Number of stakeholders with access to sources of disaster 15,000 (2013) warnings 0 40,000 (2014) 5. Number of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) drills and/or preparedness and response plans developed and or 0 20 (2014) improved 6. Number of person hours of training completed in climate change as a result of USG assistance 3,707 13,000 (2014) (Standard indicator 4.8.2-29) 7. Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues as a result of USG assistance -- 5 (2014) (Standard indicator 4.8.2-14) ** Percent (%) of respondents who can name one or more Baseline impact of climate change on community 2% increase from completed for 22 resources/livelihoods. (Will be used in support of indicator baseline (2014) communities #1)
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 8 COMPONENT 1: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT/WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVED
TASK 1.1 IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE DISTRICTS AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The updated list of 67 C-CAP partner communities for Year 1 and Year 2 is reflected below in Table 3.
TABLE 3: YEAR 1 AND 2 C-CAP COMMUNITIES
Country Province/District Communities 1. Gabagaba 2. Tubusereia Central Province 3. Boera 4. Lealea Papua New Guinea National Capital District 5. Pari (10) 6. Bol/Lamalawa 7. Panabeli New Ireland Province 8. Lossu 9. Ungakum (Island) 10. Nonovaul (Island) Central Division 1. Buretu – Buretu Tikina Tailevu Province 2. Daku - Bau Tikina 3. Vunisinu and Nalase Rewa Province (neighboring villages) Northern Division 4. Karoko Fiji Cakaudrove Province (Northern 5. Vunisavisavi (10) Divison) 6. Vusasivo 7. Korotasere Bua Province 8. Yaqaga Eastern Division 9. Nasegai 10. Nakasaleka community Kadavu Province (Eastern (comprising the villages of Division) Lomanikoro, Nakau, Nakoronaw, Nakaugasele)
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 9
Tongatapu Division Kolofo’ou District 1. Popua Kolomotu’a District 2. Sopu Tatakamotonga District 3. Tatakamotonga Lapaha District 4. Nukuleka Tonga Kolovai District 5. Ahau (10) Vava’u Division 6. Hunga Vahe Motu District 7. ‘Utulei 8. Makave Neiafu District 9. Okoa ‘Uta Vava’u District 10. Tefisi Savai’i Island 1. Falealupo Vaisigano District 2. Auala 3. Asau Gaga'ifomauga District 4. Manase Samoa Fa'asaleleaga District 5. Sapapalii (10) 6. Sala’ilu Palauli West District 7. Taga Upolu Island Sagaga Le Usoga District 8. Afega Vaimaugua District 9. Lauli’i Vaa o Donoti District 10. Taelefaga Pele Island 1. Pele island community (comprising the villages of Woreauru, Piliura, Worasiviu, and Laonamoa) Moso Island Shefa Province 2. Tassiriki Emao Island Vanuatu 3. Wiana - TBC (10) Nguna Island 4. Nekapa 5. Unakap Tanna Island 6. Loanialu 7. Launapikruan Tafea Province 8. Lamanaura 9. Lanamilo 10. Iru Tuvalu Funafuti Atoll 1. Kavatoetoe (1) 1. South Dala 2. Lilisiana Solomon Islands Malaita Province 3. New Kaloka (5) (Malaita Island) 4. Kwai/Kaloka 5. North Dala Yaren District 1. Yaren Boe District 2. Boe Nauru Denigomodu District 3. Denigomodu (6) Denigomodu District 4. Location Suburb Aiwo District 5. Aiwo Baitsi District 6. Baitsi
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 10
Tarawa Island District 1. Buariki (North Tarawa) 2. Noto Kiribati 3. Borotaim (5) North Gilbert Islands District 4. Evena (Abaiang) 5. Taniau
Host Country Government Partner Consultations & Site Visits
During the quarter, C-CAP conducted 12 technical site visits to each of the nine (9) countries where C- CAP is currently operating. Each trip entails coordination, and typically meeting with Project Advisory Committee (N-PAC) members to deliver updates on C-CAP status and progress. Additionally, the technical visits promoted significant progress in Component 1 activities for completing Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) assessment, climate change risk and asset mapping exercises, IPI selections and formulation of conceptual infrastructure design concepts (see also Task 1.3). C-CAP continues to coordinate activities with partners at both the national level–through consultation with N-PAC (or the National Advisor Board – NAB- in Vanuatu)—and the provincial level. Coordination with the N-PACs continues to support effective national level collaboration and has been particularly useful in Samoa in helping to gain access to the Samoa Tourism Authority (STA) with regard to integrated planning for coastal protection in Manase.
Work to coordinate at the provincial or operative level, however, has shown significant advances during the quarter. C-CAP has identified provincial-level officials that oversee environment-focused initiatives as our primary target for both coordinating community-level activity; and for capacity-building to ensure officials are able to support our partner communities upon completion of C-CAP activities. In PNG’s New Ireland province, C-CAP identified and coordinated with the fledgling Climate Change Office within the Provincial Environmental Department to participate in the selection and validation of potential C-CAP sites. Office of Climate Change and Development personnel participated in C-CAP activities in late February and again in March, becoming familiar with C-CAP methodologies for community engagement and conducting technical assessments. The exposure builds capacity at the provincial level and, in the case of the New Ireland Climate Change Office, provides an impetus and an opportunity for the Province to both deliver climate change assistance and training and gain first hand inputs from community perspectives on needs to support local policy and organizational developments. In this regard, New Ireland is currently using C-CAP experience and site reports to:
Expand provincial level assessments beyond C-CAP communities to other high vulnerability community sites; Develop provincial procedures, based on learned C-CAP techniques for conducting assessments and promoting climate change awareness; and Leverage C-CAP reports and demonstrated needs to request Provincial or external funding to augment limited provincial administrative funding.
Similarly, C-CAP engagement with host counterparts in Kiribati during the quarter yielded notable advances in helping to drive counterpart climate change posture. Owing to the relative size and governance structure in Kiribati, climate change policy initiatives and some operating capacity resides in
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 11 the Office of the President (OB) and within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development (MELAD). While OB has a functional role in the “Whole-of-Island” (WoI) approach for Abaiang Island, MELAD retains implementation responsibility elsewhere in the country with an initial focus on North Tarawa. As C-CAP sites are located with both jurisdictional realms, C-CAP coordinates with both entities and is helping to bring consistency to the national level climate changes actions for communities. Both OB and MELAD participate in C-CAP activities and are using C-CAP procedures to assess climate change vulnerability. MELAD, for example, requested and received specific training on C-CAP methodologies and is actively incorporating these procedures into the larger scope of its community-level climate change work. At a policy level, and while OB is committed to the WoI approach, the office has indicated an interest in incorporating C-CAP engagement processes within the context of national policy.
While most counterpart coordination progressed well, other engagements during the quarter have been less immediately productive. In Tuvalu, C-CAP continues to interact and negotiate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tourism, Trade, Environment and Labour (MFATTEL) for selection of Year 2 sites. Given the critical nature of climate impacts on many of Tuvalu’s low-lying atolls, national climate change policy places an emphasis on delivering development services to the most vulnerable and hard to reach communities as opposed to concentrating assistance support on the mainland, Funafati. While C-CAP acknowledges the policy direction, practical and cost considerations for selecting C-CAP sites necessitate that the project engages a combination of mainland and accessible offshore island communities. Additionally, C-CAP has identified and raised the possibility to USAID to consolidate the total number of C-CAP sites from 10 to five (5) in order to effectively implement comprehensive C-CAP activities. Initial discussions in November 2013 and again this quarter, 11- 17 February, are focused on negotiating options and resolutions to C-CAP community selection. To date, C-CAP and MFATTEL have agreed on a single community site on the Funafati mainland, Kavatoetoe; ongoing discussions on remaining site selections have resulted in some delays in the activity schedule in Tuvalu. Discussions, however, have surfaced a number possible cost sharing alternatives for accessing offshore islands that will be the focus of further discussion during the next technical visit.
Meetings held with national counterparts, N-PACs and other key technical and programmatic partners during this quarter are summarized in Annex 1.
Project Implementation Planning
Travel teams typically consist of two (2) technical personnel (Community Liaison plus technical expert) deployed from the C-CAP Suva office and supported by the Country Mobilizer, where available. Planning in the quarter, however, has recognized that with the growing number of C-CAP countries and communities, trip planning will need to reconfigure technical support to rely on a single technical staff member--community liaison or technical expert--as appropriate to the specific needs of the communities, level of development within the C-CAP process, and support of the trained CM. With the addition of CMs in each C-CAP country, C-CAP technical teams will be able to rely more heavily on the CMs for logistics and technical support, thereby freeing up limited technical resources to address a larger suite of sites and countries. Using Samoa as pilot, in March C-CAP completed a full agenda technical visit with one technical staff member and the Country Mobilizer to both complete technical activities and attend to a planned C-CAP handover event (27 March). While that agenda was compressed,
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 12 the truncated team was able to successfully manage the agenda demonstrating the effectiveness of a reconfigured technical team where comprised of seasoned personnel.
USAID C-CAP Events During the quarter C-CAP conducted or participated in six (6) demonstration or visibility events attended by USAID and USG personnel. These included: ● Community Agreement Signing Ceremony, Daku Village, Fiji, attended by , US Embassy Regional Environmental Officer facilitated by Roko Tui Tailevu (23 January)
● Infrastructure opening in Pari Village, PNG attended by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, , Ambassador and Mission Director, with remarks offered by Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD) Executive Director Chargé d’Affaires US Embassy Samoa and CEO Varigi Badira (07 March) of Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development) participate in a handover ceremony ● Project Handover of Water Project in Savai’i of C-CAP projects Island, Samoa, attended by Chargé d’Affaires, (US Embassy Samoa) with participation and remarks from , Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development (27 March)
● Ceremony and technical review of Vunisinu / Nalase Villages, Fiji, interventions attended by Mission Director , US Embassy Regional Environmental Officer with comments provided by , Roko Tui Rewa (27March)
Additionally, C-CAP supported related USAID program activities, including:
● Information booth and materials, Pacific American Climate Fund Launch, Port Moresby, PNG (20 March) ● Information booth and materials, Pacific American Climate Fund Launch, Suva, Fiji (26 March)
TASK 1.2 DEVELOP A NETWORK OF SOCIAL MOBILIZERS FROM PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS/COMMUNITIES
C-CAP continued to address sites and identify Social Mobilizers at each site. During the quarter, fourteen (14) additional sites and each site’s Social Mobilizers (SMs) were selected with host government support in Tonga (2), Tuvalu (1), Kiribati (5), and Nauru (6). C-CAP is consolidating information on site selection and SMs for the 47 Year 2 sites to prepare a project summary deliverable (Deliverable 1.2.A2: Develop a network of Social Mobilizers from participating districts/communities). The deliverable will reflect the SMs selected for each of the fifty-five Year 2 sites.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 13 TASK 1.3 DEVELOP AND APPLY CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES
Year 1 Technical Accomplishments
In the current reporting period C-CAP made significant progress implementing various technical activities across Year 1 and Year 2 sites. Accomplishments included the completion of vulnerability and risk mapping exercises; infrastructure prioritization processes; and initial concept designs of, and tendering for, climate resilient infrastructure projects. Initial sites in several Year 2 countries were also established. A summary of technical accomplishment for the quarter is presented below. A comprehensive technical completion and planning matrix for all Year 1 and newly-identified Year 2 communities is shown in Table 4 (note: accomplishments for the current quarter are highlighted in yellow).
Technical achievements for YR2 /Q2 (January – March 2014)
Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) Assessment and Risk Mapping: V&A and climate change risk and asset mapping exercises were competed for an additional 33 sites targeting gaining climate adaptation insights and information and risk at new Year 2 communities. This brings the total number of risk assessment and mapping exercises completed by the end of the reporting period to 58. The remaining Year 2 assessments are scheduled for completion in the following quarter – recognizing that additional site selection work needs to be completed in Nauru and Tuvalu.
IPI: 24 IPIs were completed across PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Kiribati and Nauru. This accomplishment brings the total number of infrastructure prioritization exercises completed by the end of the reporting period to 46. The IPI summary reports are appended as Annex 2 to this report.
Environmental Reviews: Environmental Documentation Forms (EDF)—which detail environmental baseline information for each site as well as potential environmental concerns relating to proposed project interventions—for four (4) sites in PNG in the previous quarter were approved by USAID Mission Environmental Officer (MEO). No additional EDFs were developed in the quarter.
Community Agreements: Community agreements, which document each community’s acceptance of infrastructure selection decisions and assignment of specific responsibilities to the community and the C- CAP implementing team, were completed in six (6) sites; all five Tonga Year 1 sites and Daku, Fiji (see Task 1.1) were completed in the quarter.
Concept Design: Concept design typically follows the completion of the infrastructure prioritization exercise and the community selection of the priority infrastructure. An additional eight (8) concept designs have been completed to date for a total of 22.
C-CAP’s engineering design subcontractor was mobilized to Tonga in February to finalize concept designs and initiate engineering design work for a combination of evacuation center construction and rehabilitation and water supply projects (Work Order [WO]#03). also supplied engineering support for flood management interventions in three (3) Fiji Rewa delta sites.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 14 As noted in the prior report, C-CAP developed and submitted for Contracting Officer (CO) approval a formal request for waiver of Geographic Code 937 for the acquisition of the “Elcorock” geotextile system for a shoreline protection and stabilization for Manase village, Samoa. Further action on this innovative coastal protection solution is on hold, pending USAID review and Contracting Officer (CO) approval .
C-CAP investigated the potential requirement to develop a similar Geographic Code 937 Waiver Request for technology identified as the optimal solution of tidal flooding for Fiji Rewa Delta sites. has identified “TideFlex” valves as durable and cost effective options for installation in constructed or rehabilitated flood gates. TideFlex is a US manufactured product – C-CAP is investigating whether the product can be acquired in the Code 937 area or whether a waiver will be required to proceed.
Infrastructure Tendering and Construction Start: C-CAP awarded contracts for rainwater harvesting systems in four (4) communities in PNG; and commenced construction at two (2) sites (Gabagaba and Tubusereia) in PNG.
Contract awarded and construction started for Gabagaba and Tubusereia water catchment and storage systems (PNG#003) on 21 March.
Subcontract negotiation for Lealea and Boera Rainwater catchment project (PNG#004) continues. o Final award anticipated in next quarter pending progress by selected subcontractor.
Issuance of Certificate of Substantial Completion for four (4) Samoa construction projects (SAMOA#001). o Final retention will be paid following a 60 day warranty period to identify and correct any defects.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 15 TABLE 4: TECHNICAL COMPLETION AND PLANNING MATRIX
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 16 TABLE 4: TECHNICAL COMPLETION AND PLANNING MATRIX (CONTINUED)
Year 2 Site Selection: C-CAP worked with national counterparts to identify fourteen (14) additional sites during the reporting period (see also Table 4 and Task 1.2).
Identified two (2) Year 2 sites in Tonga (Oaka and Makave) Identified five (5) Year 2 communities in Kiribati (Borotaim, Evena, Taniau, Bauriki and Noto) Identified one (1) Year 2 communities in Tuvalu (Kavatoetoe) Identified six (6) Year 2 sites in Nauru (Yaren, Boe, Aiwo, Denigomodu, Baiti and Location). Note: the number of selected sites has been revised from sites reported in the previous quarter based on further discussion on site selection with the Nauru Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment (CIE).
TASK 1.4 DEVELOP SPECIFICATIONS, ADVERTISE, NEGOTIATE, AND AWARD AND MONITOR SUBCONTRACTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION, REPAIR OR UPGRADING AND NEW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
In January, C-CAP conducted bidding tenders for two (2) water supply subcontracts for support to four PNG villages encompassing approximately 9,500 residents; 21 bidders participated. In total, the contracts will deliver 51 tanks (representing 400,000 liters of storage) and accompanying catchment structures to
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 17 the communities. The contract for PNG#003 (Gabagaba and Tubusereia ) was awarded in March with the award for PNG#004 (Boera and Lealea) expected in April 2014.
The successful bidder on both PNG#002 and #003 was Total Construction Solutions (TCS) based on the lowest price technically acceptable acquisition method. TCS was also the lowest price technically acceptable bidder on subcontract PNG#004; however, the C-CAP Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) elected to delay final award decision pending verification that TCS had sufficient capacity and ability to conduct simultaneous mobilization and construction projects in five villages. Site inspection and monitoring was conducted to access and verify progress on ongoing works and meetings were held with the subcontractor to assess capacity.
Construction Quality Assurance Plan and the Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan In the reporting period, C-CAP developed and issued Construction Quality Assurance Plans (CQAPs) for the PNG#003 subcontract, including a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). With the arrival of the Fiji-based Infrastructure Specialist (see Project Office Personnel), the CQAPs are being reviewed to provide more specific monitoring guidance to the subcontractors and the on-site monitors. The revised format will be finalized in the next quarter and applied to subsequent construction subcontracts.
