NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report WESTERN PACIFIC NARI EU-ARD PROJECT RAPID ASSESSMENT REPORT ON NOMINATED PROJECT SITES FOR VANUATU

COMPILED BY PETER IESUL, ONIEL DALESA AND RUBEN MARKWARD

SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2011, PORT VILA

1. Introduction

This project is funded by the European Union and implemented by the PNG National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL), Solomon Islands, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Vanuatu and the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU) in Vienna, Austria, in PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

The rapid assessments were conducted on 12 sites. These sites were selected initially based on field observations of potential risks associated with climate change. A survey questionnaire was designed to validate these observations. Two teams of surveyors was deployed to interview households and to determine the impact of climate change experienced by these twelve communities for wet, dry and saline conditions. One of the teams conducted interviews in the north and the other in the southern part of the country. The two team leaders, Peter Iesul and Oniel Dalesa, visited all sites to ensure that there was consistency throughout.

2. Sites Assessed and Interviewers

A total of twelve nominated sites were covered by the rapid assessments. The table below summarizes the number of sites visited and the names of team members who conducted the assessments:

1 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report Table 1. List of nominated sites covered by the rapid assessment and the team composition

SITE AREA TEAM MEMBERS TITLE 1. Malavau- Efate Peter Iesul Farming System Officer 1 (DARD) island Rolyn John Livestock Officer Keith Amos Assistant Agriculture officer 4. Middle bush- Peter Iesul Farming system officer 1 ( DARD) Tanna Island Erie Sammy Department of Water resources Mike Waiwai Climatologists ( Meteorology Department) Sam Naliko Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) 8. Matanvat- Joel Kalnpel Provincial Agriculture officer (MALAMPA) Malekula Tari Molisale Root Crops Officer (DARD) island Oniel Dalesa Farming Systems Officer 2 (DARD) George lingtamat Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) Jeremy Bongkone Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) Erie Sammy Department of Water Resources 14. Walaha- Oniel Dalesa Farming Systems Officer 2 (DARD) Ambae island Jimmy Pakoa Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) Erie Sammy Department of Water Resources 17. Siviri- Efate Peter Iesul Farming system officer 1 ( DARD) island Roylyn John Livestock Officer Mike Waiwai Climatologists ( Meteorology Department) Keith Amos Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) 21. Mataso island Peter Iesul Farming system officer 1 ( DARD) Keith Amos Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) 23. Aniwa island Peter Iesul Farming system officer 1 ( DARD) Mike Waiwai Climatologists ( Meteorology Department) 25. Malo island Oniel Dalesa Farming system officer 2 ( DARD) Tiata Sileye Coconut Technician (VARTC) Gilbert Roy Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) 28. Pele island Peter Iesul Farming system officer 1 ( DARD) Mike Waiwai Climatologists ( Meteorology Department) Keith Amos Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) John Willie Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) 32. Maskylenes Oniel Dalesa Farming system officer 2 ( DARD) Amsen Willie Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) Tever Lambert Assistant Agriculture Officer ( DARD) Jeremy Bongkone Provincial Agriculture officer (MALAMPA) 36. Vao island Oniel Dalesa Farming system officer 2 ( DARD) Joel Kalpel Provincial Agriculture officer (MALAMPA) Jeremy Bongkone Provincial Agriculture officer (MALAMPA) Tari Molesale Root Crop Officer (DARD) Erie Sammy Department of Water Resources 41. Torres Oniel Dalesa Farming system officer 2 ( DARD) Barton Bisiwei Provincial Agriculture Officer

The sites were assessed and a summary of recommendations were done for each sites were as follows:

2 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report 3. Sites assessed for soil moisture deficit (dry conditions)

