1.1.A.1 Identify Three Priority C-CAP Districts in Each Country of Operations & 1.1.B - Rank Five Priority Communities in Each Selected District for USAID Approval

Deliverables: 1.1.A.1 Identify three priority C-CAP districts in each country of operations & 1.1.B - Rank five priority communities in each selected district for USAID approval

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. April 2013

INTRODUCTION A draft list of priority C-CAP districts in each country of operations was submitted within 30 days of contract award. This was completed while the technical team was still in Manila from 22 to 26 October 2013 without the benefit of meeting with subcontractors and most importantly with host country government stakeholders. The exercise was based on a literature review of existing studies but was submitted as a draft to be updated once partners in country could be consulted. The initial list of districts and communities was as follows: Papua New Guinea Year One 1. Milne Bay– Kiriwini-Goodenough District, Sumarai-Murua District, Esa’ala District, Makamaka Rural LLG, Huhu Rural, Maramatana Rural, Suau Rural 2. Central-- Manumanu Year 2 Considerations 1. Morobe– Morobe, Sialum, Lae 2. Manus/New Ireland/Bougainville /New Britain Fiji Year One 1. Rewa Delta– Lomanikoro, Daku, Buretu (Provincial Government identifies others) Year 2 Considerations 1. Macuata/Bua – Seaqaqa, Dreketi 2. Lomaiviti 3. Kadavu 4. Southern Lau 5. Yasawa/Mamanuca 6. Western Viti Levu Samoa Year One 1. Vaisigano – Falealupo, Auala, Asau Year 2 Considerations 1. Palauli – Palauli, Tafua 2. Gaga’ifomauga– Aopo, Manase, (existing CIMP)

- 3 - 3. Fa’asaleleaga– Sapapilii (existing CIMP) 4. Va’a-o-Fonoti– Fagaloa Vanuatu Year One 1. Northern Efate– Pele, Moso (need to confirm), Lelepa, Emau, Year 2 Considerations 1. Malampa– Maskelyne, Uripiv, Litslits 2. Tafea– Lonamilo 3. Shefa (Outer) -- Epau 4. Santo Following the week in Manila, the Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) team members met with University of South Pacific (USP) partner staff from October 29-31 in order to present C-CAP and seek input and guidance from USP on establishing an office for the program and more importantly, make an initial selection of participating districts and communities for C-CAP’s four year one countries of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. USP has already worked with a number of communities under the European Union funded Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) programme; GCCA background is outlined in the text box below.

- 4 -

Global Climate Change Alliance - Pacific Islands Forum support programme

GCCA priority  Adaptation to climate change areas  Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

All 15 ACP Member States in the Pacific: Cook Islands, Fiji, Beneficiary Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, countries Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Main The Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development implementing (PACE-SD) of the University of the South Pacific (USP) partner Project duration January 2011 – December 2014 (48 months)

In implementing this programme and its predecessor, USP’s Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD) has developed a number of assessment tools for equitable work site (community) selection and community vulnerability assessments—both of which are done through an inclusive participatory approach with government and community, and civil society stakeholders.. After identifying communities through PACE-SD’s Rapid Assessment methodology, PACE-SD leads participatory vulnerability and adaptation assessments followed by an Action Plan phase where each community will define risk and disaster mitigation measures and calculate their costs. The process is one where C-CAP staff will coordinate with USP ICCs who have been trained to assist community leaders in the identification of their infrastructure needs . The final product will be in the form of an action plan aimed at address adaptation measures identified by the community through a participatory planning process. C-CAP will work carefully with the GCCA ICCs to coordinate the infrastructure investments planned under the GCCA with those to be funded via the C-CAP program in shared partner communities. During consultations in late October 2012, C-CAP team also communicated with SPC, GIZ and other actors working in supporting community level climate adaptation measures. SPC shared some results from an SPC/GIZ assessment conducted from July - September of 2012. They explained that although there had been some national level reports in conjunction with National Adaptation Programmes of Action and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the guidelines remained broad on topics such as impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation

