DELIVERABLES: 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT
AUGUST 2014 i 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. USAID PACIFIC ISLANDS COASTAL COMMUNITY ADAPTATION PROJECT
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 & 1.1.B.2 Deliverables: 1.1.A.2 Identify three priority C-CAP districts in each country of operations & 1.1.B.2 Rank five priority communities in each selected district for USAID approval
SPONSORING USAID OFFICE: USAID/Pacific Islands
CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-492-C-12-00010 CONTRACTOR: DAI DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUGUST 2014
AUTHORS: C-CAP
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development of the United States Government.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT i
CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3
3.0 COMMUNITY SELECTION BY COUNTRY ...... 3 3.1 PAPUA NEW GUINEA ...... 3 3.2 FIJI ...... 4 3.3 TONGA ...... 4 3.4 SAMOA ...... 5 3.5 VANUATU ...... 6 3.6 KIRIBATI ...... 6 3 .7 TUVALU ...... 7 3.8 SOLOMON ISLANDS ...... 7 3.9 NAURU ...... 8
ANNEXES...... 9
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT ii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides an overview of the community selection process carried out in the nine (9) USAID / C-CAP countries of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Nauru and Kiribati. The process in engaging each respective government by C-CAP staff differed as each country has a distinct unit responsible for addressing Climate Change issues at the community level.
The following table summarizes the list of communities identified by each respective government as having important climate change challenges which could be addressed through C-CAP assistance. The document provides background on the consultative process conducted with respective government units in the selection of new communities. The communities marked with an asterisk (*) are the 56 new communities added in Year 2.
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 Cakaudrove Province (Northern 5. Vunisavisavi FIJI Divison) 6. Vusasivo* (10) 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)
Tongatapu Division Kolofo’ou District 1. Popua Kolomotu’a District 2. Sopu Tatakamotonga District 3. Tatakamotonga Lapaha District 4. Nukuleka TONGA (10) Kolovai District 5. Ahau Vava’u Division 6. Hunga* Vahe Motu District 7. ‘Utulei* 8. Makave* Neiafu District 9. Okoa* ‘Uta Vava’u District 10. Tefisi*
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 1 Country Province/District Communities 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* (10) Nguna Island 4. Nekapa* 5. Unakap* Tanna Island 6. Loanialu* 7. Launapikruan* Tafea Province 8. Lamanaura* 9. Lonamilo* 10. Iru* 1. Kavatoetoe* Funafuti Atoll 2. Funafuti Community* TUVALU 3. Nukufetao 1* Nukufetao Atoll (6) 4. Nukufetao 2* 5. Vaitupu 1* Vaitupu Atoll 6. Vaitupu 2* 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* Denigomodu District 3. Denigomodu* Denigomodu District 4. Location Suburb* NAURU Aiwo District 5. Aiwo* (10) Baitsi District 6. Baitsi* Anabar District 7. Anabar* Anetan District 8. Anetan* Ewa District 9. Ewa* Nibok Dsitrict 10. Nibok* Tarawa Island District 1. Buariki* (North Tarawa) 2. Noto* KIRIBATI 3. Borotaim* (5) North Gilbert Islands District 4. Evena* (Abaiang) 5. Taniau* ‘* 56 new communities added in Year 2
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 2 2.0 INTRODUCTION Since late 2013, USAID / C-CAP has worked with government counterparts in the initial five countries of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu to identify additional vulnerable communities. C-CAP staff also worked closely to identify new communities in four new countries of Kiribati, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and Nauru. The two deliverables of 1.1.A.2 Identify three priority C-CAP districts in each country of operations and 1.1.B.2 Rank five priority communities in each selected district for USAID approval have been combined in this submission because in most cases the communities are selected by partner country counterparts primarily due to their particular vulnerability to climate change impacts as opposed to their geographic position.
The following sections will provide a summary of discussions conducted with country counterparts in the selection process for new communities in each country. Annexes provide meeting summaries for the countries that C-CAP has engaged with in the process of selecting the additional communities. Each country section includes a comprehensive list of communities to date with new communities marked by an asterisk after each community name.
3.0 COMMUNITY SELECTION BY COUNTRY
3.1 PAPUA NEW GUINEA
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 2014, 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. See Annex 1 for the list of coordination meetings held with PNG officials to discuss Year 2 site selection. 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.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 3 Country Province/District Communities 1. Gabagaba 2. Tubusereia Central Province 3. Boera 4. Lealea PAPAUA NEW GUINEA National Capital District 5. Pari (10) 6. Bol/Lamalawa 7. Panabeli New Ireland Province 8. Lossu 9. Ungakum (Island) 10. Nonovaul (Island) * Sites selected in Year 2
3.2 FIJI
In Fiji, C-CAP continues to benefit from a close working relationship with the iTaukei Affairs Board whose leadership has provided guidance in identifying vulnerable communities that can benefit from C-CAP’s assistance. The last five communities in the table below were agreed upon in close consultation with iTaukei Affairs staff in November of 2013 after discussing the merits of adding several sites to the existing ones in Cakaudrove so as to maximize program resources while travelling to Vanua Levu. A request from iTaukei Affairs was made to C-CAP to add an additional set of communities due to the impact being felt in more remote areas. A similar suggestion was made to add two communities in Kadavu as the province had yet to benefit from activities aimed at mitigating the effects of Climate Change.
Country Province/District Communities Central Division 1. Buretu – Buretu Tikina Tailevu Province 2. Daku - Bau Tikina 3. Vunisinu and Nalase (neighboring Rewa Province villages) Northern Division 4. Karoko Cakaudrove Province (Northern 5. Vunisavisavi FIJI Divison) 6. Vusasivo* (10) 7. Korotasere* Bua Province 8. Yaqaga* Eastern Division 9. Nasegai* 10. Nakasaleka community* Kadavu Province (Eastern (comprising the villages of Division) Lomanikoro, Nakau, Nakoronawa, Nakaugasele)
* Sites selected in Year 2
3.3 TONGA
C-CAP has consulted with the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the selection process for the five (5) Year 2 sites in January of 2014. The Ministry of Lands, Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources was also consulted in the selection process. Tonga’s Joint National Action Plan (JNAP) on Climate Change
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 4 Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management is the overarching guide in assisting communities in the country. Meeting notes can be found in Annex 2.