3.1. Walaha (Penama Province)

POPUL-ATION 250 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 45 TOTAL INTERVIEW 31 This is the west ward side of the island of Ambae and normally experiences very dry conditions during the months of August right through to December. This is normally the period of low rainfall. This village sits about 5 km below a volcano which has remained largely dormant but over the last few years it has spewed off some small amounts of dust on several occasions. The sandy nature of the soil has poor water retention capacity thus the prolonged dry conditions. During the interview, most IMPACT respondents (85%) ranked dry condition as a very important concern. Seventy four percent (74%) of respondents reported that they did not do anything to mitigate the impact of dry weather conditions. All households have some form of INTERVENTION rain water catchments (ferro cement tanks, wells etc.) The community is about 15 minutes drive, on dirt road to the airstrip. Inter island cargo and passenger boats service the area on a regular basis every week. It has good mobile telecommunication network. Air Vanuatu makes 4 flights a week to this area. The area has relatively good access to basic government services, with an ACCESSABILITY Agriculture Extension Officer based with the community. COMMUNITY All the community (100%) are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (weekly work etc.). Highly recommended site for dry conditions even though number of beneficiaries maybe on the lower side. We can consider involving nearby communities to increase SITE impact. Even though neighbouring villages were not interviewed, experience shows RECOMMENDATION that they face similar challenges with regards dry weather conditions.

3.2. Malo (Sanma province)

POPULATION 400 TOTAL 87 HOUSEHOLD TOTAL 41 3 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report INTERVIEW IMPACT The area is located on the far side of east Malo island, exposing largely to South easterly winds, which contribute to dry conditions. Excessive rainfall often cause root tuber rots of cassava and yams. Garden plots are located upland 40 minutes to 1 hour walk from the main village (Ambakura). Most settlements are along the coast of the site [POSSIBIE SOIL SALINITY PROBLEMS?]. Over half (56%) of the villagers ranked dry conditions as serious issue. Main income is coprah, and cocoa. INTERVENTIO To combat dry conditions, respondents normally relocate garden plots (34%), also while N others (34%), and show evidence of taking any action. The community source water from hand water pump, during prolonged sunny periods, underground is mostly used. ACCESSABILI Community has access to a provincial sub center. Main transport is speed boat and TY public transport. The area is 20 to 30 minutes boat ride from the main land. Main center for service is Luganville located on the main island (Santo), there is some government services located on Avunatari village (10 minutes public transport from avunatri to the site). COMMUNITY All community (100%) are willing to participate in project activities; good community PARTICIPATIO cohesion (weekly work etc.). Strong community social structure headed by chief. N SITE Recommended site for dry conditions even though number of beneficiaries maybe on RECOMMEND the lower side. We can consider involving nearby communities for impact ATION

4 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

3.3. Matanvat (Malampa province)

POPUL-ATION 285 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 98 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 50 IMPACT More than half (62%) of respondents ranked the dry conditions as serious conditions. The area has access to unsealed tar roads. There is health and education service. The most dominant denomination is SDA and Presbyterian church. Most income generated by coprah production. INTERVENTION Some respondents (40%), take no action to intervention of dry conditions while others (40%) choose crops that are adapted to dry conditions ACCESSABILITY Community has access to unsealed roads with main transport as public transport. Main service center is 2- 3 hours ride from Lakatoro (main service center). COMMUNITY All of respondents (100%) are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (weekly work etc.). SITE Not recommended project site due to difficulty for transport (2- 3 hours ride from RECOMMENDATION closest main airport strip, and service center)

3.4. Siviri (Shefa province)

POPUL-ATION 400 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 35 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 24 IMPACT This community is located north of Efate on the lee ward side of the island always vulnerable to dry conditions. Gardening is done on mostly rocky (lime stone) areas with predominant vegetation of Leaucaena and Acacia. Charcoal making from Leucaena and Acacia is the main income for households. According to the household assessment, 60% of respondents rank drought as a medium problem. The community also involves in tourism as it is home to the unique underwater cave. Kayaking is also a tourist activity in the community. The main denomination is the Presbyterian church. INTERVENTION According to the household assessments, 70% of respondent do not take any action to mitigate impacts of drought. 15 % planted crops that are resilient to drought conditions while 15 % resort to garden relocation. ACCESSABILITY This Community like other comminutes outside Port Vila has access to tar- sealed road and telecommunications. The main land transport is trucks and buses. Essential services such as School and aid- posts are located within the community. The Main denomination is Presbyterian church. The community has access to Agriculture extension services. COMMUNITY According to the households interviewed, 100% of respondents are willing to participate in PARTICIPATION project activities There is good community cohesion (weekly work etc.) and Strong community social structure headed by chief.