TASK 1.5 CONDUCT ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT
Following the holiday break and reopening of the C-CAP offices on 06 and 10 January (Suva and Port Moresby, respectively) C-CAP technical and management activities proceeded at a rapid pace with fifteen (15) team travel events. Table 5 provides a summary of travel activity during the reporting period.
Travel was focused on continuing technical activities at Year 1 and Year 2 countries with the initial roll- out of DRR activities in the quarter. As noted in the Technical Accomplishment discussion (Task 1.3), C-CAP made significant progress in adding new Year 2 sites while simultaneously continuing to conduct technical work on Year 1 sites. USAID representative and Interim Contract Officer’s Representative (COR) accompanied C-CAP on a technical travel trip to Vanuatu from 24 February – 01 March to meet with national counterparts, overview C-CAP activities, and gain an understanding of technical and operational issues influencing the delivery of C-CAP program activities. C-CAP notes that USAID participation in technical visits is useful in providing increased visibility and discussion on USAID initiatives in the region; participation facilitates increased understanding by counterparts of how C-CAP supports broader US Government development and climate change initiatives.
C-CAP mobilized existing and newly recruited CMs from Kiribati, the Solomon Islands and Nauru (see Program Management Table 5) to participate in a six-day training and orientation event from 31 March – 05 April (Note: no travel for the CM from Tuvalu was required. As the recruitment took place in Fiji, the CM was able to participate in the training without express travel or associated costs.). Refer to Task 1.3 for details on the technical accomplishments associated with the travel events.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 18 TABLE 5: C-CAP TEAM TRAVEL Destination Dates Purpose Travelers
Fiji 13- 18 January IPI in 3 Vanua Levu communities Samoa 14 – 18 January V&A Assessment in 3 Communities Tonga 20– 27 January Risk & Asset Mapping - 3 Communities Site selection (final two Year 2 communities). Fiji 20– 26 January C-CAP Management Kiribati 27– 31 January Risk and Asset Mapping - Kiribati (Abaiang, N. Tarawa) Solomon Islands 03– 10 February Risk and Asset Mapping in 3 Communities Samoa 04– 09 February Design services in 5 communities Nauru 08 – 15 February Risk & Asset Mapping in 6 Communities Tuvalu 11– 17 February Risk & Asset Mapping in 1 community– Discussions with national government counterparts on site selection PNG 23 – 28 February Finalized site selection and V&A assessment in 5 New Ireland sites Vanuatu 24 February – 01 Risk and asset March mapping in five (5) sites (with USAID Alt COR participation) PNG 01– 15 March Risk & Asset Mapping in 5 New Ireland sites Fiji 10 – 14 March DRR planning in 5 communities Samoa 24– 29 March Risk & Asset Mapping in 3 sites C-CAP Handover Fiji 31 March – 06 April Country Mobilizer Training
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 19 COMPONENT 2: DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRENGTHENED
TASK 2.1 RISK IDENTIFICATION – DEVELOP OR UPDATE LOCALLY TAILORED ASSESSMENTS TO IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RISKS
Per the Year 2 Work Plan, C-CAP worked to develop the DRR engagement strategy and conducted the initial roll-out of the process in conjunction with the CM Training during the quarter. Dr. , a regional expert in disaster management, was engaged via an internal consultancy (STTA) with USP to complement the C-CAP technical team in developing the approach and material for implementing the DRR component. Additionally, C-CAP engaged technical support to assist in conducting a comprehensive survey of regional disaster management organizations and capabilities to support Component 2 linkages with national organizations.
As noted previously, the DRR process was rolled-out on a pilot basis a during the CM training event held in two Fijian villages. While successful, the events underscored some areas where the DRR process can be streamlined for communities that have undergone risk assessment and mapping exercises. In these cases, the DRR process will use the risk mapping knowledge and resultant mapping products as a baseline for indemnifying disaster risk and integrating DRR in the holistic approach for considering community risk.
The approach includes a focus on community engagement that considerats the community demographics with emphasis on ensuring the most vulnerable community members (infants, aged, disabled) are included and that their perspectives considered. To reinforce this aspect, C-CAP engaged the Pacific Disability Forum in the CM C-CAP Country Mobilizers experience training (on 31 March) to discuss and demonstrate the needs of effects of being disabled at the CM persons with disabilities in disaster situations. Training in Suva
TASK 2.2 OPTIONS IDENTIFICATION- IDENTIFY GAPS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITY AND RISK OVER BOTH SHORT AND LONG TIME SCALES
Task 2.2 is estimated to take place in twelve (12) communities across Year 1 countries in Year 2.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 20 TASK 2.3 RISK REDUCTION: SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RISK REDUCING ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES AT COMMUNITY LEVEL
Task 2.3 is estimated to take place in twelve (12) communities across Year 1 countries in Year 2.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 21 COMPONENT 3: RESILIENCE IN COMMUNITIES STRENGTHENED—CLIMATE RESILIENT LAND-USE PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
TASK 3.1 DEVELOP PLAN OF ACTION TO INTEGRATE CLIMATE ADAPTATION INTO LAND-USE PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
DAI commenced desktop research and interviews with regional experts in March 2013 and projects to submit a draft methodology for implementation of Task 3.1 for USAID comment by YR2/Q3. Implementation of the methodology, Task 3.1, is targeted for twenty (20) Year 1 communities in YR2/Q2.
TASK 3.2 FROM YEAR 2, FACILITATE INTEGRATION OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES INTO COMMUNITY LAND- USE AND/OR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Task 3.2 is estimated to take place in twenty (20) Year 1 communities in Year 2.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 22 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
KEY PERSONNEL
During the period Key Personnel, Develop Outreach Coordinator Renee Stephens commenced an extended leave of absence with reduced off-site work hours, for personal reasons. The leave was communicated to the USAID COR and C-CAP developed a transition “bridge” plan to ensure continuity of communication products and activities during the leave period; the leave is expected to continue through June 2014 whereupon the position will be reoccupied or C-CAP will recruit and replace the Development Outreach Coordinator position. As appropriate, C-CAP will formally inform the CO with respect to any planned changes in Key Personnel.
PROJECT OFFICE PERSONNEL
Local recruitment and hiring: During the reporting period, C-CAP completed a planned transition of the Infrastructure Specialist position. was engaged on 03 March in the Fiji Office whereas the existing position in PNG, occupied by , was terminated as of 07 March. The transition was necessary to realign the Infrastructure Specialist position with the C-CAP design and engineering contractor and to strengthen coordination with the Fiji-based technical team.
Through subcontractor USP, C-CAP engaged CMs in all four (4) Year 2 countries—Kiribati, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and Nauru—and replaced the CM in Vanuatu. Appointments were accomplished in March to permit all new CMs to participate in the CM training, commencing 31 March 2014. These developments are summarized in Table 6 below.
TABLE 6: YR2/Q2 LONG TERM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Position Status PNG Office
Infrastructure Specialist Terminated as of 07 March 2014 as part of position transition to Fiji (see Fiji below)
Fiji Office
Infrastructure Specialist Engaged as of 03 March 2014
Regional Presence
Country Mobilizers Terminated contract of Vanuatu CM ( ) for non- performance, 11 February 2014 Engaged (5) Country Mobilizers
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 23 C-CAP undertook two (2) STTA activities during the reporting period as noted in Table 7 below. In order to expedite and advance the technical work during the period, C-CAP requested and received approval for an STTA to augment the technical team capacity. participated with the field teams from 20 January – 20 February to conduct activities in Fiji, Tonga, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands. A further STTA was developed and approved to assist with the IT relocation required to facilitate the C- CAP office move. conducted short 5 day STTA on-site visit to manage the move, reconnection and configuration of the C-CAP server and communications equipment from 20 – 25 March. It should be noted that both STTA experts had previous on-site work experience with C-CAP and thus were familiar and immediately effective in undertaking the various tasks.
TABLE 7: YR2/2Q SHORT TERM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Name Position Purpose Community Based Climate 20 January – 20 February: Provided technical Adaptation Specialist support to risk and asset mapping in Year 2 communities in Tonga, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands; and year two site selection in Tonga. STTA included off-site support for report preparation. Information Technology 20 – 25 March: Provided on-site support to Specialist transition project server and related communication and computation equipment to the new office location. STTA included travel and off-site support.
Other Program Management Activities PNG Tax Status During the quarter, C-CAP received the first three reimbursement payments for Goods and Services Tax (GST) from the Internal Revenue Commission (IRC). The Table below summarizes payments received to date, which total USD $26,719.95 in tax reimbursement.
TABLE 8: YR2/Q2 GST REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
Date Received Applicable Tax Period PGK USD 23 January 2014 June 2013 PGK 14,064,34 $ 6,200.84 14 February 2014 Feb, Mar, May, July, Sept PGK 25,349.22 $ 11,878.28 2013 19 March 2014 Aug, Oct, Nov 2013 PGK 9,720.29 $ 8,640.83 Total PGK 59,133.85 $ 26.719.95
Fiji Tax Status C-CAP was notified that a Diplomatic Note supporting tax exoneration for DAI’s C-CAP activities and corporate entity in Fiji was issued by the US Embassy (Fiji) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 28 C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 24 February 2014. Per discussion with the Embassy, the document is considered to be government-to- government communication and therefore not available for DAI review. C-CAP Chief of Party (COP) met with tax advisors PWC (28 March) to review the strategy and finalize the petition documentation and approach based on available inputs. PWC will meet with the Ministry of Finance, iTaukei Affairs and Customs and Revenue Authority in early April to negotiate the DAI position.
Project Deliverables During this reporting period, the following reports and deliverables were submitted to USAID:
09 January
November 2013 Newsletter
24 January
Project updates – November 2013 dot points
31 January and 22 March
Revision to the Contract Monitoring Plan
10 February
Quarterly Progress Report #5 (YR2/Q1: October – December 2013)
11 February
Project updates – December 2013 dot points
19 February
EDF for PNG (4) water projects (approval date)
10 March
Project updates – January 2014 dot points
16 March
December 2013 Newsletter
25 March
Revised Year 2 Work Plan
31 March
January 2014 Newsletter
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 25
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 26 ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL MEETINGS HELD IN THE REPORTING PERIOD
The following key technical meetings, and select administrative and coordination meetings, occurred in the reporting period. All meetings were conducted by, or included the participation of C-CAP.
Meetings held by (STTA) and (CLS) – C-CAP in Tonga, 20-27 January, 2014
# Date Organization Participants Purpose / Outcomes 1 20/1/20 Ministry of Internal Affairs coordinates community-based 14 Internal activities throughout the Kingdom. Official point of Affairs, contact for community affairs. Tonga Provided update on C-CAP activities in Ahau, Nukuleka, Popua, Sopu and Tatakamotonga. Discussed Year 2 site selection and Risk Mapping scheduled for Hunga, Tefisi and Utulei in Vava’u; did not have recommendations on additional villages for scoping. Internal Affairs shared updated list of town officers for Tongatapu and Vava’u. Analysis / Next Steps: As the official point of contact for community affairs in Tonga, it will be important to provide regular (perhaps quarterly?) updates on progress in Tonga communities. Could be done in person or via email by the CM. C-CAP should also add and other contacts from Internal Affairs to C-CAP’s email distribution list.
2 Ministry of Provided update on C-CAP activities in Ahau, Environmen Nukuleka, Popua, Sopu and Tatakamotonga. Discussed Year 2 site selection and Risk Mapping scheduled for Hunga, Tefisi and Utulei in Vava’u. recommended to do scoping for remaining two sites in Kameli and Makave – both were recently surveyed by the Ministry (contact information and survey (Makave) provided to C- CAP. arranged for scoping meetings to take place on Friday, 24/1/2014. Survey details are as follows: o Kameli committee indicated need for rainwater tank at town hall and for houses that don’t yet have them; o Makave survey indicates that 11 households have broken water tanks and 20 households do not have water tanks. asked that we coordinate with her following all risk mapping activities so she can ensure that C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 27 there is no duplication with other donor projects. Among current C-CAP communities, advised: o Tefisi expects funding from JICA for improved drainage and erosion control. Cabinet approved the project last week. The Ministry is encouraging other donors to support reforestation to contribute to the JICA project. o Utulei is a priority community for GTZ – though have not identified a project as of yet. Analysis / Next Steps: The Ministry and J-NAP are C-CAP’s primary technical advisors for site selection and activities in Tonga, and have played an important facilitory role in our engagements with communities. Like with Internal Affairs, it will be important to provide regular (perhaps quarterly?) updates on progress in Tonga communities. This could be done in person or via email by the CM. C-CAP should also add Luisa to C-CAP’s email distribution list.
3 Act for Peace advised that they are a probationary / Tonga partner of USAID After properly acquitting/managing funding for three years, will receive USG accreditation and will be eligible for more significant grants/contracts. Just finished year one and have submitted their proposal for year two. Did not receive additional funding for Cyclone Ian
response.
Right now, they are using their USAID funding for work in Vava’u’s 11 outer islands. In each island, completed Village Emergency Plans (VEPs) and trained town committees in emergency preparedness and response. They also earmarked funding to support either rainwater tank installation at a town hall, or to retrofit townhalls to serve as evacuation centers. o For their work in Hunga (year 2 C-CAP committee) supporting rainwater tank installation. VEPs cover both climate change and disaster impacts and mitigation measures. VEP process includes creation of resource maps and emergency response maps. After creating plan, facilitate simulation exercises. o Throughout Tonga, they have completed the 11 outer islands of Vava’u; 40 Tongatapu communities (including Popua and Sopu); and all of Ha’apai. Awareness raising is focused on the disaster committees they establish in partner towns; and have done limited awareness raising in schools.
Cyclone Ian Update / Response
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 28 Advised that the Government has not yet issued a call for international support because they are still compiling their official assessment. NEMO has limited capacity—only three full time technical staff with no capacity for emergency response logistics. AusAID pushed for Act for Peace to co-locate with NEMO to provide additional support; they moved there last year. Discussed gaps in Cyclone Ian response that align with the C-CAP mandate. Areas considered include: o Support work on improving building code for homes/businesses – design to withstand category 4 or 5 cyclone (learn from construction of Mormon Halls). o Support procurement of 72 Hour Bags and 1st Aid Kits for families so they are better prepared in natural disaster event. o Promote an Informational Campaign (media, other) on what families can do to improve resilience to DRR that does not require outside funding support. o Fund Act for Peace’s participation in SOPAC/UN’s Emergency Response Logistics Training so they can provide surge support to NEMO during disasters. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to consider appropriateness of suggestions for Cyclone Ian response and respond as appropriate to Act for Peace. If proceeding, we will need to flag this to USAID to determine whether any additional USAID funding, through C-CAP in this case, would be allowable given the nature of Act for Peace’s current agreement with USAID. is emailing copies of the Village Emergency Plans for all C-CAP communities already completed to Country Mobilizer these plans should be used as a starting point for all Component 2 / disaster preparedness activities.
4 Nukuleka Reported that he is happy with C-CAP progress. Community Looking forward to scoping and tender for construction.
5 Popua Popua received funding from the Tongan Community Parliament to support community initiatives. Popua town committee elected to reclaim land to house on which to build the foundation for the town hall that was selected through the IPI. Reclamation is completed. Reported that they are happy with C-CAP / looking forward to scoping and tender for construction.
6 21/1/20 ‘Utulei C- Social Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment and C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 29 14 CAP Mobilizer, Infrastructure Mapping activities. Community Committee 7 22/1/20 Hunga C- Social Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment and 14 CAP Mobilizer, Infrastructure Mapping activities. Community Committee 8 23/1/20 Tefisi C-CAP Social Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment and 14 Community Mobilizer, Infrastructure Mapping activities. Committee
9 24/1/20 Ministry of Presented background on USAID C-CAP, 14 Environment collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and – Vava’u N-PAC; advised on C-CAP activities in Ahau, Office Energy Nukuleka, Popua, Sopu and Tatakamotonga; and Planner, discussed Year 2 site selection and Risk Mapping Environment in Hunga, Tefisi and Utulei in Vava’u. Division, Provided ‘scoping’ exercise overview for Kameli, Ministry of Makave and Okoa. Lands, agreed to accompany C-CAP on the scoping Environment, exercise and expressed interest in participating in Climate all future C-CAP activities in communities (i.e., risk Change and mapping, IPIs, etc.). Natural Advised C-CAP to coordinate with Act for Peace Resources (AFP) on DRR activities in Hunga because AFP Vava'u District has already worked with the community on a DRR plan. Shared background on two ongoing environment sector projects based in Vava’u: o The GEF-funded Integrated Water & Coastal Management (IWCM) program is funding a government-run ground water system with service to homes in the Neiafu District. The project has also dedicated funding to two composting sites in Fungamisi and Falaleu (eastern Neiafu). AusAID has contributed funding to the project to establish a sub-focus on waste management / sewage system; this is still in development. o JICA-funded J-PRISM is a regional project coordinated by SPREP. In Vava’u, the project is focused on improved management and operations of the ‘Okoa dump. The project will also establish a waste collection system. The project delivers support through technical assistance rather than a dedicated project office. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to follow up with the IWCM project to determine if any technical materials produced— including water security / safety guides—could be useful in our Vava’u communities that select and implement water infrastructure projects. This could be an excellent opportunity for collaboration. was an excellent facilitator in the Site Selection Scoping activities and has demonstrated strong interest in C-CAP. Country Mobilizer C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 30 should include in all It will be important to provide regular (perhaps quarterly?) updates on progress in Tonga communities. This could be done in person or via email by the CM. C-CAP should also add to C-CAP’s email distribution list.