Country Province/District Communities 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* * Sites selected in Year 2
3.4 SAMOA
In Samoa C-CAP is working closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) and coordinating community selection with the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The initial list of Year 2 communities was determined through consultations with these key government ministries and referencing the Coastal Infrastructure Management (CIM) Plans for the country. Two of the second year communities had some land tenure issues that needed to be addressed before C-CAP could approach the leadership in the communities. The C-CAP team highly appreciates the guidance provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as their accompaniment resulted in a smooth engagement process with the communities. This process required some time to properly conduct the selection of communities but was a positive investment to ensure a smooth engagement. Both ministries provided important guidance in the selection of the communities where land tenure issues are complex and required verification prior to engagement of community leaders in an effort to ensure constructive dialogue.
With more support being distributed on Upolu, closer to donor agency offices and activities, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment both suggested adding another two communities in Savai’i in addition to three new sites on Upolu.
Country Province/District Communities 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’ilua* Palauli West District 7. Taga* Upolu Island Sagaga Le Usoga District 8. Afega* Vaimaugua District 9. Lauli’i* Vaa o Donoti District 10. Taelefaga* * Sites selected in Year 2
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 5 3.5 VANUATU
Given the slower than expected start-up for C-CAP due predominantly to the long registration processes in both PNG and Fiji, the technical staff decided to fast-track the Vanuatu site selection process for the Year 1 sites. Initial discussions with the Vanuatu National Advisory Board (NAB) resulted in identifying two sites in the Shefa province with the understanding that three more sites would be clustered nearby, in turn adding efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure support. The five initial sites are listed 1-5 in the table below. The identification process was thorough and C-CAP staff worked closely with NAB staff in developing a comprehensive site selection guide for future NAB use. A copy of the draft guide can be found in Annex 8.
Subsequent discussions resulted in identifying Tanna Island in Tafea province as having serious drought problems during low rainfall periods. With climate change forecasts showing longer dry seasons, the NAB prioritized five (5) communities on the island of Tanna. They can be seen in the list below.
Country Province/District Communities Pele Island 1. Pele island community* (comprising the villages of Woreauru, Piliura, Worasiviu, and Laonamoa) Moso Island Shefa Province 2. Tassiriki* Emao Island 3. Wiana* Vanuatu Nguna Island (10) 4. Nekapa* 5. Unakapu* Tanna Island 6. Loanialu* 7. Launapikruan* Tafea Province 8. Lamanaura* 9. Lonamilo* 10. Iru* * Sites selected in Year 2
3.6 KIRIBATI
An initial visit in October of 2013 with Office of the President (OB) and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development (MELAD) resulted in the selection of five (5) sites in two districts. The OB preferred that C-CAP provide assistance in coordination with the Whole of Island approach in Abaiang. Three communities were identified on Abaiang in close collaboration with GIZ and SPC also working on climate change issues in Kiribati and participation in the Abaiang “Whole-of-Island” approach promoted by the OB. MELAD will remain the technical focal point for all of C-CAP’s activities in Kiribati and identified another two communities in North Tarawa which are in need of climate adaptation assistance.
Country Province/District Communities Tarawa Island District 1. Buariki* (North Tarawa) 2. Noto* Kiribati 3. Borotaim* (5) North Gilbert Islands District 4. Evena* (Abaiang) 5. Taniau* * Sites selected in Year 2
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 6 3 .7 TUVALU
The C-CAP team first met with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism, Environment and Labour (MFATTEL) in November of 2013. During the meeting the government expressed an interest in having C- CAP assist all 9 of Tuvalu’s island communities as they are all low lying and have the same climate change vulnerabilities to sea level rise and increased incidence of drought. There is a large difference in the populations from one island to another with the majority of Tuvaluans living on Funafuti. After analysis and consultation with Government of Tuvalu officials, an initial set of 6 communities were identified on the three most populated islands of Funafuti, Nukufetao and Vaitupu.
Owing to the access challenges, associated costs of delivery of climate change infrastructure and capacity building, Tuvalu presents an option to consolidate C-CAP focus and available budgetary resources on fewer sites. As needed, C-CAP will coordinate and request approvals from USAID for any contractual issues related to adjusting the number of sites.
Country Province/District Communities 1. Kavatoetoe* Funafuti Atoll 2. Funafuti Community* Tuvalu 3. Nukufetao 1* Nukufetao Atoll (6) 4. Nukufetao 2* 5. Vaitupu 1* Vaitupu Atoll 6. Vaitupu 2* * Sites selected in Year 2
3.8 SOLOMON ISLANDS
The Ministry for Environment is the focal point for programs implementing climate change and adaptation assistance. The C-CAP team met with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) and staff. Ministry staff explained that the province of Malaita was underserved in adaptation assistance and would benefit from C-CAP’s program. It is also the most populated province in the Solomon Islands and is being impacted by increasing population density. Moreover, and given the focus of other donors (including USAID programs with SPC, GIZ and SPREP) on Choiseul Island, the Ministry encouraged C-CAP to direct initial technical focus on communities on Malaita Island. The decision to focus C-CAP interventions on Malaita Island has been supported and promoted by the incoming MECDM Permanent Secretary who took the position as of September 2014
Country Province/District Communities 1. South Dala* 2. Lilisiana* Solomon Islands Malaita Province 3. New Kaloka* (5) (Malaita Island) 4. Kwai/Kaloka* 5. North Dala* * Sites selected in Year 2
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 7 3.9 NAURU
During a meeting held with the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment (CIE) and his staff, it was made clear that water shortages are the primary concern for government in Nauru. The Ministry requested that C-CAP address the issue of water storage at the central level to ensure enough water is available to the communities in the country. With a population of approximately 10,000 C-CAP will be well placed to address most of the community members’ needs by working with 10 of the coastal communities in the country. Communities were selected in coordination with the Nauru Commerce Industry and Environment (CIE) Division with consideration of CIE’s priority communities for environmental and structural support. Water storage capacity will be the main issue to address in these communities as highlighted by the Ministry staff in the introductory meetings.