5 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report SITE Highly recommended project site for dry conditions, even though number of beneficiaries RECOMMENDATION maybe on the lower side. We can consider involving nearby communities of Emua and Paunigisu [OK, GOOD IDEA] which will definitely increase population size.

3.5. Aniwa (Shefa province)

POPUL-ATION 500 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 84 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 30 IMPACT This is the smallest island in the southern most part of the archipelago. It can be very dry area during dry periods of the year. Garden plots are mostly on sandy soil with high retention capacity. The primary vegetation is Leucaena. Prolonged sunny period cause lack of water supply and poor plant crops. Household assessment found that 78% of households ranked dry condition to be high. This island is known for its sweet orange. The main income is through selling of orange and fishing. INTERVENTION Household assessment revealed that there is no evidence of any intervention to combat the problem of drying. ACCESSABILITY Air Vanuatu flights to this island is twice a week. Shipping services is once a month. Boat is a regular transport to this island but services again depends on good weather. Many people have lost their lives at sea. There is an extension officer located on Tanna island but he rarely travels to this island to oversee agriculture extension issues on the island. Main denomination is John Frum Movement COMMUNITY According to the household assessments 100% of respondents are willing to PARTICIPATION participate in project activities There is good community cohesion and Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE It may not be a recommended project site for dry conditions because of transport RECOMMENDATION difficulties. Furthermore, Agriculture extension officer is not always available to oversee the agriculture activities on the island due to his isolation, and other responsibilities of other outer islands.

6 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

4. Sites assessed for excessive soil moisture (wet) conditions

4.1. Malafau (Shefa province)

POPUL-ATION 282 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 25 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 15 IMPACT This community is located North of Efate, connected by quality tar sealed road about 35 minutes drive from Port Vila. It is situated on the windward side of the island about 2 km below mountains therefore vulnerable to spillover effects. It can experience very wet conditions during the wet season from December to July. According to the household assessments, 97% of farmers ranked flooding to be a common hazard in the community with high devastating levels. INTERVENTION Household assessment found that 30% of the farmers adapted to the impacts of flooding by garden relocation. 5% planted crops that are resilient to wet conditions while 65% of the household interviewed take no actions ACCESSABILITY The Community has access to efficient land and Air transport and Agriculture extension services. Essential services such as schools and aid post are located in the neighboring village of Tanoliu. The community has access to good portable water. The Main denomination is Assemblies of God (AOG) COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities. There is good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (community work is every Monday.) and Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE This community is a highly recommended project site for wet conditions, even RECOMMENDATION though number of beneficiaries may be on the lower side. We can consider involving nearby communities of Emua and Paunigisu that faced similar problems.

7 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

4.2. Middle Bush (Tafea province)

POPUL-ATION 1000 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD 120 TOTAL INTERVIEW 63 IMPACT The area has its history of water logged conditions due to high rainfall coupled with high water table. This community always experience prevailing overcast conditions. The maximum amount of rainfall recorded on a rain event is 150mm. It receives 3500mm rainfall annually. It has volcanic soil. According to the household assessments 95% of respondents ranked flooding as a high problem. Sweet potato is the staple food. About 70 % of the vegetable production on Tanna is produced in this community. The main commodity is coffee. A substantial number of farmers owned cattle farms. INTERVENTION Household assessment found that 43% of respondents dig drainage system to remove excess water. 38% relocate their garden plots during flooding while 30% of respondent did not take any action to address flooding problems ACCESSABILITY Very good access to government services and public transport. Located in the vicinity of the whitegrass international airport and drive is about 20 minutes. There is good reception of both the TVL and Digicel. The Agriculture field officer is stationed in this community and due to the agricultural activities carried out in this community extensions services has been regular and robust Farmers still uses horse as a main transport COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities. There is good PARTICIPATION community cohesion.