- 5 - measures at the sectoral level. These findings were too general to inform assessments on vulnerability and adaptation measures at the community level. Although the SPC/GIZ community selection process, as outlined below, is focused more on food security issues related to climate change, it is very similar to that which USP uses in its methodology. Also, convening a wide range of stakeholders from government agencies, civil society and international organizations the V&A team under the guidance of SCP, GIZ and SPREP used the following criteria to identify communities to participate in demonstration adaptation approaches. The rapid assessment criteria were as follows:  More than 100 people  Low-lying coastal or close to a river  Existing environmental degradation and over-exploitation of natural resources (fisheries, forests, coral reefs)  Experienced the destruction of food crops, coastal erosion, severe storm surges and inundation in association with cyclone events  Community is organized (previous experience) and willing to support the project. This work in Choiseul is of particular interest to C-CAP as the Component 2 of the methodology is a participatory assessment of climate change related risks and threats. Although this approach fits well with C-CAP's participatory mapping and infrastructure identification exercises the GCCA methodology is more appropriate in understanding the communities and their climate change adaptation needs. The additional elements which make the GCCA process more comprehensive are 1) it analyzes the adaptive capacity of the community through a series of detailed exercises on identifying solutions to the climate change problems; 2) it identifies the resources or funding needed to address the vulnerabilities and 3) it is a methodology being implemented in all 12 of C-CAP’s target countries and could be expanded in a more expedient manner. The Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) team members are engaged in continuous consultations with climate change stakeholders from the public, civil society, community and education fields in each of C-CAP’s Year 1 countries. In Papua New Guinea and Fiji, team members have met with leaders in a number of communities in order to establish preliminary informational exchanges with prospective communities. In early November 2012 the C-CAP team visited the Rewa delta in Fiji and met with leaders in Daku and Buretu communities documenting climate change risks and vulnerabilities faced by the residents. On November 12, C-CAP team members met with the Office of Climate Change and Development in Port Moresby where Director Jacob Ekinye suggested visiting the initial community of Gabagaba in Central District. The C-CAP team tested a draft Community Engagement Methodology during two days in Gabagaba and worked with the community to assess climate change risks to their community infrastructure.

- 6 - Following these visits to communities in Papua New Guinea and Fiji a series of communications with USP and I’Taukei Affairs advisor were conducted to narrow down the choices for the five communities per country. The sections below will detail the communications conducted in each of the year one countries. In the C-CAP partner community selection process section below, the different consultations between C-CAP staff and respective government officials is detailed. The following section provides country by country lists of the five proposed communities including the process by which they were identified.

METHODOLOGY District and Community Site Selection Background

 To achieve rapid site selection and delivery of completed social, economic and/or water infrastructure projects across C-CAP’s four year one priority countries—Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga]—within the first year of the contract, C-CAP applied PACE- SD’s Rapid Assessment Methodology for equitable community selection—which has been approved and used by partner governments in each of C-CAP’s year one countries—and through additional consultations with :

o C-CAP Partner—University of the South Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development (USP PACE-SD), as well as its AUSAID-funded predecessor, which applied the same methodology. o Host country government partners in each Year 1 country; and o Recommended communities, through site assessments.

The GCCA Rapid Assessment methodology for equitable community selection has been tested and improved over a number of years and is at the foundation of USP’s engagement with communities and data base of socioeconomic and climate data in GCCA partner countries. C- CAP’s use of the same methodology will allow for standardized data collection and contribution to an extensive database which will remain accessible after the C-CAP mandate. DAI also coordinated with e established climate change stakeholders from the public, private, civil society and education sectors in the region to ground truth Rapid Assessment-informed site selection and to avoid duplication of efforts. It is clear that duplication is an issue in the region, as reflected in the C-CAP contract,

“Nearly every country has a wealth of assessments and workshop reports that link climate change and disaster management, reflecting the critical concern that climate change will lead to increased frequency and intensity of storms. Indeed, many national

- 7 - plans identify climate vulnerabilities, adaptation needs, priorities, and specific project proposals…

A number of adaptation programs in the region focus on mainstreaming adaptation into national policies and plans. Some progress is evident at the national scale, but progress lags at the district and community scale. Most existing actions are dominated by capacity building, research and policy development initiatives, which reflect the generally low level of capacity in the Pacific region. The Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C- CAP) will focus on district/community scale adaptation needs, responding to the increasingly urgent need for on the ground adaptation action . “

The project elected to draw upon this wealth of information, which reflects the objectives of C- CAP, in order to begin urgently needed implementation. C-CAP will build on previously conducted assessments in an effort to move towards “on the ground adaptation action” quickly. Given C-CAP’s important mandate to implement 90 infrastructure projects in 9 priority countries, it is imperative to achieve results in an expeditious manner.