Country Province/District Communities Yaren District 1. Yaren* Boe District 2. Boe* Denigomodu District 3. Denigomodu* Denigomodu District 4. Location Suburb* Nauru Aiwo District 5. Aiwo* (10) Baitsi District 6. Baitsi* Anabar District 7. Anabar* Anetan District 8. Anetan* Ewa District 9. Ewa* Nibok Dsitrict 10. Nibok* * Sites selected in Year 2
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 8
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Meetings held in New Ireland, PNG, 24-25 February 2014
Annex 2 Meetings held in Tonga, 20-27 January 2014
Annex 3 Meetings held in Samoa stakeholders, 10 October 2013
Annex 4 Meetings held in in Kiribati, 7-11 October2013
Annex 5 Meetings held in Tuvalu, 13 – 14 November 2013
Annex 6 Meetings held in the Solomon Islands, 3-10 February 2014 Annex 7 Meetings held in Nauru, 2-5 December 2013
Annex 8 VANUATU NAB Draft Site Selection Process Guideline
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT 9
Annex 1
Meetings held in New Ireland, 24-25 February 2014
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes 24/02/ 2014 Meeting with Red Introduce C-CAP Cross, Kavieng Coordinate with Provincial Disaster Management office for disaster response Encouraged work at the community level Community organizations currently have no functions or capacity Ward has no resources to build community capacity but anxious to do so) Focus on PWD Next steps Follow up with C-CAP technical team in MAR2014 24FEB2014 Meeting with New Organization of CC Office Ireland CC office established 3 years ago Coordinator (vacant for 2 years) Environment and providing ad hoc support (is Climate Change interested in the position – has Office applied for the Coordinator position) 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 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
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 12
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;
Disaster Office; Disaster Coordinator Division of Primary Industries;
CEO of Economic Sector;
Division of Fisheries; 24FEB2014 Meeting with WC has 2 boats – working at Ungakum Island – willingness to WCS arrange for access / cost share to boat use 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 24FEB2014 Meeting with NI Introduction on C-CAP Provincial Recent weather event –damage and high winds in Panemecko and Administrator 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 24FEB2014 Meeting with CEO Introduction of C-CAP Economic Sector On a a 6-month contrast – or sure if his contract will be extended (3 mos) Fisheries sector is suffering v fro
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 13
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.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 14
Annex 2
Meetings held with Tonga Stakeholders 20-27 January 2014
Date Meeting / Event Partcipants Purpose / Outcomes 20/1/2014 Ministry of Internal Affairs coordinates community-based Internal Affairs, activities throughout the Kingdom. Official Tonga point of contact for community affairs. 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. This could be done in person or via email by the Country Mobilizer. C-CAP should also add and other contacts from Internal Affairs to C-CAP’s email distribution list. Ministry of Provided update on C-CAP activities in Ahau, Environment…. 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 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
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 15
to support reforestation to contribute to the JICA project. o Utulei is a priority community for GTZ – though they 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 Country Mobilizer. C-CAP should also add Luisa to C-CAP’s email distribution list. Act for Peace / Tonga After properly acquitting/managing funding for three years, they will receive USG accreditation and will be eligible for more significant grants/contracts. They just finished Year 1 and have submitted their proposal for Year 2. They 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, they 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) they are 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. Their 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 Advised that the Government has not yet
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 16
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 these plans should be used as a starting point for all Component 2 / disaster preparedness activities. Nukuleka Reported that he is happy with C-CAP Community progress. Looking forward to scoping and tender for construction. 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 Macallan scoping and tender for construction.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 17
21/1/2014 ‘Utulei C-CAP Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Community and Infrastructure Mapping activities. Committee 22/1/2014 Hunga C-CAP Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Community and Infrastructure Mapping activities Committee 23/1/2014 Tefisi C-CAP Completed Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Community and Infrastructure Mapping activities. Committee 24/1/2014 Ministry of Presented background on USAID C-CAP, Environment – collaboration with the Ministry of Environment Vava’u Office and N-PAC; advised on C-CAP activities in Ahau, Nukuleka, Popua, Sopu and Tatakamotonga; and discussed Year 2 site selection and Risk Mapping in Hunga, Tefisi and Utulei in Vava’u. Provided ‘scoping’ exercise overview for Kameli, Makave and Okoa. agreed to accompany C-CAP on the scoping exercise and expressed interest in participating in all future C-CAP activities in communities (i.e., risk mapping, IPIs, etc.). Advised C-CAP to coordinate with Act for Peace (AFP) on DRR activities in Hunga because AFP 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 should 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
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 18
excellent opportunity for collaboration. was an excellent facilitator in the Site Selection Scoping activities and has demonstrated strong interest in C-CAP. should include in all communications 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 Country Mobilizer. C-CAP should also add to C- CAP’s email distribution list. Halalele (sub- Upon arrival, informed that the meeting was section of Kameli) with Halalele, rather than the more Water Committee comprehensive Kameli community. Presented background on USAID C-CAP, and 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. Makave Town 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. 25/1/2014 Okoa Town 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. 27/1/2014 Ministry of Provided update on Scoping exercise in Environment…. Halalele, Makave and Okoa. concurred with our assessment that Makave and Okoa are most closely aligned with C-CAP’s site selection criteria. Analysis / Next Steps: remains an enthusiastic supporter.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 19
As she approved participation in future C-CAP activities in communities. also expressed interest in participating in future C-CAP activities. to make these arrangements for all future C-CAP activities.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 20
Annex 3 Meetings held with Samoan stakeholders, 10 October 2013
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes 30/10/13 Meeting with Updated Embassy on progress of American Embassy C-CAP and scope of works for this visit Samoa Embassy interested in having some projects ready for visitor visits in 2014 30/10/13 Meeting with Provided an update of C-CAP and Government and plans for Manase NZAID have provided some Regional Agencies funding for coastal rehabilitation to discuss plans for to Samoa Tourism Authority Manase project following cyclone Evan (2013) SPREP have produced a report on the area with an emphasis on Stevenson’s Resort
supported the idea of a unified collaborative approach and identified the need for PUMA approval for any works
30/10/13 Meeting with USP Updated ICC on progress of C- ICC CAP Discussed Year 2 selection
30/10/13 Meeting with Red provided an update on Red Cross Disaster Cross DRR/DRM projects Discussed selection of Year 2 Management communities Program Red Cross provided a list of all communities covered by Red Cross and ADRA for DRR in Samoa
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 21
Annex 4
Meetings held C-CAP in Kiribati, 7-11 October2013