8 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

SITE This community meets all project requirements for household and population size, RECOMMENDATION accessibility and serious presence of flooding. It is highly recommended project site for wet conditions.

5. Sites assessed for worsening soil salinity conditions

5.1. Torres island (Torba province)

POPULATION 210 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD 35 TOTAL INTERVIEW ??? IMPACT The island is surrounded by neighboring islands of the Torres (Toga, Hiu and Tegua). Most villages are located away from the strong south easterly winds, which often limits sea transport to neighboring islands. Almost half (48%) of respondents ranked salinity as a high problem. The island of Loh has access to air port and flights (twice weekly), and other government services. There is very limited telecommunication network. Main cash income for the farmers is coconut crab; coprah and garden crops. INTERVENTION Over half (62%) of respondents show no evidence of intervention, on salinity problems, while few (5%) relocate to new location. Trees along the coast are left to grow, to prevent coastal erosion, and replant trees along the coast. Most of the community source water from underground well, and spring water. ACCESSABILITY Island has access to government services; however there is very limited communication. Air Vanuatu has access to flights 2 times a week. Bush tracks are used to walk from one village to another. Shipping services is very limited (once every 2 - 3 months). COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion. Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE Not recommended project site, due to unreliable shipping and air- craft schedules. RECOMMENDATION About 3hrs flight from Port Vila to Torres islands.

9 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

5.2. Vao (Central province)

POPULATION 898 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD 192 TOTAL INTERVIEW 50 IMPACT The island has good sea transport (5 minutes to main land). There is good government services provided on the island. Most of the soil is sandy, clay soil towards the inland. All respondents conduct agricultural activity on the main island avoiding salinity condition, hence salinity is not an agricultural issue. Half the respondents (50%) ranked salinity as a high problem. Agriculture is practiced on the neighboring mainland, free from saline condition. Main cash income is coprah and cocoa. Marine resources are sourced for protein. Catholic is the most dominant denomination. INTERVENTION Over half (63%) showed no evidence for any intervention on the salinity problem. Community source water from some hand pumps and mostly underground well and water catchments on tank and drums and other water containers. ACCESSABILITY Mainly use boats and canoe to travel to other islands, they have main access to other services on the mainland (5- 10 minutes) boat ride to services to the mainland. COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (weekly work etc.); Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE Not recommended project site RECOMMENDATION

5.3. Maskylenes (Central province)

POPUL-ATION 1021 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 260 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 53 IMPACT The island is situated off the South East of the main island of Malekula. Over half (57%) of respondent ranked salinity as high. Most gardens are done in Sakao island and the mainland of Malekula, hence, salinity is not a problem. Coprah; marine resource and weaving are the main income sources for households. Most salinity problems are caused by coastal erosion. Most of the island vegetation is primary, with pandanus, mangroves and coconuts. The main denomination is Presbyterian church INTERVENTION Water is sourced from well and other rain catchments (tank, well and other water containers). Under half (42%) of the respondents showed no action for intervention, while some (34%) relocate their garden plots. 10 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report ACCESSABILITY Mainly use speed boats and canoe to travel to other islands, they have main access to other services on the mainland (10- 20 minutes) boat ride to services on Lamap area (mainland). There is good telecommunication (TVL). With support for essential government services. COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (weekly work etc.); Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE May be recommended for good transport and service accessibility. The RECOMMENDATION Agriculture extension officer is located on Lamap (main island), which might hinder efficient extension services.

5.4. Pele island (Shefa province)

POPUL-ATION 400 TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD 62 TOTAL INTER-VIEW 24 IMPACT Pele is a small neighboring island of Efate. According to the household assessment, 10% of the respondents ranked salinity as a low problem not as thought initially. Agriculture interventions is very difficult in this island because most of the Agriculture activity is conducted upland, hence salinity is not a problem. INTERVENTION According to the household assessment there are no actions taken to combat problem of salinity ACCESSABILITY The main regular transport is boat, about 15 minutes from main island. Telecommunication is accessible. Road on the island can be best described as rural dirt road. There are no vehicles on the island. Essential services one can find in this island an aid post and a English primary school also accommodating year 7. COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities. There is good PARTICIPATION community cohesion and social structure SITE Not a recommended project site due to air sea transport difficulties and RECOMMENDATION importantly low significance of salinity problems.