PACE-SD Rapid Assessment 2012 Through the GCCA project, PACE-SD developed a site selection process and criteria to apply in each of its 15 target countries in the Pacific region. The methodology is designed to identify 10 viable project sites (villages), and through further evaluation, rank the three that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In this inclusive, participatory process, PACE-SD manages the site selection through three-step process in consultation with a National Project Advisory Committee (N-PAC- comprised of climate change stakeholders from the private, public and NGO sectors) in each country and other project stakeholders including Provincial Offices, and government ministries or departments of environment, climate change, health and/or water.  Step 1: PACE-SD and N-PACs develop criteria on which host country stakeholders are requested to nominate GCCA sites/communities. While the selection of final criteria is managed by the GCCA country-based team and N-PAC—to ensure that the selection process is tailored to local conditions and reflects national priorities—PACE-SD suggests to N-PACs that the following key factors are considered as criteria: o Level of vulnerability of the community; o Level of adaptive capacity of the community; o Level of need of the community; o Level of interest of the community; o Feasibility of the project to adequately address the identified level of vulnerability within the funding capacity of the project;

- 8 - o Level of vulnerability of the community to cyclones; and o Level of vulnerability of the community to flooding, storm surges and/or projected sea level rise for coastal communities.  Step 2: After determining criteria in each country, host country stakeholders are invited to nominate sites/communities. Based on narratives that accompany site nominations, nominations are considered against the agreed upon criteria, and N-PACs identify up to 10 sites for site visits/ground truth.  Step 3: Through a “Rapid Assessment,” PACE-SD leads site assessments of all shortlisted communities that includes data collection from informational interviews with community leaders, discussions at informal village meetings, and rapid appraisal of the physical and built environment. The sites are then prioritized for GCCA implementation through collective consultation with all individuals involved in site assessments. It is important to note that government referral and consent is built into the GCCA process. Due to the importance of continued host country government dialogue and support, regardless of this consent, C-CAP met with—and received further consent—on all site selections before implementation, as indicated below.

The terms of reference for the N-PACS, also referred to as National Advisory Committees (NAC) are as follows: Terms of Reference for the National Advisory Committee

The current membership of the National Advisory Committee (NAC) is drawn from relevant government ministries, Non-Government Organizations, civil society and academia. Whilst it is chaired by the Director of the respective USP Campus, members of the NAC are at liberty to elect their Vice-Chairperson who will preside at any meeting in the absence of the substantive Chairman on official overseas duties, and in the event that the In-Country Coordinator need urgent deliberation of the NAC on any important matter.

For all intents and purposes, the NAC is tasked to formulate and decide on its own Terms of Reference based on the relevant Climate Change (CC) issues faced by the relative Participating Country, however, the following is suggested as a guide only:

1. The NAC is expected to compare CC issues facing communities with the view to decide on the most pressing ones that need immediate attention but long term sustainability.

- 9 - 2. The NAC will select three pilot communities from a list of 6 potential pilot communities put forward by the In-Country Coordinator in which the EU Project of the Participating Country will be pioneered.

3. Following the selection process, the NAC and the In-Country Coordinator will plan appropriate awareness campaigns and undertake Vulnerability and Adaptation (V & A) Assessments of the identified issues in the selected project sites.

4. During these awareness and V & A undertakings, it is expected that mutual and reciprocal consultations will take place to identify low cost adaptation strategies applicable for the different individual sites.

5. Together, the NAC and the In-Country Coordinator will implement and monitor the progress of the pilot project activities accordingly.

6. Among its other responsibilities, the NAC will also act as a ‘Think-Tank’ for the EU Project of the Participating Country, not only during its formative and implementation and /or monitoring stages, but of more import, for its future strategic direction.

7. The NAC is also expected to nurture and perpetuate a healthy relationship between the government and all other local stakeholders, the USP and communities, and promote a sense of belonging and ownership of the EU Project of the Participating Country.