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes 07/10/13 Meeting with FSPK Working on climate change for children program funded under a partnership with PLAN international Helps disseminate seeds for the Taiwan technical mission in a home gardening program Provides training on composting toilets and growing yams and bananas Working in S. Tarawa, Beru, Betio Meets with KNEG once a month 07/10/13 Meeting with Taiwan Explained the serious food Technical Misison security issues in Kiribati including the lack of diversified diet. Taiwan mission to help provide alternative horticulture crops. 08/10/13 Meeting with Kiribati C-CAP team was informed that Red Cross the Red Cross has been mandated by legislation to take the disaster management lead in Kiribati. C-CAP explained that in partnership the two projects can work together to promote disaster risk reduction Outcomes: Commitment to work together on disaster risk reduction issues. Water shortages being of serious concern in Kiribati outer islands. 08/10/13 Meeting with The Secretary was very helpful in MELAD providing the guidelines for the way forward in working with the government of Kiribati and that a cabinet paper should be submitted to the Office of the President to be presented to the cabinet to start work. MELAD Ministry of Environment- Lands and Agricultural Development expressed an interest in working with C-CAP in N. Tarawa 09/10/13 Meeting with USP Coordination meeting to discuss upcoming recruitment of Country Mobilizer. Office space will be hard to find. It was suggested to
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 22
ask MELAD to house CM 09/10/13 Meeting with the C-CAP was informed of the Office of the “Whole of Island “ Approach and asked to work on Abaiang in President collaboration with other donor such as SPC and GIZ. The advisors outlined the need to present a cabinet paper to introduce C-CAP to the government prior to commencing work 10/10/13 Meeting with Kiribati Meeting to introduce C-CAP and Institute of ask about potential CM candidates. Technology Verify if there were any technologies that students were researching that would be interesting for C-CAP climate adaptation work in the communities like water desalination technology. 11/10/13 Meeting with Director of Agricultural A brief meeting with the Ministry Ministry of Development to understand some of the food security issues in Kiribati. Agriculture Diversification of production is a serious issue and lack of sources of nutrients are at the base of NCDs. Breadfruit, bananas and pandanus are being propagated to help increase the source of vitamins. Copra is heavily subsidized to help outer island communities. Water and land shortages are big issues for production
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 23
Annex 5 Meetings held with Tuvaluan stakeholders, 13 – 14 November 2013
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcome 13/11/2013 Meeting with the Expressed an interest in having C-CAP plan Permanent for assistance to all 9 of Tuvalu's islands. Once we explained C-CAP selection criteria, Secretary of the he was more open to a C-CAP presence on Ministry of islands with larger populations but Foreign Affairs, emphasized that a strong justification as to Trade, Tourism, why one island and not another will be Environemnt important in order to defend the decisions in front the Island Councils and central and Labour government. He mentioned several times the need for better communications across Tuvalu, internet access, in particular. The connection is very bad even in the main government building handicapping their ability to get cyclone and tsunami updates. (This could something C-CAP could explore assisting with along with improved telephone/SMS communication capacity) He provided copies of the 2012-2016 Tuvalu Strategic Action Plan For Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management and the 2012 Tuvalu Climate Change Policy Outcomes: Reached an agreement that where feasible, C-CAP would look to provide support to some of the outer islands given the attention that Funafuti has received from other donors.
13/11/2013 Meeting with Funafuti depends on desalination plant run Ministry of with solar panels. This is critical for dry season as Tuvalu has experienced several Energy and major droughts Public Works EU & AusAid have provided water tanks with goal of one tank per household for all of Tuvalu. This will meet regular needs but one tank is not sufficient for drier than the norm periods and a second tank per household would better meet these drier periods. Public Works Department is at their maximum capacity with work they are doing on a large cement cistern on the southern end of the island. Informed us of Gov. Agriculture center and large high school on Vaitupu with the second largest population center in Tuvalu. Explained that the ferry is the only means of public transport between Tuvalu's 9 islands and that the schedules are not fixed. The
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 24
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcome frequency of ferry transport is anywhere from 2-4 weeks per island.
Told us there were available contractors in Tuvalu for small scale works Outcomes: It is important to note that the capacity of local construction services providers is low and they are already working on multiple projects. This needs consideration in identifying infrastructure with C-CAP communities.
13/11/2013 Funded with GEF money with three thematic areas in different islands - Water, Coastal protection (mostly Funafuti) and Food Security
was not there but
Copy of Tuvalu NAPA Outcome: Agreed to work closely especially on the Funafuti site on water and coastal protection measures.
13/11/2013 Home Affairs and The administrative structure of outer islands Rural is centered with an Island Council with a body of elders. They have access to some funding Development - and must submit proposals to central Met the Minister government to access them. in passing Each island had a health center and nurses There is a Gov. guest house on each island. Some of the buildings date back to colonial era and are in dire need of rehabilitation Average Tuvaluan household is 10 people There was some expectation that C-CAP reach out of Funafuti but the Director seemed open to a strategy where C-CAP would concentrate on the larger population centers like Vaitupu and Nukufetao Outcome: C-CAP assured the Director that the Island Councils will be involved in all the C-CAP activities and that C-CAP aims to reinforce local government in their capacity to assess climate change issues.
13/11/2013 Informed us of serious lack of space on campus for CM Was open to CM coming on board and would make sure the job opening was distributed widely
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 25
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcome Mentioned an expansion program to get to Vaitupu and improve communications between islands They have a small multimedia center that could be used for communication with Fiji They are planning an expansion including a multifunction building which will also serve as a disaster shelter in the event of cylcones. They have 300 students now and want to expand to 400 Outcome: It is clear that USP does not have office space available for the C-CAP CM and therefore other arrangements must be made. Internet will not be a problem as the CM will be able to access the system there.
14/11/2013 Very open to C-CAP arrival and is interested, like others to get assistance out from Funafuti but was open to an approach justified by
looking at the larger population concentrations like Vaitupu and Nukufetao with the possibility of including a community on Funafuti for Year 1. Provided more detail on the use of fisheries and police boats for chartering so as to avoid being stuck on one of the outer islands for as long as 4 weeks at a time.
Pepetua said this is really the only option for higher level government officials who cannot be away from their official duties in Funafuti for more than one week at a time especially with communications being so difficult in the outer islands. The ferry is large and has cargo space for equipment and materials. Pepetua asked whether the government or USP would be our implementing partners on the ground. We explained that as we work with communities in developing and implementing adaptation tools that we would like to work closely with government and island councils so as to reinforce the linkages between communities and their local and national government actors. With this, she mentioned that we should develop some kind of working agreement or MOU where government can specify what kind of support it can provide and C-CAP can articulate the justification for the choice of Year 1
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 26
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcome communities so as to avoid any confusion as they will have to present this to stakeholders in government. We explained that we would need to bounce this off of our boss and with USAID as we are not in a place to enter into an agreement with government and she said she would have to check with her higher ups on how to go about it as well. Outcome: A memorandum of understanding between C-CAP and the Ministry could be beneficial in outlining each party’s responsibilities and defining resources that each will bring to the C-CAP activities in the communities.
