69455 Acting Today For Tomorrow A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region Acting Today For Tomorrow A Policy and Practice Note for Climate- and Disaster-Resilient Development in the Pacific Islands Region D Acting Today For Tomorrow Contents Acknowledgements 1 List of Abbreviations 2 Executive Summary 3 1. The Consequences of Not Acting Today 5 2. Lessons of the Last Decade 11 3. The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers 17 4. Fostering Resillient Development 20 Notes 22 Photo: iStockphoto © 2012 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: Ciril Jazbec Acting Today For Tomorrow 1 Acknowledgments T his Policy and Practice Note was prepared by a team led by Emilia Battaglini (Task Team Leader, World Bank) comprising Michael Bonte-Grapentin (World Bank), John Hay (independent consultant), Cristelle Pratt (independent consultant), and Olivia Warrick (World Bank), under the overall guidance of Ferid Belhaj, John Roome, Charles Feinstein, and Abhas Jha (World Bank). We benefitted greatly from the feedback and guidance of core peer reviewers and advisors from the Pacific region and from the World Bank. The regional peer reviewer teams consisted of Peter Adams (formerly Director, New Zealand Agency for International Development), Catherine Bennett (formerly with the Australian Agency for International Development), Hon. Mark Brown (Minister of Finance, Cook Islands), Tekau Frere (Ministry of Environment, Energy and Mining, French Polynesia), Moortaza Jiwanji (United Nations Development Programme), Jude Kohlhase (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa), Padma Lal (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Marc Overmars (Asian Development Bank), Netatua Pelesikoti (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme), Kevin Petrini (United Nations Development Programme), Angelika Planitz (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Mosese Sikivou (Secretariat of the Pacific Community), and Kaliopate Tavola (formerly Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fiji). The World Bank peer review team consisted of Sofia Bettencourt, Milen Dyoulgerov, Francis Ghesquiere, Ian Noble, and Samuel Wedderburn. We are also very grateful to the following individuals for their comments and input: Photo: Carlo Iacovino Christophe Crepin, Habiba Gitay, Robert Jauncey, and Shyam KC (World Bank); Kevin Goh (Australian Agency for International Development); Robert Guild (Asian Develop- ment Bank); Scott Hook (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat); Kosi Latu (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme); and Jay Roop (Asian Development Bank). Special acknowledgement is due to the organizations that supported the World Bank in the dissemination of this note, particularly the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme. We acknowledge the financial support of the partners of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Anne Himmelfarb edited the report and Miki Fernandez assisted with the design. Rachel Cipryk and Nathan Hale (World Bank) provided support throughout, and Aleta Moriarty and Laura Keenan (World Bank) provided advice on the communication and dissemination strategy. 2 Acting Today For Tomorrow List of Abbreviations CCA Climate change adaptation DRR Disaster risk reduction GDP Gross domestic product HFA Hyogo Framework for Action JNAP Joint National Action Plan MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E Monitoring and evaluation NAP National Action Plan NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NGO nongovernmental organization PCRAFI Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative PICT Pacific island country and territory PIFS Pacific Island Forum Secretariat SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme UNDP United Nations Development Programme Executive Summary 3 Executive Summary P acific island countries continue to be among the most vulnerable in the world: they combine high exposure to frequent and damaging natural hazards with low capacity to manage the resulting risks. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by poorly planned socioeconomic development, which has increased exposure and disaster losses, and by climate change, which has increased the magnitude of cyclones, droughts, and flooding. Changes in how disasters and other extreme events in the Pacific are managed could significantly lessen the region’s vulnerability. Currently, inefficient management of risks negates development gains and incurs large costs for national and local governments. Progress in reducing vulnerability has been retarded in part because of fundamental problems with coordination and cooperation among relevant actors at all levels. The policy frameworks, governments, regional organizations, and donor and development institutions responsible for carrying out disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) often work in isolation from one another—and in isolation from the actors involved in socioeconomic development planning and implementation. Progress has also suffered because elected officials, as well as donors and other development partners, tend to support immediate-term relief following a disaster rather than investing in DRR and CCA initiatives, which have less visibility but would in the long run represent a far more efficient use of resources. Merely managing the symptoms of disasters and climate change, as Pacific island countries and territories (PICTs) commonly do, is inefficient, expensive, and not sustainable. A better approach would address the causes of vulnerability and work to promote climate- and