10 Halalele Committee Upon arrival, informed that the meeting was with (sub-section Finance Officer Halalele, rather than the more comprehensive of Kameli) Kameli community. Water Presented background on USAID C-CAP, and Committee collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and N-PAC. Noted that the ‘scoping’ activity is to conduct data collection that we will use to report to the Ministry of Environment and N-PAC, who will apply our standard community selection methodology for selecting C-CAP partners. Advised that the goal is to find the best match between what the project is designed to deliver with the community’s situation and needs.
11 Makave Town Officer Presented background on USAID C-CAP, and Town collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Committee N-PAC. Noted that the ‘scoping’ activity is to conduct data collection that we will use to report to the Ministry of Environment and N-PAC, who will apply our standard community selection methodology for selecting C-CAP partners. Advised that the goal is to find the best match between what the project is designed to deliver with the community’s situation and needs.
12 25/1/20 Okoa Town Town Officer Presented background on USAID C-CAP, and 14 Committee collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and N-PAC. Noted that the ‘scoping’ activity is to conduct data collection that we will use to report to the Ministry of Environment and N-PAC, who will apply our standard community selection methodology for selecting C-CAP partners. Advised that the goal is to find the best match between what the project is designed to deliver with the community’s situation and needs.
13 27/1/20 Ministry of Provided update on Scoping exercise in Halalele, 14 Environment Malolo, Deputy Makave and Okoa. Director for concurred with our assessment that Makave Climate and Okoa are most closely aligned with C-CAP’s Change site selection criteria. Ministry of Analysis / Next Steps: Lands, remains an enthusiastic supporter. As Environment, supervisor (Vava’u Office Climate Representative) she approved Change and participation in future C-CAP activities in Natural communities. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 31 Resources, also expressed interest in participating in future C-CAP activities. Country Mobilizer to make these arrangements for all future C-CAP activities.
Meetings held by (DCOP) and (STTA) – C-CAP in Tuvalu, 11 – 18 March 2014
Organizatio # Date Participants Purpose / Outcomes n 14 11/2/2014 University of , Advised that C-CAP coordinate with the Ministry of the South In-Country- Environment and Home Affairs / Rural Pacific – Coordinator, Development Department for all ‘outer island’ Pacific EU Global community based activities. Rural Development Center for Climate has developed development ‘road maps’ for each Environment Change island village which include infrastructure Alliance assessments and upgrading/construction targets. (GCCA) Gave overview of the origins of modern land use Project planning on Tuvalu –during colonial period, two villages were set up on each island, on opposite sides of a shared zone for the island church, pastor’s house and community hall. Each was outfitted with a rainwater catchment system that met both communities’ water needs. o Now, each home in Tuvalu is outfitted with a rainwater catchment system. Recommended that C-CAP meet with representatives from the following departments for C-CAP planning discussions; for background on Vaitupu and Nukufetau islands; and for potential site selection of additional communities on Funafuti: o Public Works Department o Land & Survey Department (DRR and Land Use) o Ministry of Environment o TANGO (DRR) o Red Cross (DRR) C-CAP Sites Provided background on Kavetoetoe village (C- CAP community), noting that its population is primarily comprised of internal migrants from outer islands who have developed the community as an informal settlement and lack land rights; it is built on the site of Tuvalu’s old waste management site. Many homes are poorly constructed and vulnerable to cyclone. o The community EKT church is helping to organize the community and is currently raising funds for construction of a church building, which they intend to build on a plot of land they’ve recently received rights for.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 32 o SOPAC has committed to funding a rainwater catchment system for the community at the church once it is built. Suggested that if C-CAP proposes working in another Funafuti community, the team may consider Teone, which is situated near the ‘borrow pits.’ DRR Explained that DRR planning and expertise is housed in the Prime Ministry’s Office. However, only two individuals have been trained in DRR. Official government policy dictates that government sets DRR plans for the entire country. o However, thus far, there has been very little trickle down planning and training at the community level. o The government is focused solely on disaster response, rather than preparedness. Analysis / Next Steps: When meeting with government departments, it is important to inquire about that Department’s contribution / component of “road maps.” Going forward, coordinate all outer-island activities with Rural Development—the primary point of contact with each island’s Falekaupule. 15 12/2/2014 Ministry of Each government department contributes to a Environment , Deputy national development plan, or ‘roadmap.’ Director Environment is focused on waste (inorganic) management, including management of the Funafuti dump site, and the Tuvalu island-wide composting plan where each island has a shredder for composting. They are also exploring the possibilities of incinerating inorganic waste and capturing the gas to convert to energy. Advised that SPREP is leading work on the algal bloom issue in the Funafuti lagoon. C-CAP Partnership Pepe is assigning two staff members— —to be the C-CAP liaisons who will participate in all C-CAP community events. The team explained the concept of our ‘outer island strategy’ for navigating cost and logistical barriers to consolidate ‘infrastructure-related’ activities into one trip where the team would conduct risk mapping, the IPI and lead a engineering site visit. also gave her consent to our proposal to consider providing support to the central government for outer-island focused climate change, DRR and land use planning programs in lieu of working directly with outer island communities in Year 2. Tekavatoetoe Explained that Tekavatoetoe has secured land rights for their church and community hall building and that the SPREP PACC project has built the
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 33 foundation—which is a dual purposed building foundation / rainwater collection cistern. The community is currently raising funds to build their church and community hall building. advised that C-CAP may be able to support the community in development of the building and its catchment system, which will flow into the foundation-reservoir tank. Noted that the Tuvalu Electricity Corporation is exploring a new project to provide solar power to homes in the community. The community is currently illegally splicing power from power lines— which is a significant risk following cyclones and high-wind events. C-CAP can hire a projector from the Department of Environment, as needed in communities. Tuvalu Climate Action Network (TUCAN) founded a local NGO comprised of youth volunteers interested in climate change. They are a part of the global Climate Action Network (CAN). She is working to form a Pacific CAN. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP must follow up with Pepetua as we formalize our plans for supporting Tuvalu’s outer island communities—including the suggestions to explore: o Combining Climate Change Risk and Asset Mapping, Infrastructure Prioritization Index, and Engineering Design Scoping activities into one 2-3 day session in each outer island; and o Providing direct support to the central government for new/current programming to provide climate change adaptation, DRR and land use planning support to remaining outer island communities (rather than C-CAP servicing each island individually). Coordinate with on involving 1-2 Environment Ministry staff in all C-CAP community activities in Tuvalu.
16 NAPA , Napa-Tuvalu is happy to work with C-CAP, as he Tuvalu Tuvalu Project noted that the projects can complement one Coordinator, another in instances where we work with the same NAPA I / 1+ community. Napa I (funded by the GEF LCDF) and 1+ (an add- on funded by AusAID) are supporting food and water security and coastal protection initiatives across Tuvalu with a budget of US$3.3m. NAPA II has been approved by the GEF with a budget of US$4.2m and is expected to begin implementation in the spring. NAPA II will support projects focused on coastal and inshore fisheries and DRR. o Under NAPA II, Tuvalu plans to engage in a long-term boat lease that can be used for outer- island travel. The team is amenable, in C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 34 principal, to sub-leasing to C-CAP. , Napa Technical Coordinator, a Ph.D. with expertise in fisheries and experience in DRM, was also present in the meeting. Analysis / Next Steps: Follow up with NAPA Tuvalu regarding shared boat lease costs or sub-leasing for outer island C-CAP activities. When planning outer island infrastructure and DRR activities, coordinate with NAPA to explore opportunities for collaboration if they are implementing similar or complementary programs.
17 Tuvalu , The Office is most concerned with outer island Prime Disaster communities due to the difficulty in traveling to the Minister’s Coordinator community—and sometimes, even reaching the Office community via phone—particularly following a disaster. They are focusing on building outer island community capacity in disaster response so they are prepared to lead immediate response while awaiting national government relief. Each island has a disaster committee comprised of representatives from each public sector office present on the island (health, education, etc.), the Kaupule, and other community leaders. o Communities do not, however, have disaster management plans in place. is interested in receiving C-CAP googlemap data for their use in disaster management. There are also challenges in issuing disaster warnings—particularly those with little advance warning such as tsunamis: o Outer island power is shut off at midnight each night; o Local radio only broadcasts from 6-9 am, 11 am – 1 pm, and 6 – 10 pm. o Each island has one satellite phone (under the care of a police officer on each island) but signal is dependent on the battery charge and whether the phone—at the time of receiving a call—has a satellite connection. Analysis / Next Steps: Within the C-CAP scope, explore opportunities to work with the Disaster Coordinator on an early warning system that is more effective / reliable than their current approach. Engage on planning and implementing C-CAP DRR activities; he has indicated interest in participation.
18 Ministry of For their geospatial data, Lands & Survey uses a Lands & program called MapInfo – which is compatible with Survey Director googlemaps / googleearth data. Therefore, data can be shared between C-CAP and the Ministry.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 35 For Disaster Mapping exercises, the Ministry works with SOPAC. Through the collaboration, they’ve mapped out all homes on Funafuti, including a survey of construction materials used for each home. o SOPAC has not, however, yet shared this data with the Ministry. The Ministry has conducted mapping of all Tuvalu Islands – but they have not collected actual data from the outer islands. They purchase high- resolution satellite imagery, and from that identify buildings and land use. Land Tenure is a major concern on Funafuti, with the large influx of internal migrants from outer islands. In most cases, these individuals do not secure tender rights or formal leases from landowners, but simply squat and build informal settlements. Lands & Survey interested in working with C-CAP on collection of real time data during extreme events such as king tides. When this occurs, C- CAP can use the “tracking” tool on handheld GPS devises to track the high tide lines on Funafuti, which can then be uploaded into a disaster map – and can be used to approximate high tide marks in the future based on projections for SLR. Analysis / Next Steps: Once deliverables are approved by USAID, share all geospatial data and tools with the Ministry so that they can upload into their mapping program. Prior to infrastructure implementation in Funafuti’s informal settlements, follow up with the Ministry to flag any potential land tenure / rights issues.
19 16 /2/2014 New Noted that NZ High Commission has a team here Zealand First Secretary to conduct a survey of the borrow pits to assess the High Development feasibility of a reclamation project. Commission (Fiji & Tuvalu) An engineer is with the team conducting a survey – Suva of the site to produce cost estimates. NZ Aid is considering reclaiming the land with sand to be dredged from the lagoon. It is also considering opportunities to build rainwater catchment systems on top of the borrow pits. Among the issues the team is considering is land tenure and displacement of families that have informally settled on the borrow pits without securing tenure rights. o Any reclamation would result in increasing the value of the land—and would threaten significant displacement. o In discussions with the government, the team is considering the viability of using borrow pit sites for government-managed low income housing. o The team is also factoring in externalities such as relocation of pig pens from the borrow pit to the ocean side and sewage management. Most C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 36 sewage is simply piped from the surrounding homes into the borrow pits; it is flushed to the ocean during tidal changes. NZ Aid is unable to fund this project on its own and is interested in forming a coalition, including Australia and the United States. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to maintain contact with , who is based in Suva, on the outcome of the NZ Aid survey and costing exercise; as well as implementation plans, particularly as they impact Kavatoetoe.
20 17/2/2014 Ministry of The Ministry oversees the Public Works Public , Acting Department (Water) including community water Utilities and Secretary supply issues and management of Tuvalu’s three Infrastructur Funafuti-based desalination plants (one of which is e portable) and three portable systems based on Nanumea, Nukulailai and Vaitupu. During droughts, the Government—PWD—takes control of all community water reservoirs (but not household systems). , The Ministry also serves as a contractor—using Assistant technical experts in water and staff engineers for Secretary project design and maintenance while hiring locals for short-term manual labor / implementation of projects. o Outside of the Ministry, there is one other private contractor. Finally, the PACC and IWRM project PWD representatives co-locate with PWD. Water Officer Desalination Systems and Background Information While the PWD team has received training on
normal desalination plant operations, only one
technician received training on desalination plant
maintenance and repair. The training took place in
the Maldives. PWD o The Ministry expressed great interest and need in Architect training additional staff in maintenance of desal plants.
PWD houses two desalination plants with a combined capacity to convert 1,500 cubic meters of seawater per 24 hours. The government runs these plants, pumping water into its reservoir system (capacity of 100K liters) every two weeks during the rainy season. During the dry season, they base conversion on demand. All desalination plants—except for the facility donated by Russia— are run on hybrid power systems based on solar and diesel energy. o Desalinated water pricing was designed for recovery of delivery and maintenance costs only. For households, 1,000 liters costs AUD16 while 500 liters costs AUD13.50. Prices to businesses are slightly higher, averaging AUD80 per 1,000 liters. o PWD only has high capacity in operations / C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 37 maintenance of one, fully manual desalination plant. This plant—based at PWD and donated by JICA—has capacity to convert 50 cubic meters per 24 hours. o The second plant based at PWD was also donated by JICA. It has capacity to convert 100 cubic meters of seawater every 24 hours. It is a hybrid runs on a hybrid system that is ½ computerized and ½ manually operated. The government has another hybrid desalination plant—portable—which was donated by New Zealand Aid. It is based at the Funafuti wharf and primarily services ships. It has capacity to convert 20K liters per 24 hours. The plant with reservoir capacity of 60,000 liters which was donated by Russia in 2011 only worked for six months and has been broken for more than one year. o This plant is fully computerized (rather than manual) and the staff received no training on maintenance / repair (they only received operations training when the plant was donated). This leaves them with no capacity for fixing the machine. o This plant is fully solar-powered. Since it has been broken, the solar power generated has been channeled to the main power grid. The portable, hybrid, desalination plants on Nanumea, Nukulailai and Vaitupu have capacity to convert 50 m3 of sea water every 24 hours. o Island based personnel are trained in operations but not in maintenance. When maintenance issues arise, PWD sends a technician to conduct repairs. Analysis / Next Steps: Maintain contact with the Ministry and PWD regarding Infrastructure Prioritization – and work through any procurement challenges of contracting with the government. Depending on finalization of C-CAP’s year two site selection, consider collaborating with PWD on a maintenance training program for: o Training PWD personnel on desalination plant maintenance and management; and o Training PWD and Village leaders and extension agents on rainwater catchment tank maintenance repair and management plans.
21 Ministry of Updated on the project status. Home The Department assigned , Local Affairs, Director Government Officer, as C-CAP’s official liaison. Department will help to plan—and accompany C-CAP of Rural to—outer island work and activities. Developmen While the Ministry of Environment ( ) t is C-CAP’s official line ministry, all outer island works must be coordinated by the Department of C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 38 Local Rural Development. Government The Department informed C-CAP that there is Officer Funafuti Kaupule; there are six members,
Analysis / Next Steps Arrange any future Kaupule meetings with Rural Development. Coordinate with Rural Development on outer island planning and site visits.
22 18/2/2014 SPREP PACC implemented rainwater catchment tank PACC construction in Lofeagai and Kavatoetoe. All Project Acting PACC technical work was completed by PWD. Project o Funding for construction of the tank and Manager development of management plan. No capacity building or maintenance training was offered. o The project will end in Dec. 2014. The catchment reservoir and catchment area (roof) design was calculated based on the estimated number of water consumers and precipitation data and projections. o The goal is to build a system that can accommodate 100 liters of water / day for each person. 100 liters per person is the estimated daily usage volume (for all water uses—drinking, bathing, washing). o Every 1 m3 of the reservoir has a catchment capacity of 1,000 liters. The Lofegai system design was based on the number of water consumers. o Lofegai’s catchment reservoir is 25 X 15 x 2 m o The Lofegai system is built from the local EKT church. o There have been some issues where Lofegai community members who belong to other churches are reluctant to use the PACC-funded water tank. o PACC has implemented an awareness campaign in response to inform the community that the water is for all community members regardless of denomination. The Kavatoetoe design was based on catchment area of the pre-designed church building. o Kavatoetoe’s catchment reservoir is 18 x 8 x 2 m. o Kavatoetoe EKT parish is comprised of 14 households – but the reservoir is to serve the entire Kavatoetoe community. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to coordinate with PACC and PWD should Kavatoetoe choose to implement a project related to a catchment system for their existing, PACC- funded reservoir tank.