Coordinator Umbrella organization for 15 NGOs in Tuvalu. Tuvalu Currently implementing a water, sanitation Association of and waste project funded by the EU - in this project they are suggesting 2 water tanks per NGOs (TANGO) household given the water issues in Tuvalu. Annie Homasi Pilot project for composting toilets - current demonstration site is on Funafuti. Implementing AusAID funded 4 CA project (Child Centred Climate Change Adaptation Project) with FSPI and Plan International on Vaitupu and Funafuti. The project is linked to the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) so the voice of the children is included in disaster management plans and policies. Currently involved in building an evacuation center at Lonfagai, Funafuti - they mentioned that there are no standard plans available for evacuation centers in Tuvalu Outcome: Continued contact with Tuvalu’s TANGO will help C-CAP provide targeted assistance without duplicating what has already been done. A considerable amount of work in DRR has been done on Funafuti and working with those organizations who have implemented the activities is critical for C-CAP DRR component.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 27
Annex 6 Meetings held with takeholder in the Solomon Islands, 3-10 February, 2014
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes 3/2/2014 Ministry of C-CAP team informed MECDM of field Environment visit objectives as well as some thoughts on the Year 2 sites. MECDM informed the C-CAP team that the Member of Parliament of Lilisiana is very active in terms of addressing Climate Change issues in his community. He has been expressing his interest on the relocation of the Lilisana community to an inner land area. The primary climate change issue there is sea level rise and in particular the impact of the regular king tide events. mentioned that it would be worthwhile for the C-CAP team to meet with who is a
full time community worker in Lilisiana. He has been doing a number of community consultations on the community relocation (sea-level rise related) and other community development issues. MECDM team also recommended that the C-CAP Year 2 sites should be
either in Choiseul or Malaita. o suggested that C-CAP consider selecting Year 2 sites in Malaita as well. o MECDM will need to do further assessment and will indicate their preference before June this year at the latest. MECDM also suggested that they can have one of their officers to accompany the C-CAP team to Malaita (either Malakai or Tadius) The post-field visit meeting was proposed for the 10 February at 1:30pm. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to prepare and deliver report to the Ministry upon return from Malaita. C-CAP to follow up with Ministry regarding Year 2 site selection. 3/2/2014 Consular Agency of C-CAP team informed of 3:15pm the United States, the purpose of our visit and field Honiara, Solomon assessments in three communities in
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 28
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes Islands Malaita. She was very happy that C-CAP team was able to meet with her. She totally supported C-CAP’s decision to work in Malaita because she has mentioned several it times to her colleagues in the US office as well as some of the other foreign delegates based in Honiara the need to focus assistance to communities in Malaita. She was glad to learn that we are applying a community participatory approach because she was all for the capacity empowerment of these communities so that they can be more cohesive and ultimately be self- reliant. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to continue to meet with on each trip to the Solomons. C-CAP to share reports with upon receipt of approval from USAID. C-CAP to add to the C- CAP Communications distribution list.
4/2/2014 Malaita/ Lilisiana The main purpose of meeting community worker is seek his thoughts and and leader experience in working on environmental, climate change impacts and development issues with communities n Malaita has been working with Lilisiana community members based in Honiara in looking at ways to help community members who are currently being affected to the impacts of king tides (sea-level rise). He stated a number of issues facing communities in Malaita such as the deterioration of school infrastructure (wall timber etc) (which increases risk from cyclones) and some of these school buildings as well as other communal buildings were poorly designed. In terms of environmental degradation there has been massive logging of mangrove forest for firewood, which exacerbates the impacts of sea level rise. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to share reports/deliverables with —particularly as they relate to Lilisiana—upon receipt of
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 29
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes approval from USAID.
5/2/2014 Meeting with the The C-CAP team was well received by Malaita Provincial the Premier and his team. C-CAP team Office explained the purpose of their visit in Malaita. One the key issues in Malaita in terms of climate change impacts are the Atoll islands in the province. According to the Premier, little had been done to help these Atoll communities. Thus, the Premier stated that the C-CAP project is very important for the province. The Premier advised that they are advancing the issue of relocation of coastal and atoll communities who are facing severe impacts of sea level rise and inundation. o The Government has already identified land in the interior for community resettlement. o No official work with communities to raise and address this issue has taken place, however. o None is planned for the near term. The Premier and his team requested a Memorandum of Agreement/Understanding between C- CAP and his office. This is an important component of collaboration to ensure transparency, clarity in terms of roles and ensure that there is continuity and sustainability after the life of the C-CAP activities in these communities. o Within that MOU, the Premier suggested that C-CAP include their interest in assigning a Provincial Officer to the C-CAP team for participation in community-based activities. o Premier advised that the Provincial Gov’t has strong environmental, sanitation anad water supply experts on staff. The Malaita Provincial Office was to send a MOA/U template to C-CAP. The Premier also notified the C-CAP team of an initiative by some of the Malaitians who are residing in Honiara and abroad of a Climate Change EU proposal that they working that will cover the entire Malaita Island and
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 30
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes province. This initiative is headed by
Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP to share all reports and data with the Ministry upon receipt of USAID approval. C-CAP to follow up with Provincial Office to gather MOU template and draft MOU that delineates roles/ responsibilities, including plan to engage a Ministry Official in all community activities. C-CAP to consider Malaita Atolls for Year 2 site selection. 10/2/2014 Ministry of C-CAP team informed of the Environment key outcomes of the C-CAP risk assessments in Lilisiana, South Dala and New Kaloka. He was grateful of the summary we provided to him since his team has not been in most of these communities. He reiterated that he would like Year 2 sites to be all in Malaita. This will definitely be confirmed before the next C-CAP team visits the Solomon Islands. Analysis / Next Steps: C-CAP team to continue to meet with Ministry on each trip to the Solomons. C-CAP to share reports with Ministry upon receipt of approval from USAID. C-CAP to add to the C-CAP Communications distribution list.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 31
Annex 7 Meetings held – C-CAP in Nauru, 2-5 December 2013
Date Meeting / Event Participants Purpose / Outcomes 02/12/13 Discussed recruitment of CM and where the person will work from (USP or CIE) Director talked about climate change issues for Nauru - the reef has recovered (but this may be due to less mine pollution) and changes in the winds with more westerlies and droughts The Met office is providing information to ensure communities prepare for droughts EU-USP GCCA project to look at rainwater catchment in Meneng District 02/12/13 Secretary stated water the main issue for Nauru and C-CAP should look at the country as a whole and support a