disaster-resilient development. Such an approach is achievable if certain changes are Photo: Thinkstock.com made: risk considerations must be integrated in the formulation and implementation of social and economic development policies and plans; political authority, leadership, and accountability must be more robust and effective; and coordination and cooperation among actors must be increased. Audience and purpose. This Policy and Practice Note grows out of extensive consultations Pacific island with countries, regional organizations, and donors and other development partners, and countries it is addressed primarily to high-level policymakers and decision makers within them. continue to Its analysis and recommendations are meant to inform DRR and CCA planning across a be among range of institutions at all levels. Specifically, they are intended to inform the design and the most implementation of the joint Roadmap towards a Post 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy vulnerable for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, as well as in the world: preparation of an implementation strategy for integrating DRR and CCA across the World they combine Bank’s development operations in the Pacific. high exposure to frequent The consequences of not acting today. If countries and donors do not act now to and damaging reduce PICTs’ extremely high vulnerability—above all, if development planning does not natural begin to assess hazard risks and integrate risk considerations—the consequences are likely hazards with to be serious indeed. Simply put, a “business as usual� approach focused on immediate low capacity disaster relief rather than long-term DRR and CCA will increase economic and human to manage the losses, slow economic growth, and delay or even set back progress toward Millennium resulting risks. Development Goals. 4 Acting Today For Tomorrow Lessons of the last decade. Over the last decade, some important lessons have emerged about what works, and what does not work, to reduce vulnerability. It is clear now that project-based DRR and CCA initiatives with relatively short time frames encourage fragmented efforts, inhibit carryover across initiatives, and ultimately do little to reduce underlying vulnerability in a lasting way. It is also clear that weak coordination and partnership between institutions involved with implementing DRR, CCA, and development limit the impact of these interventions, and that the institutional rigidity of donor organizations makes cooperation and partnership more difficult. Finally, experience shows that reducing vulnerability requires stronger political leadership, end-user-friendly information, and improved monitoring and evaluation. These will ensure that DRR and CCA considerations are mainstreamed in development plans and included in budgets, that well-designed DRR and CCA initiatives are delivered efficiently, and that leaders make informed decisions. The way forward: Overcoming remaining barriers and fostering resilient development. The lessons of the past decade teach us that climate- and disaster-resilient development is possible if ■■ risk considerations are grounded in development; ■■ political authority, leadership, and accountability are robust and effective; and ■■ coordination and partnerships are strong. To ground risk considerations in development, governments and partners should, among other key initiatives, ensure that climate and disaster data are easy to access and inform the selection of priority investments and development programs. They should also give precedence to development initiatives that reduce vulnerability and adapt existing tools (such as land use plans, building codes, and environmental regulations) to achieve higher resilience to all hazards. To achieve robust and effective political authority, leadership, and accountability for more resilient development, governments should anchor coordination of DRR and CCA in a high-level central ministry/body both at national and regional levels and ensure that leaders are knowledgeable about disaster and climate risk management. They should build on existing mechanisms such as strategic and corporate planning and budgetary processes, as well as proactively include communities, provincial governments, and central governments in the design and implementation of disaster- and climate-resilient investments. To promote strong coordination and partnerships, countries and development partners need mutual trust, respect, and flexibility. With good working relationships, each partner’s comparative advantage is optimized, adequate resourcing is ensured, and knowledge and implementation capacity are shared efficiently. Better cooperation between governments and donors would allow alignment of funding sources for CCA, DRR, and development, which would in turn promote flexible financing arrangements and allow current and anticipated risks to be addressed. 1 Acting Today For Tomorrow 5 The Consequences of Not Acting Today 1. Unless development planning in Pacific island countries focuses on the need to assess hazard risks, these countries will remain among the most vulnerable in the world. 2. A “business as usual� approach to managing risks— Key Messages one that focuses more on disaster relief than on long-term disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation—will result in increased economic and human losses from extreme events. 3. A “business as usual� approach will slow economic growth and delay or even set back progress toward Millennium Development Goals. 