23 Ministry of IWRM coordinates both a composting toilet
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 39 Public program and coordinated across donors from the Utilities & Integrated European Union, Aus AID and GEF/SOPAC to Infrastructur Water implement the one 10,000 liter rainwater tank per e Resources household program. Management has been awarded a scholarship for further (IWRM) study at Lincoln University in New Zealand. Project o Manager, will take his place starting in March 2014. Water and Rainwater Catchment Project Sewage The project—to fund one 10,000 liter rainwater tank Supervisor and gutter system per every household in Tuvalu— was completed last year. Through the project, the team upgraded or provided gutter systems for all households without working systems. o The EU funded tanks and gutter systems in all Tuvalu outer islands. o AusAID funded for 610 households in Funafuti. o GEF/SOPAC funded for the remaining 300 households in Funafuti. The team also implemented a rainwater tank and catchment system maintenance training in each island – but only for Kaupule members. o Throughout Tuvalu, there are many homes with damaged gutter systems – and the Kaupule’s maintenance training / skills are not trickling down to the community level. In 2002, PWD completed a survey of each Funafuti home’s catchment area. They are using this information to determine which homes have catchment area capacity to collect a greater volume of water than allowed by one tank. o These families will be considered as funding for a second water tank per household becomes available. o The database has not been updated since 2002 so there is a need for a new survey—particularly for fast growing communities like Kavatoetoe, Lofeagai and Teone. Compost Toilet Program The compost toilet program is ongoing—being implemented in Funafuti only with no current plans to extend the project to the outer islands. IWRM has provided funding for construction of 40 compost toilets and training. The project is struggling with the promoting demand for composting toilets – and use of those selected for the original pilots. o Many homes are using the designated toilet areas for other purposes. Analysis / Next Steps: Follow up with regarding the building catchment area survey should the community elect to implement a rainwater catchment project. o Work with PWD to update their database for any new structures in Kavatoetoe. o Prior to implementing any ‘second rainwater C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 40 tank’ per household activity, ensure that the buildings in question have the catchment capacity for a second tank. Attempt to secure the rainwater tank and guttering designs and maintenance training program from PWD to inform C-CAP’s planning for any rainwater catchment infrastructure projects pursued in Tuvalu.
24 18/2/2014 Funafuti The Kaupule is the executive branch of atoll Kaupule governance and conduit to the Falekaupule, on which representatives of all atoll landowners serve as members of a political committee. o The Kaupule work with implementers and form Secretary recommendations that are then presented to the Falekaupule for their endorsement. The Kaupule advised that Tuvalu protocol calls for donors and implementers to meet with the Kaupule prior to implementation of any development project and prior to selecting development project plans (such as community infrastructure). Advised that they have tentative ‘relocation plans’ for families w/o land tenure rights or existing leases with informal settlements in Funafuti (from Lofegai, Teone and Kavatoetoe communities primarily). o According to their plan, families from these communities (who do not have formal leases for their residences) would be relocated to land on Funafala island (an island w/in Funafuti atoll that is a 30 min. boat ride from Funafuti) if a borrow pit reclamation project was completed. o There are currently approximately 20 families living on Funafala. It was clear that there is some animosity between the kaupule and informal settlers – with some of the members even advocating for C-CAP to complete all Kavatoetoe activities with them, rather than the actual members of the community who reside there. On the next C-CAP trip, the Kaupule expressed interest in taking the team to Funafala to visit the community and to see the status of a mangrove reforestation project that was implemented six years ago. They noted that the weak current made it an ideal place for the project. Analysis / Next Steps: Email the Kaupule in advance of next C-CAP trip to schedule a meeting upon arrival. Prior to trip, C- CAP must execute a strategy for discussing the sensitive issue of Kavatoetoe, given the charged environment around informal settlements with the Kaupule landowners. During implementation of the IPI, important for C- CAP to avoid development of permanent infrastructure—except in instances in which the community has secured formal land rights or a C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 41 long-term lease for the area in question. Follow up with for the Kaupule Strategic Plan.
Meetings held by (STA) and (CLS) - C-CAP in Nauru, February 19-26, 2014
# Date Organization Participants Purpose / Outcomes
25 20/2/ Ministry of CIE coordinates climate change activities throughout 2014 Commerce, Nauru. Official point of contact for C-CAP community engagement. Industry and Provided background on C-CAP. Reiterated C-CAP’s Environment community focused engagement criteria. (CIE), Nauru Discussed the possibility of working in five communities with double the community allocation. CIE asked that C-CAP do Risk Assessments in all 14 districts before choosing the 10 most vulnerable. CIE mentioned that issues were not only limited to coastal erosion but were more from coastal development. Asked that C-CAP help with doing a baseline of the whole island in order to understand the issues at community level. C-CAP stressed that data collected from the C-CAP community assessments can help formulate a national database/baseline. CIE and C-CAP agreed that five communities be assessed this trip before doing the others at a later date. Yeren, Boe, Aiwo, Location (a large community settlement, not a district) and Denig to be the first five
sites. CIE requested C-CAP be interviewed on Radio and TV so communities can be aware. Analysis / Next Steps: As the official point of contact for community affairs in Nauru, it will be important to provide regular (perhaps quarterly?) updates on progress in Nauruan communities. This could be done in person or via email by the CM. C-CAP should also add the officers and other contacts from CIE to C-CAP’s email distribution list. Continued co-ordination of activities between CIE and C-CAP will be beneficial for long-term sustainability of projects. Need to complete risk assessments in the remaining districts before finalizing C-CAP’s ten sites. to seek and USAID’s approval for media interview.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 42 26 20/2/ Nauru Discussed Emergency Water Shelters project. Total 2014 Utilities cost ~AUD 220,000. Corporation Use of solar for community based desalination plants. Each plant would produce between 210 and 280 liters of drinking water daily depending on availability of sunlight. Plants to be used mainly during periods of drought. SPREP had scoped the possibility to fund but may be left hanging. CIE to ensure sustainability by working with communities. Communities to provide daily maintenance while NUC will provide the necessary technical support. Should not have any problems with land issues. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to contact who was the project point person but has left for further studies. C-CAP to scope for other suppliers of technology. Risk assessments will determine the needs of communities. C-CAP to continue pursuing this project with NUC as a possible intervention.
27 20/2/ University of Brief on progress of C-CAP activities. 2014 the South Discussed appointment of CM and emphasized the need to make an appointment at the earliest. Pacific Campus Director stressed the need for C-CAP to meet the Director Minister for CIE. Requested that C-CAP look at providing climate change material for the Nauru campus. Meet with applicants for CM position to be set up by Campus Director. This is not an interview! One applicant had trouble uploading her CV online but
Campus Director sent application to USP. Don’t know what happened. Applicant has a science background and currently works at USP Nauru Campus. Analysis / Next Steps: Campus Director to email USP HR and C-CAP with CV of this applicant. CM needs to be trained on C-CAP project.
28 25/2/ Minister for Provide a brief update on C-CAP activities in the Pacific 2014 Commerce, and Nauru. Minister mentioned that coastal erosion is a real Industry and problem in Nauru. Environment, C-CAP mentioned that coastal erosion was discussed Minister for in all risk assessments so far. RonPhos and C-CAP also mentioned that experience from the NRC Manase project would be fitting for Nauru. Minister appreciated that local contracting companies would be sub-contracted, where possible to implement C-CAP infrastructure. Minister asked what C-CAP can offer to mitigate the water problems faced in all communities.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 43 C-CAP will work with CIE and other donor partners to see what others were doing so as to compliment the work rather than duplicate. CIE asked if C-CAP Engineers can report back on all options listed on the IPI’s. C-CAP agreed that it is something they can provide. Analysis / Next Steps: The Minister appreciated the informative nature of C- CAP’s visit and thanked USAID C-CAP for the courtesy and AID. As the official point of contact for community affairs in Nauru, it will be important to provide regular (perhaps quarterly?) updates to the Minister. This could be done in person whenever there is a visit by senior C-CAP staff.
Meetings held by (COP), (CM) – C-CAP in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea 24-25, February 2014
# Date Organization Participants Purpose / Outcomes 29 24/2/ Meeting with Introduce C-CAP 2104 Red Cross, Coordinate with Provincial Disaster Management Kavieng Australia office for disaster response Volunteers Int’l Encouraged work at the community level Project Community organizations currently have no Manager, functions or capacity Community Ward has no resources to build community capacity Division, but anxious to do so) Red Cross Nui Focus on PWD Ailan Branch Next steps Follow up with C-CAP technical team in MAR2014
Manager, Red Cross Nui Ailan Kaveing
30 24/2/ Meeting with , Organization of CC Office 2014 New Ireland Director, CC office established 3 years ago Environment Coordinator (vacant for 2 years) providing ad hoc and Climate Consultant support (is interested in the position – has applied for Change the Coordinator position) Office HR slow in advertising / filling the position – evidently the resources have been allocated - feels that CC Office is a ‘low priority” CC Office need external support and operationalize Current funding is for salaries and basic admin only – no program funding CC Office sees its role as “coordination” - has convened meeting with stakeholders Regional strategy and policy development (with NGOs) should be a function C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 44 External support required - external funding needed to build capacity Technical focus in on marine environment – limited work and emphasis on terrestrial issues Government capacity is weak – limited funding and funding shortfalls NGOs in NI TNC- focusing on Marine research WCS (Marine and mangrove work) Partner the MARSH program No team leader at present – position remains vacant Ailan Awareness – Local NGO forcus on Marine Protected Areas) Partner with MARSH through WCS Key NI Provincial Government Organizations Provincial Administrator; Law and Order Sector Division of Environment and Climate Change; Director Disaster Office; Disaster Coordinator
Division of Primary Industries; CEO of Economic Sector; Division of Fisheries;
31 24/2/ Meeting with WC has 2 boats – working at Ungakum Island – 2014 WCS Community willingness to arrange for access / cost share to boat Engagement use Specialist Office space located at Kavieng fishing wharf (with TNC) – p can provide space / logistic support (internet) for C-CAP
Next steps Follow up with C-CAP technical team in MAR2014 32 24/2/ Meeting with Introduction on C-CAP 2014 NI Provincial Recent weather event –damage and high winds in Administrator Panemecko and landslips in Tabar (Island) Timely arrival of C-CAP Supports C-CAP and offer assistance where needed Discussed need to sustained Provincial funding support for Env. And Climate Change team – role of C-CAP to support NI agenda and strategy 33 24/2/ Meeting with Introduction of C-CAP 2014 CEO CEO On a a 6-month contrast – or sure if his contract will Economic be extended (3 mos)
Sector Fisheries sector is suffering from both over fishing (more entrants) and diminished market. Significant infrastructure needs competing for resources – while CC is important, not optimistic that funds will be made available.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 45 Meetings held by (DCOP), (CLO) (USAID/COR) and (ICC EU-GCCA) - C-CAP in Vanuatu, 1-8 March 2014
# Date Organization Participants Purpose / Outcomes 34 3/3/ Meeting with C-CAP team informed the Tafea Provincial Council 2014 Tafea (TPC) Officials about C-CAP activities and the Tanna Provincial Secretary island field visit objectives. Included in this discussion officials General, Tafea was the justification of revised Tanna Island C-CAP Provincial sites. Secretary Office, Tanna The Tafea Provincial Council officials agreed to have General Island, Vanuatu Iru as a C-CAP site. TPC officials also informed the C-CAP team that West Tanna is experiencing long periods of drought hence water shortage is critical issue in a number of communities. , Assistant Secretary General of Assistant TPC Council inquired whether C-CAP can financial Secretary support the construction of a ‘Natural Disaster Relief’ General, Tafea storage building for goods that are normally sent Provincial from Vila when there is a natural disaster event in the Office, Tanna province of Tanna. Explained that the current place Island, Vanuatu where they store these goods do not have proper shelter and in many instances goods such as bags of rice get wet when there is a heavy rain. There were 400 bags of rice got wet the last time it was kept in the current “store” house. Explained that C-CAP mandate is such that it cannot financially assist government initiatives directly as in this case Tafea Provincial Council which is a local government entity. Secretary General, stressed the importance of the “Kastom” system in Tanna in particular the authority within the traditional cultural leaders. Strategically to have an effective community engagement process it is of utmost importance that at the outset C-CAP does have the support of the traditional leaders. mentioned that TPC has a “Technical Advisory Committee” which includes technical personnel from the various line ministries and government departments. Committee would be able to provide technical support and advice to C-CAP. raised his concerns about projects that were not completed in the past. He stressed the importance that there are enough funds so that projects are completed according to its timeline and objectives. Other agencies that have been working in Tanna are as follows: o Save the Children; o UNICEF; o Live and Learn; o World Vision – WASH program; o CARE International; o Red Cross; and o USP EU GCCA.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 46 Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to prepare and deliver a copy of the risk assessment report to the Tafea Provincial Council upon receipt of approval from USAID. C-CAP to coordinate closely with on participating in C-CAP training activities and in acquiring knowledge of C-CAP adaptation tools. 35 7/3/201 Meeting with Meeting with Secretary General of Shefa Province, 4 Tafea informed the C-CAP team that is the new 8:30am Provincial Climate Change Officer for the Shefa Provincial officials Secretary Council. She will be the focal point for any Climate General of Change work that will be carried out in Shefa Secretary Shefa Province. General Provincial inquired when the next C-C-CAP team Climate Government will visit his province and what will be key activities Change Council; that will be carried out. Office The C-CAP informed him that the next visit will include the C-CAP engineer as well as another C- Shefa Province CAP team member who will conduct Infrastructure Financial Prioritization assessments in Unakape and Nekapa Officer; and in Nguna island; baseline surveys, V&A and risk , assessments in Emao; and an assessment on the Climate appropriate design for the infrastructure identified for Change Officer Tassariki (evacuation centre) and Pele (school cyclone proofing measures so that it can also serve as a natural disaster evacuation centre as well) communities. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to continue to meet with the Shefa Provincial management team provide any update to
C-CAP to share reports with Shefa Provincial management team upon receipt of approval from USAID. 36 7/3/201 NAB/C-CAP Meeting was for C-CAP to inform and update NAB of 4 meeting their current visit - brief run down on some key 2pm preliminary result on risk assessment in Tanna. (Vanuatu NAB) The C-CAP team also reported the reason of revising the sites in Tanna. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to share reports/deliverables with NAB upon receipt of approval from USAID. C-CAP to share and upload e-copy of C-CAP Vanuatu reports approved by USAID into the NAB data base.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 47 Meetings held by (DCOP) and (CM) – C-CAP in Samoa, 24-28 March 2014
Meeting / # Date Participants Purpose / Outcomes Event 37 24/3/ Samoa When presented with the geotextile solution using 2014 Tourism CEO Elcorock for the Manase intervention all parties were very Authority and supportive and were eager to get an updated report on Ministry of the solution Natural The STA has a tender out for a study on Manase bay and Resources they would like to include the findings from C-CAP in the and documents for review. Environment The CEO from STA was in the meeting and suggested
Tourism that if the geotextiles is appropriate they may consider
Climate Change extending its use for other beaches in the Manase bay. Project Coord Analysis / Next Steps: l The Ecosystem based adaptation report from SPREP, Watershed Management report and geological maps
from Government of Samoa have been shared with
Macallan for review
Once we have confirmation that the geotextile Ecorock Mgr Plan & Dev solution takes into consideration the recommendations from the reports we can share a copy with STA.
Sr Plan & Dev
Tourism CC Project Assistant
Sr DRR Officer
DRR officer
38 28/3/20 Ministry of MNRE - Presented the geotextile approach as a solution that is 14 Natural Geology section less costly than a hard structure which will settle as some Resources of the of the substrate moves and can be maintained by and Meteorology replacing units as they weather. Also, the ability to use C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 48 Environment Division - vegetation cover in combination with the geotextiles was and SPREP also presented as a comparative advantage over a hard Principal structure. The geotextiles will help retain the substrate Geologist giving vegetation the time to take hold. SPREP team wanted to make sure that the findings from the latest Eco-based Adaptation work they completed in January 2013 were consulted prior to finalizing the
intervention. C-CAP DCOP reassured the team that the SPREP report was to be sent to for review to ensure that their findings were being considered prior to implementing the work. RAMSAROfficer Some concerns were raised as to the cost of the intervention in terms of sustainability for smaller communities.