national level project - this included potentially supporting more water storage capacity Water and sanitation master plan currently being completed with assistance of SPC GCCA consultant Stated communities have already had alot of work done on adaptation and risks and vulnerabilities Most infrastructure needs to be upgraded in Nauru
02/12/13 PACC supporting brackish water shallow wells for sanitation purposes Supporting piloting of solar
condensation units - current units only provide 10-15 liters of water a day with 4 solar panels for each house Mentioned a preference for ferro- cement tanks in Nauru as polyethylene tanks buckle in direct sun light 02/12/13 Highlighted water as a major issue for the island NUC produces 800,000 liter/day
capacity from new reverse osmosis plant - old plant produced 120,000 liters/day - this is stored in 6 C tanks
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 32
Corporation Water is then piped to 4 million liter storage tank (B tank) and then trucked to communities - the current storage facility never gets filled because of demand and although NUC has 6 water tankers only 3 are currently working limiting the capacity of NUC to transport water to communities The only piped system is around Aiwo - built by British Phosphate in 60s with asbestos piping - now in disrepair Around 15% of households on the island do not have their own water tanks (240 households) Water is treated in the tankers prior to delivery to household tanks Stated this would be expensive water for use in sanitation so brackish water being used for toilets - community solar power pumps and storage tanks installed in most communities with assistance from Japan for this purpose Solar condensation units being piloted but currently only produce small amounts of water - potential to produce 210 liters/day for drinking - PREP to fund 196 units across the 14 districts. 04/12/13 UN currently funding two climate change related programs in Nauru - sustainable land management and communication on green house gas mitigation - both through CIE Currently designing Pacific wide ridge to reef project - 4 year project funded by GEF Mentioned weakness of CSOs in Nauru and the umbrella organisation, NiANGO currently not functioning very well 04/12/13 Provided overview of Australian assistance to Nauru - including programs in health and education, private sector support, public sector management and infrastructure support
- still working on specifications and household lists Providing funding for the Energy Roadmap through SPC Will be funding implementation plan for water and sanitation policy when it is completed early next year Will be funding piped water system at
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 33
the hospital Mentioned that an EU project is planned to upgrade electricity transmission with ADB technical assistance 04/12/13 Members include the community based organisation for each district (14), and groups representing agriculture, cultural, arts and crafts and people with disabilities. No formal registration process in Nauru but must register with Ministry of Justice As there is no bank on the island it is difficult for CBOs/NGOs to have a bank account. 05/12/13 The planning unit in the department is responsible to monitor the progress against development targets as set out in the 2009 National Sustainable Development Strategy The Nauru Community Based Organization is an important stakeholder in engaging with community level groups. Other donors include AusAid, ADB, JICA, EU, NZAid
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 34
Annex 8
VANUATU NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
DRAFT: SITE SELECTION PROCESS GUIDELINE
Contents Site Selection Philosophy ...... 2 Rational for a NAB Site Selection Guide...... 2
Steps for Site Selection ...... 3 1. Establish a Site Selection Team and TORs...... 4 2. Develop a Site Selection/Evaluation Plan ...... 4
3. Determine and Finalize Site Selection Criteria...... 5 4. Evaluate Potential Sites...... 5 5. Short List, Visit and Document Priority Sites ...... 6
6. Recommend Sites to NAB for Endorsement ...... 6 FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE ...... 7
Appendix: NAB Recommended CC & DRR Site Selection Criteria...... 7
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 35
Site Selection Philosophy
Site selection often has a long‐lasting impact on the community, island and province wherein climate change and disaster risk reduction projects are located. The process, issues, and criteria that support this decision are of great importance, not only to the national government, but also to surrounding local communities, the environment, and future generations.
Location of climate and disaster risk reduction projects and interventions involves both the general area and the specific site. It dictates almost everything that follows during the course of project implementation, from transportation access and environmental impact; to the government’s involvement with local initiatives and economies; to the placement, form, and cost of the activity. Selecting the best site will have a major impact on both the providing agencies and the beneficiary communities in terms of convenience, access, and the quality of the services provided. It also has an impact on the project’s initial and life cycle costs and on the community’s economy, sense of place, and social fabric.
Getting site selection right will ensure that CC & DRR projects have an enduring positive impact on the community at large and on the surrounding areas. Selected well, many individuals and groups at the site could benefit from the location and development of a climate and disaster risk project. Investment by government and development partners in each project can enhance local efforts for economic, environmental and social development, or it may draw attention and resources away from local projects.
Selecting sites that create and build on relationships and partners (national, provincial, private, civil society or community) can bring additional intellectual resources to a project and involve additional stakeholders in the process. Local partnerships also may attract additional funding and financial resources to the project. Alternatively it is important to remain conscious that some sites in Vanuatu get little or no external support for climate change and disaster risk, and that an important consideration of site selection is fair distribution of resources.
Understanding the local point of view is important in assessing the opportunity for and impact of site selection and project development. Local politics and political influence are a part of every site selection process and should be addressed (and in some cases mitigated against) from the beginning.
Rational for a NAB Site Selection Guide
The NAB has developed this Guide, which should inform the appropriate site selection process for each individual project. This Guide offers NAB partners a framework for addressing important actions and performing evaluations in the selection of sites for climate change and disaster risk reduction projects, interventions and activities. NAB recognizes that every site selection is unique, each development partners is constrained by its own processes and procedures, and that long‐engaged technical collaborators ultimately determine the best process for their project. Equally important is that that project designers and decision‐makers are able to efficiently, effectively and fairly measure the needs of a new project against the merits of potential locations. A guiding framework is required to take emotion out of the site selection process and to identify those locations that best meet project criteria. Ultimately, a well‐planned, well‐documented site‐selection process saves time and money by reducing delays associated with legal/procedural challenges while identifying the site that best meets the needs of the project.