5.5. Mataso (Shefa province?)

POPULATION 200 (a bigger population is living in Port Vila) TOTAL HOUSEHOLD 25 TOTAL INTERVIEW 15 IMPACT The island is mountainous and most garden plots are located at the foot of the mountain close to the sea coast. Salt spray caused by strong winds and cyclones cause poor plant growth and low food production; The garden plots are mostly sandy soil, limiting adequate quality for plant growth conditions. The island is 11 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report exposed greatly to strong ghastly wind. According to household assessment, 60 % of the household interviewed ranked impacts of salinity to be medium.

INTERVENTION According to the household interview, 60% of respondents rank salt spray as medium problem. 87% of respondents do not carry out any action to address CCI problems while 13% of respondents relocate their garden plots. ACCESSABILITY This island has very limited access to shipping services. Shipping services to this island is very erratic and infrequent with ships calling once every 2-3 months. A community boat travels often to Efate but rough seas are major obstacle. Telecommunication is accessible (TVL), with good radio reception. There's lack of essential services like health and education (primary school). COMMUNITY 100% of respondents are willing to participate in project activities; good PARTICIPATION community cohesion (weekly work etc.); Strong community social structure headed by chief. SITE This island may not be recommended due to its isolation. There are transport RECOMMENDATION difficulties and traveling by boat is life threatening.

6. Summary of Recommendations

6.1. Site for wet conditions

Middle Bush site on Tanna is recommended to be the site for wet conditions. It has relatively good air and land transport services. It has 120 households (farm families) who are willing to participate in this project. The survey revealed that the people of Middle Bush area have lived with the problem of excessive soil moisture for a long time and have taken some measures already to address this problem by constructing drainage systems on their farms.

Sweet potato is one of the main crops of this area.

6.2. Site for dry conditions

Siviri village on Efate is recommended as a site for dry conditions. Even though the number of beneficiaries from this particular village maybe on the lower side, the project will consider involving other communities on the island of Efate who experience similar conditions. In particular it is recommended that the project consider involving neighboring communities of Emua and Paunagisu who experience similar problems of dry conditions AS WELL AS SEASONAL EXCESSIVE SOIL MOISTURE. These two communities together have more

12 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report than 100 households. This means therefore that the Siviri, Emua and Paunagisu villages will all be included as the one project site for dry conditions.

6.3. Site of saline soil conditions

According to the survey results, we are unable to locate a suitable site for this condition even though five sites were identified and surveyed. These are the reasons:

 Vao and Maskylens are two small islands who traditionally do most of their agricultural activities on the main land. They do not seem to be affected by excess salt conditions except for salt water intrusions in their underground wells.

 Pele island was eliminated as a potential site on the grounds that it does its crops inland on high ground. The villages are mostly scattered on the coast but no cropping activities takes place there.

 Loh and Mataso islands are considered as impossible sites because of transport difficulties to these islands. Farming on Loh happens mainly upland and is not affected by saline conditions. Furthermore as these are isolated islands it is impossible to include neighboring communities to increase project impact.

Since a suitable site for saline conditions could not be established, it is recommended that an additional site for dry conditions be included. Walaha on Ambae is recommended. Again Walaha maybe on the lower side with regards to numbers of households but surrounding villages (Halalulu, Navuturiki and Vilakalaka) will be included to maximize project impact. Subsequently Malo site was selected instead to represent areas experiencing worsening soil salinity problems and based on that the baseline survey covered this site.

However, it was noted during the baseline survey that Malo does not quite fulfil the requirements for a project site. DARD and VARTC experts looked at this issue critically and came up with a suggestion to have a second wet site to replace Malo. It was then suggested that DARD can organize a consultation of its technical staff, especially those who have been involved in the rapid appraisals as well as the baseline survey, to consider these ideas further and come up with well considered replacement sites that meet these criteria: 1) smallholder farmers dependent on crop and livestock production for their livelihoods; 2) communities willing and ready to take active part in the project, and 3) easy and affordable accessibility.