Analysis / Next Steps: Director, SPREP ecosystem based adaptation study must be Biodiversity and reviewed to ensure that the elcorock design is compatible Ecosystem and can benefit from the findings. Management (BEM)
Climate Change Advisor
Comms Advisor
BEM officer
BEM officer
Legal Advisor
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 49 39 MNRE - PUMA was concerned with the cost of the intervention in Planning and St relation to the value of the infrastructure being protected. Urban Tech Advisor They mentioned a watershed management document Management that should be consulted regarding the drainage in the Agency area. (PUMA); STA was eager to hear how the presentation in Manase went as there seems to be some concern about moving quickly in that area. Analysis / Next Steps: The watershed management plan is important for review by C-CAP engineer and for its value in water management and its link to erosion issues that Manase faces.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 50 ANNEX 2: INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIZATION SUMMARIES
FIJI (5)
Korotasere Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele Nasegai Vusasivo Yaqaga KIRIBATI (5)
Borotiam Buariki Evena Noto Taniau NAURU (6)
Aiwo Beitsi Boe Denig Location Yaren PAPUA NEW GUINEA (5)
Ungakum Nonovaul Lossu 1 Bol-Lamalawa (Bol & Lamalawa) Panabeli (Panachais, Panamecho & Belifu) SAMOA (3)
Taga Sala’ilua Taelefaga
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 51 FIJI Korotasere community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Korotasere was held on the 15th January 2014 and was attended by 20 people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and the Country Mobilizer. The assessment was also attended by the Cakaudrove Provincial Office Conservation Officer.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Fiji. This information was presented to the Korotasere through a facilitated group discussion. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Fiji. The report also highlighted the impact of continuous wave action on unprotected shoreline which is a primary cause of coastal erosion and degradation currently observed by the community in Korotasere.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted in November. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Infrastructure priorities identified from the risk assessment The following were the three categories of infrastructure (economic, social and coastal and water infrastructure) that the community in Korotasere identified during the community risk assessment that was carried out in November 2013:
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Coral reef Village plantations & livestock Copra plantations Village store
SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Community hall Government station Community church
COASTAL AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Sea front C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 52 River Water supply Sewerage system/Septic tanks Three most important infrastructure The Korotasere community highlighted the river bank adjacent to the village has experienced severe erosion, their water system and the issue of septic tanks and sewerage. Hence, the three infrastructure priorities that the community selected as the most important to them that would assist them to be more resilient and adapt to impacts of climate change are stated below:
River bank protection; Water system; and Sewerage system.
SCORING MATRIX
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 4 4 16 River bank protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 4 4 15 Upgrade water supply
Infrastructure Option 3 Improved 5 2 4 4 15 sewerage system
River bank protection was scored the highest given its impact in protecting the entire village population from floods and loss of village site. There are currently a number of the houses sited near the river which are no under threat from collapse as the river erodes their foundations. Regular flooding has resulted in the community losing a large portion of their village site over the last few years. The community has tried C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 53 vegetative barriers using vetiver grass, funded by USP AusAID funding, however this has not worked. This project has also supplied a number of gabion baskets which are yet to be used. According to village elders the river back closet to the village was never protected with mangroves as the water was too fast flowing for mangroves to establish.
An improved water system will benefit the entire community. The community indicated that they can probably help in terms of providing local labor and other in-kind contribution. The current water system does not provide sufficient volume of water. During drought periods this is a particular issue.
The sewerage system/septic tanks are a major issue for the community with the high water table in the area. Septic tanks are hard to install and when installed effluent from the overflow pipes remains on or close to the surface.
The community members have an existing committee that oversee major village development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 1 3 4 18 River bank protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 4 1 3 14 Upgrade water supply
Infrastructure Option 3 Improved 5 5 1 1 1 13 sewerage system
In terms of environmental resilience the river bank protection was scored as the highest infrastructure option in terms of environmental resilience, indicating it is most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The two main contributing climate change impacts that have affected their river bank have been sea-level rise and flooding.
The water system ranked second in terms of vulnerability. There were three climate change impacts that the community scored to have a significant impact on their water system. These were flooding, drought C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 54 and tropical cyclone. For flooding, the impact is more of a water quality in nature whereby their water source is prone to contamination from run-off that flows directly into their existing water reservoir. Based on the PCCSP report there will be an increase in the intensity and frequency of future projected rainfall (moderate confidence) now and beyond the 21st century. The type of water system will be determined by the best appropriate technology option that would be resilient to the impacts of climate change as stated above.
The sewerage system / septics tanks were ranked as the third infrastructure option. The main climate change impact threat identified for this option flooding and sea level rise which have a major impact on the water table in the village. Next steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 55 FIJI: Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele was held on 20st February, 2014 and was attended by 15 community leadership representatives, including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Country Mobilizer and a representative from the iTaukei Affairs office in Kadavu. The IPI assessment was conducted at the vakatunuloa in Lomanikoro. The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Fiji. This information was presented to the Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele community manually without using power-point slide presentation. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns within and more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Fiji. The report also highlighted the impact of continuous wave action on unprotected shoreline which is a primary cause of coastal erosion and degradation currently observed by the community in Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele. The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier on in the exercise. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C- CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Lomanikoro/ Nakaunakoro/ Nakoronawa/ Nakaugasele community highlighted the creek which regularly floods and the bridge that the villages use to cross to the other side which is broken down and hall/ evacuation center that could be moved to high ground and act as an evacuation center for all the 4 villages. Hence, the three infrastructure options that the community selected as the most important to them that would assist them to be more resilient and adapt to impacts of climate change are stated below: Creek Bridge Hall/ Evacuation Centre. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 56 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies) (A) Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make 5=More than 80% available significant of the population contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 4 4 16 Creek Infrastructure Option 2 5 3 4 4 16 Bridge Infrastructure Option 3 5 3 4 4 16 Community hall/Evacuation center
All the options scored the same on socio-economic issues. Creek deepening and Bridge and community hall/ evacuation center high given its impact in protecting the entire villages’ population from flooding, king tides and cyclones. Another issue with the creek was its depth which is very shallow. As the villagers commented “heavy rain for 30 minutes will always result in flooding of the villages”. Currently the village of Nakaunakoro, Nakoronawa and Nakaugasele have their village hall which is their evacuation center. All these evacuation centers are on low grounds and are affected by flooding. The villagers of Lomanikoro were recommending a site on the high ground where the 4 villages could access and will not be affected by flood.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 57 Environmental Resilience Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B)
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind rainfall king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) events death inundation) 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 4 4 3 21 Creek Infrastructure Optio 2 3 3 3 2 5 16 Bridge Infrastructure Option 3 2 2 3 1 5 12 Community hall/Evacuation center
In terms of environmental resilience, the creek scored the highest which indicates it is the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. There were three climate change impacts that the community scored to have a significant impact on their creek. These were flooding, sea level rise and storm surges as a result of tropical cyclones. A combination of dredging and building creek bank higher may be the best option if this option is supported. The issues with the village bridge ranked second. The bridge is impacted by flooding and sea level rise in particular which has eroded the creek banks. The community is concerned because this bridge is the connection to the villages in all situations. The community hall/evacuation centre was ranked the third in its vulnerability to climate related events and was seen as the most resilient option in that its siting and construction would reduce any future impacts. The only climate change impact threat seen was possible wind damage from a category 5 cyclone. The PCCP report forecasts that tropical cyclones will be more intense in the coming future. During discussions with the community, creek deepening was seen a slightly more important option than bridge or a new community hall/evacuation center however because of regular flooding and this would provide some on-going challenges. A new community hall/evacuation center in a flood free area built with appropriate cyclone and other building standards is seen as the most feasible options for C-CAP assistance. Next steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 58 FIJI Nasegai community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Nasegai was held on 18th February, 2014 and was attended by 16 community leadership representatives, including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Country Mobilizer and a representative from the iTaukei Affairs office in Kadavu. The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Fiji. This information was presented to the Nasegai community manually without using power-point slide presentation. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns within and more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Fiji. The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted prior to the Infrastructure Prioritization Index. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Nasegai community highlighted the cliff behind the --which has experienced severe erosion—village drainage, and school access. Hence, the three infrastructure options that the community selected as the most important to them that would assist them to be more resilient and adapt to impacts of climate change are stated below: Cliff behind the Sea front; Village drainage; and School access.
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 59 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies) (A)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 4 3 3 15 Cliff behind the Sea front Infrastructure Option 2 5 4 3 3 15 Village drainage Infrastructure Option 3 4 3 3 3 13 School access
Cliff behind the sea front and village drainage were scored the highest given its impact in protecting the entire village population from erosion on the coastal side. The community members have an existing committee that oversees major village development projects. An improved Erosion protection or Village drainage will also benefit the entire community. The community indicated that they can probably help in terms of providing local labor and other in-kind contribution (e.g. providing accommodation and meals place for the outside technical and engineers).
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 60 Environmental Resilience Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 2 3 2 5 17 Cliff behind the Sea front
Infrastructure Option 2 4 1 1 1 1 8 Village drainage
Infrastructure Option 3 5 4 1 1 1 12 School access
In terms of environmental resilience, the cliff behind the seafront scored the highest which indicates it is the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. There were three climate change impacts that the community scored to have a significant impact on the cliff behind the seafront: flooding, drought and tropical cyclone. For flooding, the impact is more on cliff behind the seafront and school access, whereby the village drains has been scored slightly lower the 2 mentioned above. Based on the PCCSP report there will be an increase in the intensity and frequency of future projected rainfall (moderate confidence) now and beyond the 21st century. The best appropriate technology option to prevent further erosion of the cliff behind the seafront that would also be resilient to the impacts of climate change as stated above. Therefore providing the best solution to prevent the erosion of the cliff behind the shoreline would secure the vulnerable households which fall along the cliff. School Access was scored as the second highest infrastructure option in terms of environmental resilience. The two main contributing climate change impacts that have affected their access have been flooding and sea-level rise. The PCCSP report also forecasts moderate confidence in this projection. This poses a challenge as to the school access design and structure. A combination of hard and soft approach may be the best option. The village drainage was ranked as the third infrastructure option. The main climate change impact threat that the community identified to their drainage is flooding and sea level rise/ storm surges or king tides. The PCCSP report there will be an increase in the intensity and frequency of future projected rainfall (moderate confidence) now and beyond the 21st century. The community wanted the construction of a new evacuation center. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 61 Next steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 62 FIJI Vusasivo community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Vusasivo was held on the 14th January 2014 2014 and was attended by x people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and the Country Mobilizer. The assessment was also attended by the Cakaudrove Provincial Office Conservation Officer.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Fiji. This information was presented to the Vusasivo community using a power-point slide presentation. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Fiji.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted in November 2013. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C- CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Infrastructure priorities identified from the risk assessment The following were the three categories of infrastructure (economic, social and coastal and water infrastructure) that the community in Vusasivo identified during the community risk assets assessment that was carried out in November 2013:
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Coral reef Village plantations & livestock Mangroves Roads & bridges Voivoi/Masi
SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Community hall Community church Primary school
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 63 COASTAL AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Sea front Community water supply Village creek Three most important infrastructure The Vusasivo community highlighted their seafront which has experienced severe erosion, the village creek which regularly floods and community hall/evacuation center (which is currently the village school). Hence, the three infrastructure that the community selected as the most important to them that would assist them to be more resilient and adapt to impacts of climate change are stated below:
Creek bank protection; Sea front/ Coastal protection; and Community hall/Evacuation Center.
SCORING MATRIX
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A) 5=Can make 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good significant of the population available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 4 4 16 Creek bank protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 3 4 4 16 Seafront/Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 3 Community 5 3 4 4 16 hall/Evacuation center
All the options scored the same on socio-economic issues. Sea front and coastal protection and creek bank protection scored high given its impact in protecting the entire village population from king tides, storm
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 64 surges, sea level rise and floods. Another issue with the creek was the erosion of the school grounds adjacent to the creek.
Currently the community uses the primary school as an evacuation center however this is sited near the creek. The current community hall is a makeshift coconut log and iron sheeting structure. A new community hall/evacuation center would be used for village meetings and functions as well as during local disasters such as cyclones and flooding.
The community members have an existing committee that oversees major village development projects.
Environmental Resilience Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral factor) inundation) bleach/death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 1 1 1 13 Creek bank protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 5 1 3 5 19 Seafront/Coasta l protection
Infrastructure Option 3 Community 1 1 1 1 3 7 hall/Evacuation center
In terms of environmental resilience, seafront/coastal protection scored the highest which indicates it is the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. There were three climate change impacts that the community scored to have a significant impact on their seafront. These were flooding, sea level rise and storm surges as a result of tropical cyclones. A combination of hard and soft approach may be the best option if this option is supported.
The issues with the village creek ranked second. The creek is impacted by flooding and sea level rise in particular which has eroded the creek banks and reduced the school grounds. The community is concerned that this will also impact on the school buildings in the future.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 65 The community hall/evacuation center was ranked the third in its vulnerability to climate related events and was seen as the most resilient option in that its siting and construction would reduce any future impacts. The only climate change impact threat seen was possible wind damage from a category 5 cyclone. The PCCP report forecasts that tropical cyclones will be more intense in the coming future.
During discussions with the community creek bank protection was seen a slightly more important option than seafront protection or a new community hall/evacuation center however because of regular flooding this would provide some on-going challenges. A new community hall/evacuation center in a flood free area built with appropriate cyclone and other building standards is seen as the most feasible options for C- CAP assistance. Next steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 66 FIJI Yaqaga community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
OVERVIEW
The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Yaqaga was held on the 16th January 2014 and was attended by 42 people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and the Country Mobilizer.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Fiji. This information was presented to the Yaqaga in a facilitated community discussion. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Fiji.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted in November 2013. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C- CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Infrastructure priorities identified from the risk assessment The following were the three categories of infrastructure (economic, social and coastal and water infrastructure) that the community in Yaqaga identified during the community risk assessment that was carried out in November 2013:
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Student schooling Village store Voivoi
SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Community hall Community church Solar power scheme
COASTAL AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Sea front C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 67 Community water supply Coral reef Three most important infrastructure The Yaqaga community highlighted the need for a multi-purpose hall/evacuation center, their seafront, which has experienced severe erosion and the village water supply which is affected by prolonged droughts. Hence, the three infrastructure that the community selected as the most important to them that would assist them to be more resilient and adapt to impacts of climate change are stated below:
Multi-purpose hall/evacuation center; Sea front/ Coastal protection; and Upgrading of the village water supply.
SCORING MATRIX
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1
Multi-purpose 5 2 3 4 14 building/ Evacuation center
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 3 3 13 Seafront/Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 3 5 3 3 2 13 Water supply
The multi-purpose building/evacuation center ranked highest. The multi-purpose building would be used as school classroom and a community hall when not in use for disasters. Currently the Church is the only substantial building on the island. During Cyclone Thomas in 2010 only 8 of the 33 houses in the community were left without any substantial damage. The Church was also damaged during the cyclone and families had to evacuate to individual houses that were not affected. The multi-purpose building
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 68 would also allow the community to establish a school on the island. Currently all students, including primary school students have to board during the week on a nearby island at great expense to the community. This island is reached by a dangerous sea passage which poses a threat to the lives of the children and parents during the crossing.
The water supply and seafront were ranked equally. The water supply is from a nearby spring however during dry periods the storage tank is at low capacity. However the community informed that the water supply never dried up.
The community has already started to protect it sea front by collecting large stones from the island to build their own sea wall. The village landing is quite well protected and was not given the same priority as the need for a multi-purpose hall.
Environmental Resilience Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic Tropical (B) (extreme (storm surge, coastal cyclones (wind rainfall events king tides) degradation factor) inundation) (coral bleach/death 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 Multi-purpose 1 1 1 1 2 6 building/Evacuatio n center
Infrastructure Option 2 1 3 1 1 2 8 Seafront/Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 3 4 1 3 1 2 11 Water supply
In terms of environmental resilience the water supply ranked the most vulnerable in terms of its reliance to future climate related events. These were primarily flooding and drought and to a lesser extent damage from cyclones. The community commented that although water levels were low during prolonged droughts the water supply never dried up completely.
The seafront/coastal protection scored the next highest which indicates it is also vulnerable to the future impacts of climate change. There were two sea level rise and to a lesser extent storm surges from cyclone
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 69 conditions. As noted in the section on socio-economic issues the community has already started to undertake its own protection works with locally available materials.
The community hall/evacuation center was ranked the third in its vulnerability to climate related events and was seen as the most resilient option in that its siting and construction would reduce any future impacts. The only climate change impact threat seen was possible wind damage from a category 5 cyclone. The PCCP report forecasts that tropical cyclones will be more intense in the coming future.
During discussions with the multi-purpose building/evacuation center was seen as the top priority by the community with the community willing provided some materials towards it construction. The multi- purpose building/evacuation center would be built in a flood free area using appropriate cyclone and other building standards. Next steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 70 KIRIBATI: Borotiam community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Borotiam was held on the 30th January 2014 and was attended by 27 people representing the leadership in Borotiam, Abaiang. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and Country Mobilizer for Fiji. The assessment was also attended by Foon the Disaster Management Officer in the Office of the President. The IPI assessment followed on from the Community Risk Assessment conducted on the same day. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The community members present during the IPI assessment exercise were divided into three groups. The three main infrastructures that the community agreed collectively as priorities were the protection of bwabwai pits, water tanks and the construction of a seawall for coastal protection.
Coastal protection
The community highlighted that coastal erosion is a major issue for the village with king tides and tidal surges now causing more widespread damage as sea levels rise. During king tides the sea regularly enters the village, inundating a larger swath of Borotiam’s limited land resources. In particular it has damaged the road that links the villages on Abaiang and inundates the bwabwai pits (swamp taro) causing damage to this important local crop.