4. The vulnerability of the poor and other marginalized groups will increase unless attention is paid to slow- onset and low-intensity climate and weather events as well as to extreme events. Photo: The World Bank/Michael Bonte Although Pacific island countries are among Of the 20 countries with the highest average annual the most vulnerable in the world to natural disaster losses scaled by gross domestic product hazards, development planning has not (GDP), 8 are Pacific island countries: Vanuatu, Niue, sufficiently focused on the need to assess Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, the hazard risks. Solomon Islands, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, and the Cook Islands (figure 1). The Pacific is experiencing the mounting conse- quences of an unfortunate combination of circum- stances, in which poorly planned and implemented socioeconomic development initiatives increase al- ready significant exposure to extreme weather and climate events. 6 Acting Today For Tomorrow average annual impact from disasters/GDP (%) 10 9 8 7 n based on reported disaster impacts 6 n based on modeled annual disaster impacts from 5 cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami 4 3 2 1 0 G ucia Va ada u ue ca is M gua sia ng s lo Fed lia ds ar n iji Co m s Isl s Bu u ds M B o Pa r Ja au Ba as, r m sh Bo e a Isl s. sl . Vi k Is ica a a ag ze Ba Sa ica l e Sa ia au a Ne s l pa al ep ca m do ne Mo ive Do and in nd iu s& g rk yan bw M o ng Th at s Ni Nev M me F on . St liv o an an Fa ad li Zi ade Ni l m itt Ton o in El ma rit as sh , R nu e ha lva rg la n ld ra .L ba re a G lI in St So , m Ye .K St ico M country Figure 1. Average annual impacts from disasters as a percentage of GDP Sources: Reported disaster impacts are from World Bank and United Nations, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention (Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank, 2010); modeled annual disaster impacts are from World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative, Risk Assessment—Summary Report (Washington, DC: World Bank, forthcoming). For example: ■■ In many Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs), infrastructure and other assets are increasingly concentrated dangerously close to the coast, rather than being more dispersed and set back from exposed shorelines (figure 2a). ■■ Seawalls constructed on the island of Moturiki, Fiji, have generally exacerbated the shoreline erosion they were designed to reduce, and removing the previously cleared mangrove fringe as soon as it shows signs of regrowth has prolonged the heightened vulnerability arising from clearance (figure 2b).1 The already high frequency of some extreme weather and climate events may be increasing in the Pacific.2,3 These increases are likely to continue because of global warming, although the precise nature of the relationship between global warming and extreme event increases remains uncertain.4 Nothing can be done about the extreme events themselves, at least in the short term. But as this Figure 2 (a) Left: Most infrastructure related to government, document will show, changes to the way development commerce, and transportation continues to be concentrated on the highly vulnerable north coast of Rarotonga, Cook policy is planned and carried out in the region would Islands (photo courtesy of Helen Henry); (b) Right: Remains reduce such events’ consequences. of a typical rural seawall in Fiji. The original seawall remained intact for 18 months, then collapsed; it was subsequently partially rebuilt and then collapsed again (photo courtesy of Patrick Nunn). 1. The Consequences of Not Acting Today 7 Economic and human losses from extreme 7.0 events are enormous and will increase under 6.0 a “business as usual� approach. 5.0 Since 1950 extreme events have affected approxi- percent of GDP mately 9.2 million people in the Pacific region: they 4.0 have caused 9,811 reported deaths and damage of 3.0 around US$3.2 billion, with tropical cyclones the ma- jor cause for this loss and damage. Figure 3 shows 2.0 annual average economic losses suffered by Pacific 1.0 island countries as a result of damage caused by tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami.5 0.0 u ue lo ed a Isl s. ds Co Isla ji Isl s ds au G a or ea Ki te Tu ti lu u ok nd i So a, F ng o at a ur on . St F va es an an Ti uin Ni al Ne Sam rib In the last decade, some PICTs have experienced nu Na si To -L P Va l al w m natural disaster losses that in any single year have sh m ar ne a M approached and in cases even exceeded their GDP. pu ico Pa M Examples include the 2007 earthquake and tsunami country in the Solomon Islands, which caused losses of around 90 percent of the 2006 recurrent government Figure 3. Economic losses due to tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami. budget;6 the 2004 Cyclone Heta on Niue, where immediate losses amounted to over five times the Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and 2003 GDP;7 and the 2009 Fiji floods, which affected Financing Initiative, Risk Assessment—Summary Report (Washington, DC: World Bank, forthcoming). Nadi, Ba, and the entire sugar belt area and which caused losses of F$350 million.8 The total value of infrastructure, buildings, and cash The case of Samoa provides a striking example of crops considered at some level of risk is estimated how losses can escalate rapidly due to extreme events at over US$112 billion (table 1). Inaction could and the effects of climate change (figure 4). Though prove extremely expensive and will only grow more the precise influence of climate change on weather expensive in the future. variability and extreme events remains uncertain, Table 1. Asset replacement costs and economic losses