Following review of the GCCA Rapid Assessment reports and consultation with the GCCA project administrators, C-CAP conferred with GCCA’s In-Country Coordinators—the designated project managers based in each GCCA country—to review all sites identified through Steps 1 and 2 of the process. Sites were further prioritized based on In-Country Coordinators’ assessment of level of community interest and accessibility. Given the importance of efficient start-up and infrastructure activity completion in the communities for year one, C-CAP cannot afford to select sites which are remote and difficult to access—considering that given the large number of vulnerable sites identified and vetted by USP, it is very clear that there are a number of vulnerable communities close to travel hubs in all four countries. Host Country Government Partner Consultations & Site Visits The GCCA Rapid Assessment was C-CAP’s primary resource for year one site selection. Importantly, C-CAP’s site selections were then presented to relevant government departments and/or committees for their comment and/or concurrence. While this process was applied in Samoa and Tonga, Rapid Assessments are still in development for Fiji and Papua New Guinea. In-person consultations with host country government partners followed by site visits to ground- truth government recommendations were the primary mode of site selection in Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

- 10 -  Fiji consultations were made with representatives from Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, the government body which coordinates international donor support to Fijian communities.  In Papua New Guinea, the Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD) were equal participants in site identification and selection with C-CAP. OCCD representatives also accompanied C-CAP on site visits and risk mapping activities.  Government consultations with Samoa NPAC and Internal Affairs were led by the GCCA’s ICC for Samoa Government representatives from these agencies are going to participate in the C-CAP risk mapping activities scheduled for the Second week of January.  In late December the National Advisory Board in Vanuatu required more time in developing their community selection criteria and asked DAI to postpone the assessment mission in order to finalize the methodology. Given this delay, DAI made a request to USAID to engage with Tonga earlier in year one in order to meet the deliverables given the Vanuatu decision making process was not clear. Approval was granted and plans were made to add Tonga communities to Year 1.  In Tonga, the GCCA ICC received consent from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change through the N-PAC.

Province/District/Island Country Communities Group Papua New Guinea Central 1. Gabagaba 2. Tubuserea 3. Boera 4. Lealea

National Capital District 5. Pari Fiji Tailevu 1. Buretu – Buretu Tikina Central Division 2. Daku - Bau Tikina Rewa 3. Vunisinu/Nalase

Cakaudrove 4. Karoko 5. Vunisavisavi Tonga Tongatapu Island Group 1. Ahau 2. Nukuleka 3. Popua 4. Sopu 5. Tatakamotonga Samoa Savai’i Island Vaisigano 1. Falealupo 2. Auala 3. Asau

Gaga'ifomauga 4. Manase

Fa'asaleleaga 5. Sapapalii

- 11 - C-CAP PARTNER COMMUNITY SELECTION Papua New Guinea Central Province:  Gabagaba  Tubuserea  Boera  Lealea  Pari (National Capital District)

Process: Initial meetings with the Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD) resulted in the choice of Gabagaba as the first community to engage as OCCD had already started some climate change adaptation initiatives in the community and advised C-CAP to continue engaging with the community which was seen as very proactive in addressing climate change issues. Discussions with OCCD staff revealed a growing issue regarding an increasing urban drift towards Port Moresby. Given increasing pressures associated with urbanization especially in terms of natural resource use such as increased fishing pressure and deforestation of both mangroves and terrestrial tree resources, the coastal communities around Port Moresby ranked as high priority communities to work with in the first year of the C-CAP project. This was followed by a meeting with to identify potential collaborative activities in the region. A preliminary list of sites was identified. The list was vetted with the OCCD and a tentative approval has been given to C-CAP to make initial contact with the communities on the list during the week of Dec 3-7. These meetings have already been scheduled. Any changes to the above list will be subject to an update to be submitted to USAID.

Fiji Tailevu

 Daku – Bau Tikina  Buretu – Buretu Tikina Rewa  Vunisinu/Nalase Cakaudrove  Karoko  Vunisavisavi

- 12 - Process: Initial identification of Rewa and Tailevu sites was carried out in consultation with University of the South Pacific (USP) and their technical staff who had already carried out Vulnerability & Adaptation (V&A) assessments in these sites on the basis of the site selection criteria described in the section of PACE-SD site selection above in consultation with the Fiji GCCA National Project Advisory Committee (See Annex 1). The possible selections were then referred to the Ministry of I’Taukei Affairs for their consideration and confirmation. The villages in Rewa and Tailevu are all on the Rewa Delta.With their low elevation relative to sea level and the rise in sea level, the villages in the Delta are prone to inundation during heavy rain storms. The situation gets worse if the rain storms coincide with spring tides resulting in widespread flooding of the villages. A visit with the Roko – local district authority in Rewa, confirmed that this was the experience of many communities in Rewa Province. The C-CAP team have put this area as a priority for December field visits. The Cakaudrove district was identified after consultation and vetting of the proposed C-CAP communities with i’Taukei Affairs and Cakaudrove Provincial Councils.. The two proposed sites are also on the list of USP Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA)V&A candidates for December/January.