Maneaba renovation and water supply
During the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. The village relies on rainwater and groundwater wells. The village is greatly impacted during prolonged dry spells when rainwater tanks become empty and wells become more brackish. Overall little use is made of rainwater harvesting as most roofs in the village are thatched. Renovating the maneaba (open community center) will provide the community with a structure for rainwater harvesting and enable the maneaba to be used as a future evacuation center.
Household water supply
As with the above priority during the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. This priority aims to provide water to the most vulnerable households. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 71 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 2 4 4 15 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 4 4 14 Maneaba/water supply
Infrastructure Option 3 5 1 4 4 14 Household water supply
Based on the socio-economic scoring the renovation of the maneaba to provide a communal rainwater harvesting water supply and the household water supply ranked equal. All priorities would benefit more than 80% of the population. For all priorities the community was able to provide some labor needed for each priority as required. The community highlighted that no or very little inputs were available locally and most inputs would have to be brought in from outside of the island. The village development committee was ranked as very good but needing some capacity building.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 72 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 5 1 1 5 13 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 5 1 5 13 Maneaba/water supply
Infrastructure Option 3 1 3 4 1 5 14 Household water supply
The environmental resilience scores highlighted that all the priorities could be affected by storm surges in the future. The water supply options could be affected by future climate related events with on-going contamination to ground water from sea level rise and regular prolonged droughts. Sea level rise, in particular king tides, and storm surges were also seen as greatly impacting on the coast in the future and there was a need for some form of the coastal protection.
Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 73 KIRIBATI: Buariki community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Buariki was held on the 31st January 2014 and was attended by 34 people representing the leadership in Buariki, North Tarawa. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and Country Mobilizer for Fiji. The assessment was also attended by 5 members of MELAD as part of their on the job training in C-CAP methodologies. The IPI assessment followed on from the Community Risk Assessment conducted on the same day. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology.
Priorities Identified
The community members present during the IPI assessment exercise were divided into three groups. The three main infrastructures that the community agreed collectively as priorities were a clinic, water tanks and coastal protection.
Clinic
Droughts have now become a common climatic event for the community which impacts on their water supply and their health. Although there are underground water supplies these supplies are now becoming more brackish because of sea level rise and are being contaminated with the increased population and poor sanitation. Because of poor sanitation and contaminated water supplies diarrhea and hepatitis are common illnesses in the community. Given the rising number of health issues related to climate change (in particular water borne diseases) the community also prioritised a clinic for their community.
Water Tanks
During the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. The village relies on rainwater and groundwater wells. The village is greatly impacted during prolonged dry spells when rainwater tanks become empty and wells become more brackish. Although there are some water tanks in the village overall little use is made of rainwater harvesting as most roofs in the village are thatched.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 74 Coastal protection
The community has highlighted that coastal erosion is a major issue for the village with king tides and tidal surges when there are westerly winds now causing more widespread damage as sea levels rise. During king tides the sea regularly enters the village, inundating the village. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 4 5 15 Clinic
Infrastructure Option 2 4 1 4 5 14 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 5 1 4 5 16 Coastal protection
Based on the socio-economic scoring the clinic and coastal protection ranked equal. As there some community members had access to water tanks the water tank option scored slightly less overall. For priorities the community was able to provide all the labor needed for each priority as required. The community highlighted that no inputs were available locally and all inputs would have to be brought in from outside of the island. The village has a good development committee but the community members attending the assessment stated that there was still room for some improvement.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 75 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (B) (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 Clinic
Infrastructure Option 2 1 3 3 1 1 9 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 1 5 1 1 5 13 Coastal protection
The environmental resilience scores highlighted that coastal protection measure could be the most affected by future climate related events with on-going damage from king tides and storm surges. The scores also highlighted the impact that drought can have on any water project. As the clinic would be a new structure built to the right specifications and in the most ideal location the community stated it would be least affected by the impacts of climate change in the future although it could be damaged by an extreme weather event. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 76 KIRIBATI: Evena community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Evena was held on the 30th January 2014 and was attended by 55 people representing the leadership in Evena, Abaiang. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and Country Mobilizer for Fiji. The assessment was also attended by the Disaster Management Officer in the Office of the President. The IPI assessment followed on from the Community Risk Assessment conducted on the same day. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified
The community members present during the IPI assessment exercise were divided into three groups. The three main infrastructures that the community agreed collectively as priorities were the protection of bwabwai pits, water tanks and the construction of a seawall for coastal protection.
Maneaba/Evacuation center
There is a need to improve the current structure to ensure it is cyclone proof and supplied with a water supply and toilet to enable it to be used as an evacuation center.
COASTAL PROTECTION
As with other communities on Abaiang, Evena reports that the primary impacts of global warming are being experienced in their coastal areas and in their water supplies. The community has highlighted that coastal erosion is a major issue for the village with king tides and tidal surges now causing more widespread damage as sea levels rise. During king tides the sea regularly enters the village, inundating a larger swath of Evena’s limited land resources. In particular it has damaged the road that links the villages on Abaiang and inundates the bwabwai pits (swamp taro) causing damage to this important local crop.
Water Supply
During the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. The village relies on rainwater and groundwater wells. The village is greatly impacted during prolonged dry spells when rainwater tanks become empty and wells become more brackish. Overall little use is made of rainwater harvesting as most roofs in the village are thatched.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 77 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 5 3 14 Maneaba/Evac uation center
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 5 3 14 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 3 5 1 5 3 14 Water supply
Based on the socio-economic scoring all options ranked equal. All priorities would benefit more than 80% of the population. For all priorities the community was able to provide some labor needed for each priority as required. The community highlighted that no inputs were available locally and all inputs would have to be brought in from outside of the island. The village development committee ranked as excellent and very capable of managing any project activities.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 78 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (B) (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 Maneaba / 1 3 2 1 3 10 evacuative center
Infrastructure Option 2 1 3 1 1 5 11 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 3 1 5 5 1 5 17 Water supply
The environmental resilience scores highlighted that the water supply could be the most affected by future climate related events with on-going contamination to ground water from sea level rise and regular prolonged droughts. Sea level rise, in particular king tides, and storm surges were also seen as greatly impacting on the coast in the future and there was a need for some form of the coastal protection. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 79 KIRIBATI: Noto community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Noto was held on the 1st February 2014 and was attended by 37 people representing the leadership in Noto, North Tarawa. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and Country Mobilizer for Fiji. The assessment was also attended by 5 members of MELAD as part of their on the job training in C-CAP methodologies. The IPI assessment followed on from the Community Risk Assessment conducted on the same day. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The community members present during the IPI assessment exercise were divided into three groups. The three main infrastructures that the community agreed collectively as priorities were a clinic, water tanks and a new maneaba (open community hall) that would serve as an evacuation center during disasters.
Clinic
Given the rising number of health issues related to climate change (in particular water borne diseases) the community also prioritized a clinic for their community.
Water Tanks
During the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. The village relies on rainwater and groundwater wells. The village is greatly impacted during prolonged dry spells when rainwater tanks become empty and wells become more brackish. Currently little use is made of rainwater harvesting as most roofs in the village are thatched.
Maneaba
The current maneaba requires repair and is not big enough and does not have the facility to cater for major village events and feasting. In addition there is a need to improve the current structure to ensure it is cyclone proof and supplied with a water supply and toilet to enable it to be used as an evacuation center.
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 80 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 2 4 5 16 Clinic
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 4 5 16 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 5 2 4 5 16 Maneaba/evac uation center
Based on the socio-economic scoring all the priorities ranked equal. All priorities would benefit the whole community and the community was able to provide all the labor needed for each priority as required. The community highlighted that very few inputs were available locally most inputs would have to be brought in from outside of the island. The village has a good development committee but the community members attending the assessment stated that there was still room for some improvement.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 81 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (B) (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Clinic
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 4 1 1 8 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 1 1 1 1 4 8 Maneaba/Evac uation center
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact that drought can have on any water project. The community believed that if their maneaba was repaired and provided with an independent water supply and toilets it would also be their evacuation center during extreme weather events. The roof of the maneaba would also provide a surface for rainwater harvesting and collection for communal water tanks. As the clinic would be a new structure built to the right specifications and in the most ideal location the community stated it would be least affected by the impacts of climate change except during drought periods where water stored in their water rain catchment tank declines.
Overall, water tanks and the maneaba had the highest score which means they could be impacted by the effects of climate change. One option that can be considered for the community is the repair and upgrading of the maneaba to serve as the evacuation center with an adequate rainwater harvesting system to provide a communal water source for the village.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 82 Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 83 KIRIBATI: Taniau community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Taniau was held on the 31st January 2014 and was attended by 39 people representing the leadership in Taniau, Abaiang. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and Country Mobilizer for Fiji. The assessment was also attended by the Disaster Management Officer in the Office of the President. The IPI assessment followed on from the Community Risk Assessment conducted on the same day. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The community members present during the IPI assessment exercise were divided into three groups. The three main infrastructures that the community agreed collectively as priorities were the protection of bwabwai pits, water tanks and the construction of a seawall for coastal protection.
Bwabwai pit protection
During king tides the sea regularly enters the village, inundating a larger swath of Taniau’s limited land resources. In particular it inundates the bwabwai pits (swamp taro) causing damage to this important local crop. This issue is linked to coastal protection for the community.
Water Tanks
During the risk assessment the community reported that the impacts of climate change are affecting their water supply particularly during prolonged droughts. The village relies on rainwater and groundwater wells. The village is greatly impacted during prolonged dry spells when rainwater tanks become empty and wells become more brackish. Overall little use is made of rainwater harvesting as most roofs in the village are thatched.
Coastal protection
As with other communities on Abaiang, Taniau reports that the primary impacts of global warming are being experienced in their coastal areas and in their water supplies. The community has highlighted that coastal erosion is a major issue for the village with king tides and tidal surges now causing more widespread damage as sea levels rise. During king tides the sea regularly enters the village, inundating a larger swath of Taniau’s limited land resources. In particular it has damaged the road that links the villages on Abaiang and inundates the bwabwai pits (swamp taro) causing damage to this important local crop.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 84 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 3 1 3 3 10 Bwabwai pit protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 3 3 12 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 5 1 3 3 12 Sea wall
Based on the socio-economic scoring the water tanks and sea wall ranked equal. This was based primarily on these options impacted on more than 80% of the community. Some community members did not have bwabwai pits so did not rank this priority so high. For priorities the community was able to provide some labor needed for each priority as required. The community highlighted that no inputs were available locally and all inputs would have to be brought in from outside of the island. Although village has a development committee the community members attending the assessment stated that there was still room for some improvement.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 85 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (B) (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching factor) inundation) / death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 5 5 1 5 17 Bwabwai pit protection
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 5 1 1 9 Water tanks
Infrastructure Option 3 1 5 1 1 5 13 Sea wall
The environmental resilience scores highlighted that bwabwai pits could be the most affected by future climate related events with on-going damage from king tides and storm surges. Sea level rise, in particular king tides, and storm surges were seen greatly impacted on the coast in the future and there was a need for a seawall or some form of the coastal protection. The scores also highlighted the impact that drought can have on any water project.
Next Steps
C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 86 NAURU: Aiwo community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Aiwo was held on the 21st February 2014 and was attended by 7 people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Aiwo community highlighted their coastal protection, potable water and climate-proof housing as priorities.
Community participants during the Aiwo IPI implementation
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 87 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 1 2 9 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 1 2 9 Potable water systems
Infrastructure Option 3 5 1 1 2 9 Climate-proof housing
Based on their socio-economic scoring all options were given the same priority rating. Potable water harvesting systems and coastal protection remain an underlying issue with the least capacity from the community to intervene. There is need for continuous awareness and capacity building within the community if they are to mitigate some of these issues.
The community potable water harvesting system is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Mitigating the coastal erosion issues for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents, among other things. A man-made causeway is said to be causing damage to their coastline.
All priorities were seen as benefiting all the community. No inputs were available locally for all potential projects while very little local expertise and resources readily available also. This however may change C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 88 with more engagement of the community by the Community Mobilizer. Governance/management is non- existent and will need to be addressed if any project is to become sustainable.
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 2 5 1 5 5 18 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 1 5 5 3 2 19 Potable water systems
Infrastructure Option 3 5 4 2 5 5 21 Climate-proof housing
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding, sea-level rise, coastal degradation and the westerly wind on their coast. The causeway altered the nearshore currents and water flow with climatic events further exacerbating the problem. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination of brackish water from non-existent sewage infrastructure and increased salinity. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 89 NAURU: Beitsi community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Beitsi was held on the 24th February 2014 and was attended by 12 men from the community. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Beitsi community highlighted their potable water, coastal protection and community market as priorities.
Community participants during the Beitsi IPI implementation
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 90 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 5 5 20 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 2 5 5 5 5 20 Coastal Protection
Infrastructure Option 3 5 2 5 5 17 Community Markets
Based on their socio-economic scoring the potable water and coastal protection options were given the same priority rating. Potable water harvesting systems and coastal protection remain an underlying issue with the least capacity from the community to intervene. There is need for continuous awareness and capacity building within the community if they are to mitigate some of these issues.
The community potable water harvesting system is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Mitigating the coastal erosion issues for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents, among other things.
All priorities were seen as benefiting all the community. No inputs were available locally for the potable water and coastal protection options while significant expertise and resources were stated to be readily available. This however may change with more engagement of the community by the Community Mobilizer. Governance/management is said to be excellent. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 91 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 1 5 1 1 9 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 2 5 5 1 5 3 19 Coastal Protection
Infrastructure Option 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Community Market
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding, sea-level rise, coastal degradation and wind on their coastline, strengthening their need for coastline protection. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination of brackish water from non-existent sewage infrastructure and increased salinity. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 92 NAURU: Boe community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Boe was held on the 21st February 2014 and was attended by 5 people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Boe community highlighted their Gabab channel, potable water and multi-purpose evacuation hall as priorities.
Community participants during the Boe IPI implementation
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 93 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 3 1 10 Gabab channel
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 5 1 12 Potable water systems
Infrastructure Option 3 Multi-purpose 5 2 5 2 14 evacuation hall
Based on the socio-economic scoring the multi-purpose evacuation hall was given priority. Potable water harvesting systems come in a close second while the Gabab channel remains an underlying issue with the least capacity from the community to intervene. There is need for continuous awareness and capacity building within the community if they are to mitigate some of these issues.
The community potable water harvesting system is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Mitigating the Gabab channel issues for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents and dynamite blasted boating channel from the built airport runway infrastructure, among other things.
All priorities were seen as benefiting all the community. No inputs were available locally for the second and third potential projects while very little local expertise and resources were readily available for the
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 94 multi-purpose evacuation hall. Governance/management was also seen as a focus if any future projects were to become sustainable.
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical cyclones (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation (wind factor) events king tides) (coral bleaching / inundation) death 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 2 5 5 22 Gabab channel
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 5 1 5 13 Potable water systems
Infrastructure Option 3 Multi-purpose 1 1 1 1 1 5 evacuation hall
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding, sea-level rise, coastal degradation and wind on the Gabab channel. The airport runway plus the dynamited channel altered the nearshore currents and water flow with climatic events further exacerbating the problem. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination of brackish water from non- existent sewage infrastructure and increased salinity. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 95 NAURU: Denig community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Denig was held on the 24th February 2014 and was attended by a man and woman from the community. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Denig community highlighted their drainage (vulnerability of homes), potable water and coastal protection as priorities.
Community participants during the Denig IPI implementation
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 96 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 Drainage 2 2 4 3 11 (vulnerability of houses)
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 4 2 13 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 3 3 2 4 2 11 Coastal Protection
Based on their socio-economic scoring the drainage and coastal protection options were given the same priority rating. Potable water harvesting systems remain an underlying issue with little capacity from the community to intervene. There is need for continuous awareness and capacity building within the community if they are to mitigate some of these issues.
The community potable water harvesting system is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Mitigating the coastal erosion issues for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents, among other things.
An improved potable water system is seen as being of benefit to the whole community, or at least 80% of it. Little inputs were available locally for the potable water and coastal protection options including expertise and resources. This however may change with more engagement of the community by the Community Mobilizer. Governance/management is said to be below average.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 97 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation (coral cyclones (wind events king tides) bleaching / death) factor) inundation) 5= very significant 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 Drainage 3 3 4 1 4 15 (vulnerability of houses)
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 5 1 4 12 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 3 4 5 4 3 5 21 Coastal Protection
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding, sea-level rise, drought and wind on their coastline and drainage. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination of brackish water from non-existent sewage infrastructure and increased salinity. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 98 NAURU: Location community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Location was held on the 24th February 2014 and was attended by 6 members from the community. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Location community highlighted their sewerage drain, potable water storage and coastal protection as priorities.
Community participants during the Location IPI implementation
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 99 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 1 3 10 Sewerage drain
Infrastructure Option 2 5 1 1 2 9 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 3 4 1 1 1 7 Coastal Protection
Based on their socio-economic scoring the sewerage drain option was rated highly. Potable water harvesting systems remain an underlying issue and together with coastal protection have little capacity from the community to intervene.