The processes discussed in this Guide represent model and rationalized procedures and good practices may be applied to projects being considered for NAB endorsement. Although the guidance contained in this Guide is not mandatory, it describes several steps that are critical to ensure compliance with existing NAB regulations.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 36
By following the steps and suggestions in this guide, project planners and decision‐makers can: Ensure that the selected site is viable for the intended climate change or disaster risk reduction activity or intervention Reduce the risk of unanticipated difficulties and their impact in terms of schedule and expense; Manage expectations among participants and increase understanding of the site selection process; Encourage innovation and creativity in the site selection process while incorporating existing precedents and national best practices. Ensure fairness and transparency in the allocation of climate and disaster risk resources
Steps for Site Selection
The NAB Site Selection Guide is organized into six sequential “Steps”. Typically, the site selection process involves a series of data collection and evaluation activities that become more specific in each subsequent step of the site selection process. Each step allows a more refined assessment of the suitability of sites in meeting both general and specific selection criteria. The evaluation steps are intended to move in a methodical manner, and remove potential sources of bias that may negatively affect eventual implementation.
Establish a Site Selection Team and TORs Develop a Site Selection/Evaluation Plan Determine and Finalize Site Selection Criteria Evaluate Potential Sites Short List, Visit and Document Priority Sites Recommend Sites to NAB for Endorsement
STEP Person Responsible Recommended NAB Engagement
1. Establish a Site Selection Project Manager / Seek advice from PMU on team composition Team Leader and TOR Team and TORs 2. Develop a Site Site Selection Team Seek advice from PMU on content and timing of plan Selection/Evaluation Plan 3. Determine and Finalize Site Site Selection Team Seek advice from PMU on criteria selected and justification for each Selection Criteria 4. Evaluate Potential Sites Site Selection Team Seek advice from PMU on available sources of information and resource people 5. Short List, Visit and Document Site Selection Team Seek advice from PMU on planned island visits and potential visit collaborators Priority Sites Site Selection Team Be available during NAB briefing to answer 6. Recommend Sites to NAB for specific questions and justify site selection Endorsement
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 37
1. Establish a Site Selection Team and TORs
A site selection team leader will assemble the site‐selection team members and develop team member Terms of Reference (TORs). For all projects it is prudent for project managers to seek NAB advice and recommendations on the makeup of the site selection team. However, for large or nationally important projects, the NAB will make an official approval of the composition and TORs of the team.
The key to successful site selection is to involve appropriate experts throughout the selection process, and minimizing the number of people needed for the team while maximizing involvement of the proper personnel. Team size and composition should reflect the size and complexity of the site‐selection task. To facilitate decision making, the team should have as part of its TORs a procedure that outlines decision making processes (e.g. consensus or majority) throughout the site‐selection process.
NAB will require written justification on the composition and processes of the site selection team, and will be looking to verify that the team:
1) Is made up of individuals multiple sectors of relevance to the project/intervention
2) Includes both government and non‐government members 3) Has a technical understanding of programmatic issues involved and experience in similar projects and
programs 4) Has put in place and followed clear decision‐making processes
5) Explicitly declares any and all vested interests (or conflicts of interest) in sites under consideration
The site selection team will be responsible for the entire site selection process through to submission of recommended sites to NAB for endorsement.
Regardless of project size, the site‐selection process must have coordinated actions, milestones, and schedules with the involvement of the NAB Secretariat/PMU. NAB PMU staff and the site‐selection team leader should meet throughout the site‐selection process to clarify the scope of their respective responsibilities, determine the most effective way to conduct the processes, and coordinate procedures and schedules.
2. Develop a Site Selection/Evaluation Plan
The project’s site selection team is then required to develop a site selection/evaluation plan which sets out a clear and fair selection process, timeline and provides the common framework for a uniform assessment of potential sites by team members.
Depending on the size and scope of the project, the site selection/evaluation plan may include
Budgeting and logistics for the evaluation Coordination of milestones, schedules, and information with the NAB Secretariat/PMU Site‐selection and team processes tailored for the proposed action.
Development of technical, economic, social and environmental site selection criteria
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 38
Gathering of site background information Site visitation/consultation
Evaluation of sites that, at a minimum, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action
Preparation of evaluation documentation
Making site selection recommendations to the NAB
The team will typically need funds and resources to perform its task. When needed, the site selection/evaluation plan should document the assumptions on which budget estimates are based. The plan may outline site travel funds (e.g. the number of workshops participants, the number of meetings they will attend, the length of the stay, the cost of accommodations, and related travel costs) workplace costs (meeting venues, computers, copiers, cameras etc).
3. Determine and Finalize Site Selection Criteria
Site selection for climate change and disaster risk reduction projects and interventions must be made according to well‐justified site selection criteria. Because each project is different, and each development partner comes with its own site selection constraints, there is substantial flexibility in selection criteria that may be used. In all cases, selection criteria should reflect the values and sustainability of project goals identified.
In this Guide, NAB outlines several non‐negotiable criteria which must be assessed and justified during the site selection process; however there is broad scope to include additional criteria as recommended by the site selection team. Sub‐factors for each primary criteria may developed and used in evaluating and rating alternative locations.
All criteria should be categorized as either: A. Qualification Criteria ‐ the mandatory or required site characteristics. A potential site either does or does not meet
Qualification Criteria. B. Evaluation Criteria
‐ more flexible. Sites may contain a range of values, but information should always be as complete as possible.
Minimizing the number of subjective selection criteria may help to head off complaints from unselected communities or their advocates. In some cases selection criteria may be rank ordered, weighted or based on point systems to allow the selection team to rank order the alternative locations using a quantitative metric. It also prevents placing too much emphasis on any one criterion or factor for site selection. It is up to the discretion of the site selection team whether to employ weighting factors, and if used, these must be fully justified to NAB.
Selection criteria must be established by the selection team at the outset of the selection process. Although the criteria should not change during the process, the team should consider information that may affect the outcome. If, during the evaluation, the team discovers a justifiable reason for altering the criteria, they must reconsider all potential sites and seek additional information from those affected by the change. The site‐selection team should assume that new information requirements will arise during the evaluation process. For practical reasons, and to
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 39
ensure fair treatment of all participants, a procedure for consideration of new information or selection criteria should be established.
4. Evaluate Potential Sites
The key process step in the site‐selection process is to initiate an assessment of technical and project‐specific issues and criteria. It is essential that this evaluation is done comprehensively early, thus ensuring compliance with associated regulations and preventing or at least identifying site‐specific implementation problems before they occur.