13 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report The suggestion by DARD and VARTC to identify a more appropriate replacement site for Malo site was discussed further by the NARI team as well as with Mr. Ruben Markward and Mr. James Wasi. Mrs. Marie Melteras of VARTC also expressed her views by email. Here is what Mr. Markward said about Malo:

Following the trip to Malo and based on discussions following that and my own observations I am recommending that we consider choosing another project site instead. I am of the opinion that we have not chosen the site based on good information or understanding about the area.

Firstly, the site is not strictly a dry site, and there are many such sites in Vanuatu. We may be trying to solve a problem that does not really exist. If they have any food security issues it might be more an issue about them not growing enough food or less diversity than climate change. They get a drought when every other island gets it due to El Nino. They noted problem with dry spells but this are irregular. They say they have been experiencing sun and rain and that seasons have become less distinct. This I think is climate change related but maybe more about variability. I think the fact that the location is to the East of the island partly explains the situation. This site really contrasts with Middle Bush (excess soil moister problem) and Siviri (soil moister deficit problem) in that we cannot say with certainty that they have a soil moisture deficit problem. The fact that this fundamental requirement cannot be ascertained should tell us that we need to find another more definitive site. Otherwise we risk having research/trial findings that are more mixed results, and inconclusive findings and recommendations will be given to farmers.

Second, I see the approach to banana as quite inappropriate. Banana is one of the easiest crops to grow and it is usually reliable, despite the occasional periods when they are not producing. Any village can say they eat a lot of banana. Pending baseline assessment results, I take this circumstance of relying on banana as a result more of farmers not growing enough of other food crops. Banana is number 1 staple not because they like it a lot or that it has a major cultural/economic significance but because it is readily available and also quite resilient. My observation in Malo is that during a devastating cyclone (or drought) for example, crops of yams and bananas can be both seriously affected. You will find that yams may result in not yielding well and farmers will complain about not having enough of good quality to eat during the harvest season. It can take 2 or more years for a farmer to build his/her stock of yams again. Banana on the other hand will have less difficulties recovering. All bananas can fall but if one plants the suckers immediately they will have recovery faster.

My concern is also partly that if the site appraisal suggests people eat more banana, our focus should not overwhelmingly be on banana, unless if it means trialling and introducing more resistant, high yielding, high value banana, etc. We should look at the whole array of crops and farming systems used. Our part should be about trying to make more crop varieties and species attractive so that by the end of the project there will be new or renewed interest in some crops, earning the status of staples. Today at VARTC I heard suggestions about banana husbandry practices and later Workneh mentioned cattle grazing under coconuts. These in my view are less important and maybe stating the obvious. We would not help much teaching them how to clean their bananas or raising cattle under coconuts. They already know these.

14 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report We have not visited any garden on Malo due to poor accessibility, and this is not helping our overall impression of the area.

I will not be lending my full support to the work on Malo for the above reasons. I recommend that we move the project to an alternative location. I have my doubts about Walaha, just like Ambahura, Malo where I consider the people to be more consumers of rice and perhaps less involved in serious subsistence farming, but I think it will serve us all and the project better. Logistically it is less problematic and we already have an officer on site. Walaha is a dry area. I think the perceived lack of confidence in the Department well coordinating efforts on Malo due to logistics now warrants that we move the site to Ambae, or maybe take another wet site like Malafau. I have discussed with Workneh the need to have another officer stationed on Malo to provide support to this project but I am thinking more that this is a wrong site to start with.

The NARI team of EU-ARD project component leaders was in principle very supportive of the idea of critically looking at suitability of Malo as a project site, and encouraged DARD to consider this further and undertake an objective assessment of the situation, taking in to account the following pertinent points:

1. Malo was recommended by the rapid assessment team and accepted by all parties as a suitable site from dry areas in lieu of such a site representing those with worsening soil salinity problems. From that perspective Malo is technically good enough as a project site. However, it was not meant to represent very dry agricultural areas like Ambae (Walaha), for instance. So Ambae cannot be considered as an automatic replacement for Malo. It was therefore suggested that all possible and reasonable options for replacement be considered, including possible site with salinity problems.