The community potable water harvesting system and storage is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and clean storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Mitigating the coastal erosion issues for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents, among other things.
Their sewerage drainage system is being affected by rising sea-levels with back flow being the major problem.
An improved potable water system is seen as being of benefit to the whole community, or at least 80% of it. Little inputs were available locally for the potable water and coastal protection options including C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 100 expertise and resources. This however may change with more engagement of the community by the Community Mobilizer. Governance/management is said to be average in some instances.
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 5 5 4 1 20 Sewerage drain
Infrastructure Option 2 5 5 5 1 2 18 Potable Water
Infrastructure Option 3 5 5 1 5 4 20 Coastal Protection
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding, sea-level rise and drought on their sewerage drain and potable water. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination by the unhygienic storage tanks that each household has. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 101 NAURU: Yaren community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Yaren was held on the 21st February 2014 and was attended by 10 people from the community representing the leadership of the community including women and youth. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser and supported by the Community Liaison Specialist.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Nauru. The C-CAP staff discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense low pressure resultant wind and storm surges expected for Nauru.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted earlier. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Yaren community highlighted their coastal protection, water harvesting systems and climate proofing homes as priorities.
Community participants during the Yaren IPI implementation
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 102 These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A)
5=More than 80% 5= Good 5=Can make of the population 5= Locally significant available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 1 1 8 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 12 Water 5 2 3 2 harvesting systems
Infrastructure Option 3 5 4 2 3 14 Climate proof housing
Based on the socio-economic scoring climate proof housing was given priority. Water harvesting systems come in a close second while coastal protection remains an underlying issue with the least capacity from the community to intervene. There is need for continuous awareness and capacity building within the community if they are to mitigate some of these issues.
The community water harvesting system is unreliable and many households reliant upon government desalination plants for supply. Part of the problem highlighted by the community is the need for a consistent community water supply and storage so water is available regularly, especially in periods of drought. Some water assistance has been provided however there is poor management and technical capacity within the communities to ensure sustenance.
Providing coastal protection for the community is complex and may require an in-depth understanding of the altered state of nearshore currents from the built airport runway infrastructure, among other things.
All priorities were seen as benefiting all the community. Very few inputs were available locally for the second and third potential projects while interestingly they assume that local expertise and resources were
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 103 readily available for climate proof housing. Governance/management was also seen as a focus if any future projects were to become sustainable.
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B) Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical cyclones (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation (wind factor) events king tides) (coral bleaching / inundation) death 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant 5= very significant significant significant significant 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 1 5 2 5 4 17 Coastal protection
Infrastructure Option 2 Water 1 1 5 5 4 16 harvesting systems
Infrastructure Option 3 5 5 1 5 5 21 Climate proof housing
The environmental resilience scores highlighted the impact of flooding on climate proof housing by way of erosion. The airport runway altered the natural drainage systems with climatic events (more precipitation) further exacerbating the problem. They stated that their water supplies are affected by prolonged droughts and in contamination of brackish water from non-existent sewage infrastructure and increased salinity. This may lead to cholera and typhoid outbreaks. However the community has highlighted the need to improve the quantity and quality of water available to assist the community in adapting to future climate changes. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing’s will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 104 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Ungakum community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Ungakum Island was held on the 12th March 2014 and was attended by 41 community participants. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser, Community Liaison Specialist and Country Mobilizer for Papua New Guinea. With the C-CAP team, the New Ireland Provincial Climate Change Director and an Environmental Consultant were also present in observing the assessment.
The IPI assessment took almost 2 hours soon after the Community Risk Assessment. During the risk mapping assessment, the community listed the vulnerable infrastructures and stated the significance of the infrastructures and the level of impacts Climate Change has on the infrastructures. Based on the listed vulnerable infrastructures raised by the community, the C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three major infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The three priority infrastructure issues were given by the community members themselves through consensus. The priority infrastructure issues are, Water System, Aid Post and Solar/light power. After each infrastructure was raised, the community members were asked to elaborate in detail why they select the particular infrastructures.
Water System
The community reported that sea level rise and extreme high tides have significantly impacted on their underground water sources. The wells that they normally used for cooking and drinking is more brackish compared to the past. Moreover, the communal water tanks in the community are not able to cater for the whole population in the island. During prolonged drought periods, the communal tanks which are mainly located in communal structures such as Church building, Elementary and Primary School go empty and the community members have to travel by sea for hours to fetch water from the mainland.
Aid Post
Currently the community members either travel by boat or canoe for kilometers to the nearest Sub-Health Centre located in Taskul. They reported that there have been occurrences of people losing their life’s while on the way to the nearest Sub-Health Centre to obtain medical care. The community stressed that the establishment of any Aid Post in the island will be a focal medical site for the Tsoi group of Islands.
It was noted during the assessments that this infrastructure is currently not available in the community but the community really needs it as it will alleviate the problem of traveling long distances to the nearest Sub-Health Centre and providing medical services for the community and the whole Tsoi group of Islands.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 105 Solar Power
This particular infrastructure is also not available in the island. However the community sees it as an important infrastructure that can provide power to the community. The community members explain the importance of the solar power as an environmental friendly power source and will cost the community nothing but only repairing. The proposed sites for the installation are in the primary and elementary school areas which are susceptible to storm surges. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contribution of benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A) 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 2 2 3 12 Water System
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 2 3 12 Aid Post
Infrastructure Option 3 3 1 1 1 6 Solar Light/power
Based on the socio-economic scoring the water system and the aid post are ranked equal. The means that the two options have equal benefit to the community. Both priority options would benefit more than 80% of the population. The availability of inputs from the community towards the 2 infrastructure options are limited and the management system is established but requires capacity building. Community contributions in terms of labor, meals and land that will be provided towards the projects are not fully available.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 106 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death) 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 3 4 5 4 4 20 Water System
Infrastructure Option 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 Aid Post
Infrastructure Option 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Solar light/power
According to the environmental resilience scoring for the three priority options, water system was quantitatively ranked to be the highest, meaning it is more vulnerable. The water shortage issue in the island is a negative impact of salt water intrusion that is the aftermath of sea level rise and high tides. In addition, drought periods experience in the island seem more severe and the longest period ever encountered in the island is four (months).
Aid post and solar power are less vulnerable because the infrastructures are currently not available in the island. Because of this, the community is unable to do proper judgments to justify the impacts of climate change on these infrastructures. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 107 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Nonovaul community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Nonovaul Island was held on the 12th March 2014 and was attended by 35 community members that include, women, elders, youths and teachers. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser, Community Liaison Specialist and Country Mobilizer for Papua New Guinea. Accompanying the C-CAP team is the New Ireland Provincial Climate Change Director and an Environmental Consultant who also assisted in the facilitating of the IPI assessment after observing in Ungakum Island. The IPI assessment was done soon after the Community Risk Mapping and the two assessments started at around 2pm and finished at 6pm. During the risk mapping assessment, the community listed the vulnerable infrastructures and stated the significances of the infrastructures and the level of impacts Climate Change has on the infrastructures. Based on the listed vulnerable infrastructures raised by the community, the C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three major infrastructure issues that affect the community, based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and mainly based on its importance to the community members. Priorities Identified The three priority infrastructure issues were given by the community members themselves through consensus. The priority infrastructure issues raised by the Nonovaul community are water system, Resource Centre and Aid Post (First Aid Kits). After each infrastructure was raised, the community members were asked to elaborate in detail why they select the particular infrastructure.
Water System
The community reported water is a scarce resource in the Island. The island is much smaller compared to Ungakum Island. The underground water sources are greatly affected by sea level rise and high tides. During prolonged drought periods, the communal tanks which are mainly located in communal structures such as Church building, Elementary and Primary School go empty and the community members have to travel by sea for hours to fetch water from the mainland.
Resource Centre
This particular infrastructure is not available in the island. However the community sees it as an important infrastructure for meeting and workshop trainings. The proposed site for the construction of the infrastructure is about 150 meters away from the shoreline. The community emphasized that the Resource Centre have to be climate proof as the proposed site is vulnerable to strong winds.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 108
Image 1: Google map of Nonovaul Island showing the distance from the proposed Resource Centre (RC) site to the shoreline.
Aid Post (first aid kits)
The community has an aid post in the island but was relocated to Ungan Island. Ungan Island is about 10 minutes traveling by boat from Nonovaul Island. However, they raised this priority option because they are more concern about the students. All they want is just first aid kits to be placed in the Primary School for the students in times of emergencies.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contributio of benefit (qualitative) n (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute 5=Can make (A) 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good significant of the population available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 3 3 14 Water
Infrastructure Option 2 5 3 4 3 15 Resource Centre
Infrastructure Option 3 Aid post (first 3 1 3 1 8 aid kits and supply)
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 109 Based on the socio-economic issues, the water system and Resource Centre have the highest scores. Both will benefit more than 80% of the community. However, total scoring of Resource Centre indicate that it is the most important beneficial asset for the community. This asset is not available in the community and trainings and workshops done in the community are normally done in SDA Church Building. Water system was also beneficial for the community but its governance and management is weaker than Resource Centre. The organized governance and management for the Resource Centre indicate that it is community goal to achieve and that they must have been planning and discussing it that is why its governance and management system is stronger than the water system.
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 2 4 5 5 4 20 Water System
Infrastructure Option 2 2 2 1 3 4 12 Resource Centre
Infrastructure Option 3 Aid Post (First 1 1 1 1 1 5 Aid Kits and Supplies)
The environmental resilience score highlighted water system to be the most vulnerable followed by Resource Centre and finally Aid Post. Water is reported by the community as a scarce resource due to salt water intrusion into the underground water sources mainly wells. The communal water tanks in the community cannot sustain the community during drought periods. The community has allocated the site for construction of the Resource Centre that is why they were able to determine the level of Climate Change impacts on the asset. It was reported that the site is susceptible to strong wind so the building as to be climate proofed.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 110 Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 111 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Lossu 1 community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Lossu 1 was held on the 13th March 2014 and was attended by 49 community participants. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser, Community Liaison Specialist and Country Mobilizer for Papua New Guinea. With the C-CAP team, the New Ireland Provincial Climate Change Director and an Environmental Consultant were also assisting in facilitating the discussions.
The IPI assessment took almost 2 hours soon after the Community Risk Assessment. During the risk mapping assessment, the community listed the vulnerable infrastructures and stated the significance of the infrastructures and the level of impacts Climate Change has on the infrastructures. Based on the listed vulnerable infrastructures raised by the community, the C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three major infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The three priority infrastructure issues were given by the community members themselves through consensus. The priority infrastructure issues are, Feeder Roads, Water and Coastal Protection. After the each infrastructure was raised, the community members were asked to elaborate in detail why they select the particular infrastructure.
Feeder Roads
The community has been experiencing the impacts of sea level rise and high tides which is slowly moving the shoreline inland and degrading and inundating their coastline. Based on this, the community raised feeder roads as their first priority to enable relocation inland to avoid the impacts of sea level rise and high tides. In addition to relocation, the feeder roads will help community have easy access to their gardens and transportation of crops from the gardens to the market.
Water System
Due to sea level rise and high tides, the underground water supplies in the community are affected through salt water intrusion. Couple of the underground water sources is located along the beachfront and as the sea continues to rise, these water sources are now only used during low tides.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 112
Image 2: Location of an underground water source which is currently under the seawater. It is only used during low tides
During prolong drought period, the communal water tanks go empty. A couple of houses have access to water tanks but cannot cater for the whole community during drought periods. Thus, the community has to travel long distances by vehicles to big rivers like Fissoa River to fetch water for drinking and cooking.
Coastal Protection
The coastal beachfront has been significantly degraded by inundation of sea level rise, high tides, erosion and King Tides. The community has observed that the coastline is moving landward destroying the beachfront and digging out cemeteries and houses. They have brought the issue to the Provincial Climate Change Office for planting of mangrove forest in the area but, the site was not a mangrove habitat area and that mangrove cannot grow in there. Based on that, the community raised coastal protection emphasizing mainly on sea wall or sand bags as wave breakers to slow down the impacts of sea level rise, high tides and wave surges. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 113 Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contributio benefit (qualitative) n (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A) 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 2 2 3 12 Feeder Roads
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 3 4 14 Water
Infrastructure Option 3 5 2 1 3 11 Coastal Protection
Based on the socio-economic scoring all the priority options will benefit 80% and more of the community population. The water option is quantitatively recorded as the highest meaning it is the most beneficial asset. This is because the water sources in the village are now brackish and the community tanks go empty during drought periods.
It can be noted that feeder roads and coastal protection scores are quite similar (12 & 11). The two infrastructures are adaptive measures to be taken to address the impacts of sea level rise and high tides. Judging these two infrastructure options, feeder roads would have a long term benefit compared to the coastal protection.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 114
Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 3 2 1 2 3 11 Feeder Roads
Infrastructure Option 2 3 5 5 4 2 19 Water
Infrastructure Option 3 2 4 1 5 4 16 Coastal Protection
According to the environmental resilience scoring for the three priority options, water system is quantitatively ranked the highest meaning it is more vulnerable. Water shortage was reported to be a major issue in the community that resulted from drought periods and saline water intrusion to the freshwater aquifers. The coastal protection and feeder roads options are both aiming at addressing sea level rise and high tides impacts. However, quantitatively the coastal protection option seems to be more vulnerable than feeder roads. Thus, feeder road is more resilience to climatic events and may provide long term benefit to the community. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 115 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Bol-Lamalawa (Bol & Lamalawa) communities infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Bol-lamalawa Island was held on the 13th March 2014 and was attended by 18 community members that include, women, elders, and a couple of youths. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser, Community Liaison Specialist and Country Mobilizer for Papua New Guinea. Accompanying the C-CAP team is the New Ireland Provincial Climate Change Director and an Environmental Consultant who also assisted in the facilitating of the IPI assessment. The IPI assessment was done soon after the Community Risk Mapping and the two assessments started at around 1pm and finished at 5:30pm. During the risk mapping assessment, the community listed the vulnerable infrastructures and stated the significances of the infrastructures and the level of impacts Climate Change has on the infrastructures. Based on the listed vulnerable infrastructures raised by the community, the C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three major infrastructure issues that affect the community, based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and mainly based on its importance to the community members. Priorities Identified The three priority infrastructure issues were given by the community members themselves through consensus. The priority infrastructure issues raised by the Bol-Lamalawa community are Water & Sanitation, feeder roads and Sub-Health Centre renovation. After each infrastructure was raised, the community members were asked to elaborate in detail why they select the particular infrastructure.
Water and Sanitation
The community members have raised concerns of health issues that are related to consumption of unsafe drinking water from the Bol River. During extreme drought periods, the community members that are unable to afford transportation fees for their water containers to be fetched from Fissoa River resort to the nearest Bol River. As a result, during dry seasons the Bol Sub-Health Centre is always flooded with patience contracted with water bond diseases.
Feeder Roads
The communities do have deteriorated feeder roads that were constructed by Logging Companies in the early 70s & 80s. The motive of feeder roads is to provide accessibility of the communities to their clan lands inland for relocation. Moreover, the feeder roads will link their garden areas to the market place for transportation of the garden crops.
Renovation of the Sub-Health Center
The location of the Sub-Health Centre is the main contributing factor towards its vulnerability. It is five meters away from the coast and right within the vicinity of the Bol River Delta. Also it is in a very low lying site that is susceptible to flooding.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 116 In 2008, the community was hit by a King Tide which has a significant damage to the Sub-Health Center. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability Governance/ Community Total Score in terms Options beneficiaries of Inputs Management Contribution of benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute (A) 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 2 5 15 Water & Sanitation
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 2 3 12 Feeder roads
Infrastructure Option 3 5 3 2 3 13 Health Center Renovation
Based on the socio-economic issues, all the priority options will benefit the whole communities. However, water & sanitation is quantitatively ranked as the highest that indicates the communities (Bol & Lamalawa) are readily organized for the establishment of the water project. During drought periods, the water tanks in the communities are emptied and have to travel kilometers to Fissoa River to fetch water for drinking and cooking. The Sub-Health Center is quantitatively ranked as the second highest and it is the main venue for the community to seek medical care. Feeder was raised mainly to enable and activate relocation inland. From the three options, it is noted that the communities are looking at assets that can benefit them now and for a short time period without considering the future. It is shown clearly on the scoring of each asset. Feeder roads will bring long term benefit but it has the lowest rank.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 117 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment Options terms of cost 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching factor) inundation) /death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 4 4 5 1 3 17 Water & Sanitation
Infrastructure Option 2 3 1 1 1 3 9 Feeder Roads
Infrastructure Option 3 4 4 4 4 3 19 Health Centre Renovation
The environmental resilience score highlighted Health Centre ranked the highest, which means that it is the most vulnerable to climatic events. This is mainly due it its high exposure to coastal inundation by sea level rise, king tide, high tides, strong winds and flooding. Water and sanitation is ranked the second highest which the level of vulnerability to climatic events is also high. Feeder roads seem less vulnerable to climate change impacts and will benefit the communities in the long term in regard to addressing the long term impacts of sea level rise. Next Steps C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 118 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Panabeli (Panachais, Panamecho & Belifu) communities infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The Infrastructure Prioritization Index (IPI) assessment for Bol-lamalawa Island was held on the 14th March 2014 and was attended by 24 community members that include, women, elders and youths. The assessment was facilitated by the Senior Technical Adviser, Community Liaison Specialist and Country Mobilizer for Papua New Guinea. Accompanying the C-CAP team is the New Ireland Provincial Climate Change Director and an Environmental Consultant who also assisted in the facilitating of the IPI assessment. The IPI assessment was done soon after the Community Risk Mapping and the two assessments started at around 9am and finished at 1pm. During the risk mapping assessment, the community listed the vulnerable infrastructures and stated the significances of the infrastructures and the level of impacts Climate Change has on the infrastructures. Based on the listed vulnerable infrastructures raised by the community, the C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three major infrastructure issues that affect the community, based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and mainly based on its importance to the community members. Priorities Identified The three priority infrastructure issues were given by the community members themselves through consensus. The priority infrastructure issues raised by the Panabeli communities are Water System, Feeder Roads and Climate Resilience crops. After the each infrastructure was raised, the community members were asked to elaborate in detail why they select the particular infrastructure.