The sites that are evaluated (and not evaluated) should be clearly justified based on selection criteria. Proof and documentation of the team’s consideration of potential sites may be required (in tabular of matrix form). Ample effort should be expended to ensure that eligible sites (according to the criteria) are considered and not left out.
5. Short List, Visit and Document Priority Sites
After broad evaluation of possible sites against selection criteria, a short‐list should be drawn up for more detailed scrutiny and consideration. It will likely be necessary for the selection team to invest additional time and energy into collecting supplementary information on each of the short‐listed sites (budget and time should be allocated to this activity). It is essential that contact is made and consultations are held with short‐listed sites to confirm potential interest (NAB will require documentation of the consultation process undertaken).
Site visits are critical to the evaluation process. The most important information for the team final report will come from these visits. Team members can discuss important issues with local representatives and validate the site’s interest to undertake the project. The host site must be informed and willing to accept the project, with proof thereof obtained (including acknowledgement that the site reserves the right to end its involvement with the project at any point).
o ensure that data collected on a site visit is accurate and is not lost, the team should prepare a site visit report (which may be considered by NAB). At the end of the site visit, team members should exchange information and assess their findings. The team may also meet with additional experts to exchange information or hear concerns. Names and contact information of informants should be documented.
Note: For site selection purposes a full vulnerability and capacity assessment is NOT required. However, the collection of some demographic information and a preliminary SWOT‐like analysis (S‐Strengths, W‐Weaknesses, O‐ Opportunities, T‐Threats) may be useful. The NAB Secretariat/PMU may be able to indicate good sources of information for selection teams seeking site‐specific background information.
Throughout the team should ensure the integrity of their evaluation, avoiding at all costs unfair, corrupt or biased site selection.
6. Recommend Sites to NAB for Endorsement
fficial endorsement of the site that best meets the purposes and needs of the proposed action will be made during a meeting of the NAB. Expedited decision‐making will depend heavily on the project’s ability to clearly document and provide information to the NAB on site‐selection criteria and evaluation procedures.
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 40
In general, the NAB will not participate in the evaluation of potential sites, but reviews the selection team’s recommendations and selects the appropriate site. NAB may also consider programmatic and technical issues of the proposed project (included in the NAB profile form and in the Site Selection Documentation).
The team final report, prepared for briefing the NAB, should summarize the site‐selection process, including all team recommendations, decision criteria, and related findings. Other documentation prepared during the process, such as the site parameters document and site visit reports, should be included. If possible, all team members should attend the briefing to ensure that NAB questions are answered adequately.
After the briefing, the NAB may request additional information regarding some or all viable sites to readdress items where circumstances may have changed or additional information made available. By hearing the concerns and perspectives of the NAB, the team will be better prepared to undertake any additional work that NAB may require. To better make its decision, the NAB may request that data be presented in formats other than those used during the evaluation of sites by the team.
NAB will endorse (or not) the site after considering the recommendations and findings of the site‐selection team. NAB is to use prudent judgment in making the selection. The selection criteria that the selection team and NAB has used for selection will be made public via the NAB portal.
FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE
This Guide and Frequently Asked Questions are available on the portal of the National Advisory Board http://www.nab.vu.
The NAB Secretariat/PMU is responsible for developing and maintaining this Guide. For assistance please send a message by electronic mail to or call
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 41
Appendix: NAB Recommended CC & DRR Site Selection Criteria
Evaluation of criteria should, wherever possible, be based on non‐subjective data. At present, the Government of Vanuatu does not yet have a nation‐wide vulnerability assessment which clearly identifies priority sites for development support. However, there is valuable data available which should, whenever possible, be used to support the evaluation process. NOTE: All evaluations will be scrutinized by NAB, with special focus on reducing unfounded, biased or subjective evaluations.
NAB Required Qualification Criteria (requiring justification)
1) Demonstrable site need in terms of their climate change and disaster risk vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities – Specifically considering growing extremes in climate change impact communities and what adaptation/mitigation/risk reduction measures adopted to address these issues.
2) Demonstrable site links to National, Provincial and Sectoral development policies, strategies, plans or initiatives
3) Demonstrable community interest and motivation to engage in proposed CC & DRR project/intervention 4) Demonstrable Provincial Government interest and motivation to engage in proposed CC & DRR
project/intervention 5) Demonstrable National Government interest and motivation to engage in proposed CC & DRR project/intervention.
6) Demonstrably positive cost‐benefit ratio specifically considering the provision of assistance versus the benefits to the site
Addition Selection Criteria (to be considered by, reviewed and incorporated by the Site Selection/Evaluation Team with guidance from NAB Secretariat/PMU). Note the inclusion (or preclusion) of the selection criteria below must be fully justified in the final site selection recommendation to NAB.
1. Ability to articulate development needs and priorities (e.g. risk mapping, action planning, land use planning, adaptation/disaster risk reduction strategies, community management plans, by‐laws etc) which incorporate climate change prediction trends) 2. Number of people/population to be affected/impacted/supported by the intervention
3. Exposure to climate or disaster risk hazards 4. Sensitivity to climate or disaster risk hazards
5. Adaptive capacity (past, current or future potential) 6. Partner relationships (past, current or future potential) including with surrounding sites
7. State of environment and exploitation of natural resources 8. Access to resources, services, technical expertise and information
9. Historical experience in coping with climate or disaster risk hazards and events 10. Community organization, governance and stability
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 42
11. Feasibility of the project to adequately address the identified level of vulnerability within the funding
capacity of the project; 12. Severity of past climate and disaster impacts
13. Historical experience in hosting/implementing relevant projects 14. Physical access by external service providers or implementers
15. Suitability to serve as a demonstration for up calling and replicability 16. Prevalence of common development risks (health, cultural, education etc)
17. Environmental, social and cultural importance and sensitivities
18. Project‐specific technical factors (e.g. geology, transportation infrastructure, utilities, environmental or climate conditions, seismicity, specific resources, etc)
19. Economic (Cost) Factors (e.g. proposed cost estimate, risks, feasibility, direct and indirect return on investment, efficiency, and reasonableness)
20. Impact on Community and/or specific demographics (youth, women, elderly) 21. The current and planned future land use
22. Historical, cultural or archaeological importance
DELIVERABLE 1.1.A.2 IDENTIFY THREE PRIORITY C-CAP DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTRY OF OPERATIONS & 1.1.B.2 RANK FIVE PRIORITY COMMUNITIES IN EACH SELECTED DISTRICT FOR USAID APPROVAL 43