2. The three key constraints that the project set out to address, namely excess soil moisture, soil moisture deficit and worsening soil salinity, are identified in the project design as obvious manifestations of climate change at the level of smallholder farmers in the three project countries. But the project research team has not been able to establish the relative significance of these constraints in each country, but generally assumed that they are equally important. As the rapid site assessments indicated, suitable saline environments are either unknown or have accessibility problems. It is clear that the known Atolls are inhabited by a small number of inhabitants. Such environments are in any case extreme case scenarios of soil salinity problems with very limited realistic agricultural development 15 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report options. On that basis the project can proceed in Vanuatu without a site with major salinity constraints, and can instead have a second wet or dry site. To support such a decision, it is suggested that we examine available statistical data at national level to check the number of smallholder farmers that now and in the likely near future face these constraints. Such an assessment may reveal that either or both of soil moisture deficit or excess soil moisture appear to be more important at national level, thus providing an objective reason to suggest for a second dry or wet site.

On that basis, a team of experts from DARD re-examined observations made at Malafau and made site visits and consulted the community before it made a firm decision to have Malafau, more appropriately Ensema, as a replacement site for Malo, not as dry and saline site but one representing more dominant excessively wet cultivated areas in the country. A baseline survey of this site was promptly conducted by the DARD team.

16 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report

7. Annex 1: Criteria for rapid assessment of nominated project sites in PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (Updated:21 May 2011).

1. To what extent do either of the three key constraints (excess soil moisture, soil moisture deficit or worsening soil salinity related to climate change) affect production of food crops in the area? Have farmers in the village clearly elaborated the problem as a constraint in their farming activities?

- Farmers’ observations in terms of changes in patterns of rainfall and temperature over the last couple of years and the effects on food crop production. - Any changes in fruiting patterns, flowering patterns, tuberization patterns, harvesting patterns of major crops? - In the dry areas, is this becoming a concern or problem to food crop production? - Any changes in incidences of pest and/or disease outbreak or build-up during wet or dry periods? - In the wet areas, is this becoming a concern or problem to food crop production? - Farmers’ assessment of soil suitability in low coastline areas over the last couple of years and effects on food crop production - In low coastline areas, is this becoming a concern or problem to food crop production?

2. Are the constraints likely to be realistically addressed by one or a combination of crop, livestock and water related interventions of the type proposed by the project?

- What are the staple crops? - What farming practices are used? - What are the sources of water? - If there are water wells, how far are they from food crop gardens? - what crops are good for very dry conditions? - What crops are good for very wet conditions? - Is the soil dry and good for farming or has too much water? Consider whether drainage is possible? - What livestock is grown in the area?

3. Are the farming communities in the villages genuinely interested to take active part in project activities towards enhancing their capacity to produce adequate food to meet their household needs? (we need to be careful not to mention taking project into the area to avoid any expectations)

- Are the communities involved in subsistence, semi-subsistence or commercial farming? - Will they be interested to try out new ideas and/or technologies? - Would they be happy to receive additional information to understand better the effects of climate change?

17 NARI EU – ARD Project Rapid Assessment Report 4. Can we reach out for the target number of households for a site of about 100 within reasonable distance?

- Who is in charge of the village? Will he/she consent to working with us on the project? - How many households live in the village? - What is the population size in the village? - Can the village work harmoniously with other neighboring villages?

5. Is the site easily accessible by reliable and regular road, sea or air transport services to enable unrestricted visits to the site by project researchers and technicians?

6. Have the villagers experienced severe food security problems of the like observed during the 1997 drought in recent years?

- Since 1997, which years have been very dry for the farmers? - Did it greatly affect food production? - What did they do to ensure food production during that dry period? - What else did they do to survive? - Where did they get their water from during that dry period? ****

18