Tonga

Tongatapu Island Group

Ahau Nukuleka Popua Sopu Tatakamotonga

Process:

C-CAP consulted with PACE-SD’s Tonga In-Country-Coordinator Tevita Faka’osi on initial identification of C-CAP’s Year 1 sites, which was built upon PACE-SD’s completed site selection process for the GCCA programme as detailed in the Methodology section above.

• Step 1: Applying the following criteria, PACE-SD facilitated a site nomination process for the GCCA Programme led by the Tonga N-PAC and other stakeholders:

The Tonga N-PAC is comprised of climate change experts and stakeholders from the public, non-profit and education sectors (See list in Annex 1).

• Step 2: Based on narratives that accompanied site nominations, the N-PAC considered

- 13 - nominations against the agreed upon criteria, and N-PACs identified six sites for site visits/ground-truthing for the GCCA programme.

• Step 3: Through a “Rapid Assessment,” PACE-SD led site assessments of all shortlisted communities that includes data collection from informational interviews with community leaders, discussions at informal village meetings, and rapid appraisal of the physical and built environment. The shortlisted communities for the GCCA Programme were: Popua, Sopu and Tatakamotonga (all inTongatapu), Ha’afeva (Ha’apai Group), Tuanekivale and Ovaka (Vava’u Group)

• Step 4: C-CAP built upon this previously completed site selection process, adding the requirement that Year 1 sites be geographically clustered, per the C-CAP contract, to allow for accessibility, and to enable implementation of fast-tracked infrastructure activities. Applying this criterion, C-CAP selected the Tongan island group with the highest number of shortlisted sites: Tongatapu Island. This ensured that sites were geographically clustered and easily accessible to C-CAP. Of the six shortlisted sites for Tonga, three were in Tongatapu.

• Step 5: To select a fifth community for Year 1 implementation in Tonga, C-CAP added Ahau and Nukuleka, which was nominated by the Tonga N-PAC, but was not shortlisted for the GCCA programme. Ahau and Nukuleka were selected based upon the C-CAP criterion that communities be geographically clustered; they were the only remaining nominated site from Tongatapu Island.

• Step 6: The five identified sites received consent from the Tonga N-PAC for inclusion as C-CAP Year 1 communities, pending meetings with each community to ensure both the level of community interest and the governance capacity.

• Step 7: Between December 22 and 29, 2012, met with village town officers in each village to lead presentations on C-CAP, and to ensure community interest, capacity to assemble a C-CAP Community Committee to support C-CAP implementation, and to host risk mapping exercises in January.

Through this seven step process, C-CAP ensured that site selection was equitable, based upon relevant criteria to ensure both vulnerability and governance capacity, met C-CAP requirements and informed by national and local stakeholders.

Samoa Savaii Island

- 14 -  Falealupo, Vaisigano  Auala, Vaisigano  Asau, Vaisigano  Manase, Gaga'ifomauga  Sapapalii, Fa'asaleleaga

Process: The initial identification of these sites was determined by existing V&A work on the part of the USP Country Coordinator under the GCCA work and in conjunction with the National Project Advisory Committee in Samoa (See list in Annex 1). This ensured a built in vetting process as government actors actively participate with communities, from inception. Savaii island was targeted by the Advisory Committee partly because of the concentration of other donor funding on the main island of Upolu particularly in the form of UNDP funded projects.

NEXT STEPS The C-CAP team is preparing an intensive period of travel between PNG, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa for the months of December and January in order to meet the deliverable of 20 communities risk mapping exercises by the end of January 2013. With USAID approval of these sites through requested travel plans, C-CAP should be able to complete this process by the end of January when the results of the visits can be shared during the USP annual Country Coordinator conference in Suva. This presents itself as an excellent opportunity for C-CAP to present the program and provide workshop sessions on the proposed methodology for the remainder of the C-CAP program. Given the Country Coordinators for C- CAP year 2 and 3 countries will also attend, this will prepare them well in advance and ensure a well planned entry for C-CAP into new countries and communities.