Water System
The communities depend entirely on underground water sources for drinking, cooking, laundry and bathing. However, due to the adverse impacts of sea level rise, flooding and sedimentation, high tides and deforestation the underground water sources are affected. Saline water intrusion into the freshwater aquifers is a major issue in the villages. The drying up of the underground water supplies is caused by compound effect of deforestation and drought periods. During high tides, the freshwater sources are normally flooded by sea water.
Feeder Roads
Due to the location of the communities especially Panachais which is low lying and vulnerable to sea level rise, high tides, wave surges and strong winds, the community decided to migrate inland to their original ancestral land. The community reported that during high tides, the whole village and their gardens within the village vicinity are usually flooded with sea water. Thus the main purpose of insisting on feeder roads was to access their original land to live there and do gardening and planting of their cash crops.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 119 Climate Resilience Crops
The communities have raised concerns on level of productivity of their garden crops which is decreasing compared to the past harvests. The size and quantity of the harvest is much smaller and lesser than in the past. Currently the Live and Learn program is facilitating awareness and training in the communities on food security which is greatly helpful in the communities. The proposed sites for the installation are in the primary and elementary school areas which are susceptible to storm surges. These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
Scoring Matrix
Socio-economic issues
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution of benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute (A) 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 3 3 5 16 Water
Infrastructure Option 2 5 2 2 3 12 Feeder roads
Infrastructure Option 3 Climate 5 2 3 5 15 Resilience Crops
Based on the socio-economic issues, all the priority options will benefit the population. The communities are willing to contribute more into water system and climate resilience crops projects. According to the quantitative scoring, the water and climate resilience crops are more beneficial to the communities. These two options are well understood that are the basic needs of human beings and have to be address prior to other options.
However, when referring to climate change on going impacts such as sea level rise in the long term, the two options will not benefit the communities. Thus, feeder roads will be the most beneficial infrastructure which can create a foundation for the communities and later everything else can fall in line.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 120 Environmental Resilience
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in Investment terms of cost Options 1 = No impact (qualitative) 5= Very significant impact
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind (B) events king tides) (coral bleaching factor) inundation) /death)
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 2 5 4 3 2 16 Water
Infrastructure Option 2 4 1 1 1 3 10 Feeder Roads
Infrastructure Option 3 Climate 2 1 4 1 3 11 Resilience Crops
The environmental resilience score highlighted water to be the most vulnerable followed by climate resilience crops and finally feeder roads. Water is reported by the communities as a scarce resource due to salt water intrusion into the underground water sources mainly wells that resulted from sea level rise and high tides.
A feeder road is quantitatively ranked as the lowest which indicates that it is less vulnerable. Since it is less vulnerable and with the fact that it will provide long term benefit to the community, it is the most appropriate infrastructure option. Next Steps
C-CAP will discuss the options with national experts to determine the best option or options for the community. Environmental impact assessments, engineering feasibility studies and costing will then be done to determine the best option for C-CAP to support. Conclusion Sea level rise leads to a variety of problems including inundation of coastal ecosystems and infrastructure and saline intrusion into freshwater aquifers. Therefore the most appropriate long term adaptive measure (infrastructure) for the USAID C-CAP to fund in the mainland sites in New Ireland is Feeder Roads. This will significantly alleviate the communities from the burden of coastal inundation and salt water intrusion. This project will last long and shall benefit the whole individuals in each community in the long run. The
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 121 establishment of the feeder roads in the communities will be a foundation which other options can fall in line later. For the two (2) isolated island sites, the most appropriate infrastructure to be constructed in there is water tanks. The island sites are vulnerable to saline intrusion into freshwater aquifers which affects their underground water sources and that they have to travel by sea long distance during drought periods to collect water from the mainland.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 122 SAMOA Taga community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Taga was conducted on the 25th of March 2014 and attended by 28 village representatives including matais and the youth (including the untitled men). There were no representatives from the women's group due to a last minute commitment. The session was facilitated by C-CAP DCOP, Mr. Nicholas Hobgood and translated into the vernacular by the CM. Mr Le'ulu of the Internal Affairs Division in Savaii accompanied the C-CAP team on this trip.
As with other previous community engagement for the IPI assessment, the community was first reminded about the 3 main components of the USAID/C-CAP project. The recap was followed by a brief explanation on global warming and its causes and the global impacts of climate change such as rising temperatures, sea level rise, change in rainfall patterns, change in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and so on. The focus of discussions was directed to the findings from the Risk assessment and Asset mapping that was done six (6) weeks before. Then Mr Hobgood went on to discuss the climate projections and predictions from the Pacific Climate Change Science Program (PCCSP) Country Report for Samoa and the effects of the future climate on the current community assets and how this information is important in the prioritization process.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted two (2) weeks before. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C- CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Taga community highlighted water, access road to the blowholes and the village swimming pool as their priorities.
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 123
SCORING MATRIX
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies) (A) Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute 5=Can make 5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good significant of the population available contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 4 5 5 19
Water Infrastructure Option 2 13 4 3 5 1 Access road to the blowholes Infrastructure Option 3 3 4 5 5 17 Swimming pool
Based on the socio-economic scoring the water was given priority. The current water system managed by the government via the Samoa Water Authority (SWA) does not provide adequate water supply to the whole village. Also the current water rationing system seizes water flow from 11am until 4pm each day. Taga's natural forests has suffered blaze in the past years due to very dry conditions and with more
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 124 drought predicted for the future, this could be a major threat to the villagers. In addition, more droughts could mean their water source which is the spring could be affected as well.
Although the village swimming pool was ranked second on the matrix however on further discussion the access road to the blowholes was deemed their second priority due to the economic benefits of the blowholes as a very popular tourism site in Samoa. Hence, there is a need to fix the road to improve transportation to and from the blowholes.
Access road to the blowholes (very narrow Village swimming pool ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE and dangerous for visitors)
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms Investment of cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B)
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 4 1 5 16
Water Infrastructure Option 2
4 3 2 1 4 14 Access roads to the blowholes Infrastructure Option 3 5 5 1 1 5 17 Swimming pool
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 125 The scoring for the environmental resilience highlights the swimming pool as the most vulnerable to the natural disasters. However on discussion the water is deemed more important as it benefits all the community, only half of the village have access to the swimming pool. It is also the location of the swimming pool which increases its exposure to the impacts of disasters.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 126 SAMOA Sala'ilua community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Sala'ilua started at around 10.30am on the 25th of March 2014. Twenty eight (28) village members representing the leadership of the community range from the high chiefs and oratory chiefs to the women's committee members to the youth and untitled men's group. The session was facilitated by C-CAP DCOP and assisted by CM. A member of the Internal Affairs office, accompanied the C-CAP team as the spokesperson.
The community was introduced to the Pacific Climate Change Science Program Country Report for Samoa. The C-CAP discussed the trends and projections from the report with the community. These included temperatures continuing to increase with more very hot days expected in the future; changing rainfall patterns with more extreme rainfall days and less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones expected for Samoa.
The C-CAP team then presented the community with the information from the Community Risk Assessment conducted in February 2014. The assessment included the community perceptions of climate change and how it was impacting their community and mapping of community infrastructure assets and how they are vulnerable to climate change. Based on the information provided in the community risk assessment all infrastructure assets were listed and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then facilitated a discussion to determine the three main infrastructure issues that affect the community based on the climate change information. The top three were determined by consensus and would then be used for the detailed scoring based on the IPI methodology. Priorities Identified The Sala'ilua community highlighted water, the pre-school and the two women's committee halls for both Si'utu and Sala'ilua as their priorities.
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 127 SCORING MATRIX
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of Options beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies) (A) Scoring 1 = 20% or less of 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to the population available contribute 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make 5=More than 80% available significant of the population contribution
(impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1
New water 5 4 5 5 19 storage facility to replace sub-water tank. Infrastructure Option 2 17 4 3 5 5
Pre-school Infrastructure Option 3
Relocation of 4 3 5 5 17 women's committee halls (Si'utu and Sala'ilua)
The matrix's scores confirms a bigger water tank to replace the smaller sub-water tank that stores water channelled from the upper reservoir as the main priority for this community. The sub-water tank was built as part of the Independent Water scheme (IWS) in 2012 however, because there was no funding available to build a larger water tank the IWS was only able to provide a small tank with a storage capacity of less than 5,000L. Sala'ilua has experienced in the past severe droughts that greatly affected their water flow. Hence, the community has now prioritized a larger sub-water tank to store as much of the water that is continually wasted everyday to ensure that their community will still have access to water in times of drought, cyclones and other disasters.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 128
The current sub-water tank with a storage capacity of less than 5,000L. The outlet cannot be blocked as the hydrostatic pressure will cause damage to the tank and the pipes. Despite several requests that were submitted to the Samoa Water Authority (SWA) for a larger tank, the response was always a lack of funds.
As a community who had encountered the hardships of finding water during drought periods, Sala'ilua is certain that a bigger sub-water tank to store the waste water would help with better water management in the future.
The upper water reservoir that supplies the whole village and the sub-water tank was built in 2012 under the IWS program. The second and third priorities received equal status in terms of the socio-economic support but nevertheless, the pre-school's back fence needs urgent help as the current fence is incomplete and may endanger the lives of the little ones who are using the premises on a daily basis. A protective wall was also requested by the community as the school is easily affected by storm surge and strong waves. A long term solution which is relocation of the pre-school away from the coast was also among some of the options that were raised by the community. Finally, the women's committee halls for both Si'utu (a sub village of Sala'ilua) and Sala'ilua require relocation to higher grounds as both are highly exposed to strong winds, cyclones, storm surge and other disasters.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 129 Back fence of the pre-school (towards the sea)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms of Investment cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B)
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme rainfall (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1
New water 4 1 1 5 5 16 storage facility to replace sub- water tank. Infrastructure Option 2 5 5 1 1 5 17
Pre-school Infrastructure Option 3
Relocation of 15 3 5 1 1 5 women's committee halls (Si'utu and Sala'ilua)
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 130 The scoring for environmental resilience highlighted the pre-school as being most vulnerable to disasters despite being ranked number two (2) in the priority list. The location of the pre-school has contributed to such level of exposure to natural disasters. Nevertheless, the scoring for the sub-water tank is just as close and therefore requires urgent assistance. Next steps Upon completion of the IPI exercise, the community was reminded of the process that would follow. C- CAP engineer will travel to do site inspection and report on the most practical design for a proposed project. Local line ministries along with national experts will be involved and aware of the proposed infrastructure. The final plan will be discussed with the community for their approval and finally the signing of the community agreement between the community and C-CAP before the work begins.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 131 SAMOA Taelefaga community infrastructure prioritization index (IPI) assessment
Overview The IPI assessment for Taelefaga was attended by 14 village members including representatives from the men's, women's and the youth groups and conducted on 24 March 2014. The participants hold leadership roles within their community. The exercise was held at the mayor's open fale and lasted about one (1)hour and 15 minutes. The IPI exercise was facilitated by C-CAP DCOP, and translated by the CM. The cultural formalities were managed by the Internal Affairs official, who travelled with the C-CAP team to the site.
The community was first reminded about the 3 main components of the USAID/C-CAP project. The recap was followed by a brief explanation on global warming and its causes and the global impacts of climate change such as rising temperatures, sea level rise, change in rainfall patterns, change in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and so on. The focus of discussions was directed to the findings from the Risk assessment and Asset mapping that was done six (6) weeks before. Then Mr. Hobgood went on to discuss the climate projections and predictions from the Pacific Climate Change Science Program (PCCSP) Country Report for Samoa and the effects of the future climate on the current community assets and how this information is important in the prioritization process.
Based on the findings from the Risk assessment, the infrastructures were listed on paper and confirmed by the community. The C-CAP team then guided discussions in order for the community to pick three (3) most important assets they think need urgent assistance in terms of their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change with the most urgent asset to be identified as number one (1). During the prioritization process, it is very important that all the voices are taken into account and that the outcome is a product of the overall consensus. Priorities identified The drinking pool, ava plantations and crops plantations were the main three priorities with the drinking pool coming on top. The participants had some minor differences in selecting the third priority however eventually the community managed to agree on crop plantation due to the serious problem of livestock and poultry destroying all of their crops. Ava plantations are not affected by livestock and poultry and it is the main source of income for most households.
These priorities were then scored by the community through a facilitated discussion.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 132
Where the spring emerges
SCORING MATRIX
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
Infrastructure # of Availability of Governance/ Community Total Score in terms of beneficiaries Inputs Management Contribution benefit (qualitative) (Labor, supplies) (A)
Scoring 1 = 20% or less 1= Not locally 1 = Non-existent 1=Not able to of the population available contribute
5=More than 80% 5= Locally 5= Good 5=Can make of the population available significant contribution (impact) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) (Pre-condition) Infrastructure Option 1 5 4 5 5 19 Village drinking pool
Infrastructure Option 2 3 2 4 4 13 Ava plantation
Infrastructure Option 3 4 1 4 4 13 Crop plantation
It is indicated by the matrix score that as the village priority is given to the drinking pool, both the ava and crops plantations share are about the same based on the socio-economic scoring. It is clear from the scoring that the drinking pool is crucial for everyone living in the community and that the level of input in terms of the availability of raw materials such as sand, rocks, tools as well as man power are readily available within the community. C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 133 At the moment some people of Taelefaga have no access to the main pipe water system. The origin of the community's natural spring is located about 50meters into the forest. In 2013, Taelefaga applied to the government's Independent Water Scheme (IWS) to drill a borehole and channel the water to all the households. However, the introduction of C-CAP into the community early this year had come at a perfect time for them, as they see it an opportunity to solve their water problem as soon as possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE
Infrastructure Environmental Resilience Total Score in terms of Investment cost (qualitative) Options 1 = No impact 5= Very significant impact (B)
Flooding Sea level rise Drought Climatic coastal Tropical (extreme (storm surge, degradation cyclones (wind rainfall events king tides) (coral bleaching / factor) inundation) death
5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very 5= very significant significant significant significant significant
1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact 1= no impact Infrastructure Option 1 5 1 5 1 5 17 Village drinking pool Infrastructure Option 2 4 1 4 1 3 13 Ava plantations Infrastructure Option 3 2 1 4 1 3 11 Crop plantations
In terms of vulnerability to the most common hazards, the village drinking pool is once again confirmed to be the priority area for Taelefaga. The natural spring is still used by the community to draw water for food and other uses but the village leaders feel that this natural resource is under-utilized and not properly managed or maintained due to the lack of the appropriate technology and the specialized knowledge on water engineering. Currently there is a single pipe that channels water from the spring to only one household which belongs to the mayor and was done out of gratitude by the Electric Power Corporation (EPC) when the hydro station was upgraded in 2012.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 134 A
B
Mouth of the spring
Red arrow shows the pipe from the spring to the mayor's house
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 135 In a facilitated discussion by DCOP, it was mentioned that a water tank project would be most ideal given the lack of water storage/harvesting facilities such as water tanks and proper guttering. In fact only two (2) families have water tanks apart from the school which has its own 5,000L water. Also this will benefit more than half the total population as there are only 28 households (2011 census) in the community. The option of building a small reservoir and a network of pipes to channel the water to the main households was also discussed. Next steps Upon completion of the IPI exercise, the community was reminded of the process that would follow. C- CAP engineer will travel to do site inspection and report on the most practical design for a proposed project. Local line ministries along with national experts will be involved and aware of the proposed infrastructure. The final plan will be discussed with the community for their approval and finally the signing of the community agreement between the community and C-CAP before the work begins.
C-CAP Quarterly Report 6 136