due to tropical cyclone, earthquake, and tsunami Annual average economic losses Losses from 100-Year event Assets replacement cost Country US$ million US$ million % GDP US$ million % GDP Cook Islands 1,422 4.9 2.0 103.0 42.2 Fiji 22,175 79.1 2.6 844.8 28.1 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2,048 8.3 2.9 150.7 52.4 Kiribati 1,182 0.3 0.2 4.0 2.6 Marshall Islands 1,696 3.1 2.0 67.4 43.3 Nauru 453 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Niue 249 0.9 5.8 22.7 143.4 Palau 1,501 2.7 1.6 46.7 27.5 Papua New Guinea 49,209 85.0 0.9 794.9 8.4 Samoa 2,611 9.9 1.7 152.9 27.0 Solomon Islands 3,491 20.5 3.0 280.6 41.4 Timor-Leste 20,145 5.9 0.8 143.7 20.5 Tonga 2,817 15.5 4.3 225.3 63.0 Tuvalu 270 0.2 0.8 4.8 15.1 Vanuatu 3,334 47.9 6.6 370.1 50.8 TOTAL 112,602 284.2 3211.6 Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative, Country Risk Profiles (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2011). 8 Acting Today For Tomorrow 1,000 Figure 4. Relationship between the frequency 900 of an extreme event (as defined by the mean mean return period (years) 800 return period) and the resulting losses. Data are for Samoa. 700 600 Source: World Bank, Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment 500 and Financing Initiative, Country Risk Profile: Samoa (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2011). 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 ground-up lossess (million US$) a World Bank study of CCA in Samoa drew two worth noting here that the tsunami recovery plan, inferences. The first is that the severity—and perhaps which was founded on the principle of “build back the frequency—of El Niño Southern Oscillation better,� does provide a coherent response to both droughts is likely to increase. The second is that the tsunami risks and climate change. It is estimated to severity (wind speeds) of major cyclones may increase, cost just over US$100 million, shared between the while the return period for the most damaging public sector and donor assistance. cyclones may fall, leading to a significant increase in the average damage caused by cyclones that hit Lower-intensity natural hazards and climate Samoa.9 A macroeconomic model of the interactions effects also cause social and economic hardship between climate and the Samoan economy suggests in the Pacific. that, without additional adaptation, the present value of the climate change–induced damage to the In many Pacific countries, the accumulated impacts economy through 2050 could be between US$104 of small and medium-size events are equivalent to, or and US$212 million. This is equivalent to between exceed, those of single large disasters. Low-intensity 0.6 and 1.3 percent of the present value of Samoan events are typically more widespread, affecting a GDP over the same period. Importantly, the model comparatively large number of people. They are assumes that sound development policies will be in also likely to involve damage to housing, land, and place and implemented to minimize the impact of local infrastructure, rather than major mortality existing weather risks and other natural hazards, or destruction of economic assets.11 As the poor along with those from climate change. and other vulnerable, marginalized groups tend to live in more hazard-prone areas,12 increases in the It is also important to consider the more direct frequency of these lower-intensity hazards have a human consequences of extreme events. Between large impact on poverty. Even PICTs such as Kiribati, 1970 and 2007, Fiji experienced 41 documented which are situated outside the region of tropical flood events, which affected at least 220,000 people cyclone occurrence and hence experience relatively and killed 88.10 The tsunami that wreaked havoc on low economic losses as a result of cyclones (table 1), Samoa in September 2009 resulted in 155 deaths, are nevertheless considered highly vulnerable to the the destruction of the homes of some 5,300 people impacts of climate change. (2.5 percent of the population) and several coastal villages, and the loss of 20 percent of hotel rooms Data on low-intensity events are not collected (which could seriously harm the livelihoods of those systematically in many PICTs and are sometimes not in the tourism industry). collected at all. Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of efforts to address drought risks in Tuvalu, for Significantly, this devastation prompted almost example, was thwarted by the lack of data on the no national budget adjustment in Samoa, mainly economic and social consequences of its previous because donors stepped in with assistance amounting droughts. to around 12 percent of Samoa’s GDP. The extent to which governments tend to count on donors to offset Disaster- and climate-related losses are direct economic losses after a disaster—and the managed inefficiently: the focus by elected implications of this expectation for efforts to address officials and donors on immediate relief tends the region’s vulnerability—are discussed below. It is to discourage investment in long-term DRR 1. The Consequences of Not Acting Today 9 and CCA efforts, which in turn slows economic growth and progress toward Millennium Direct Economic Lossess Development Goals. (often offset by donors) The social and economic consequences of natural disasters and climate change fall into two broad categories (figure 5). In the Pacific, the two sets of consequences are managed differently from one another—and often inefficiently: ■■ Direct economic losses. Evidence shows that currently, although the amount of these losses is known and their effect anticipated, direct economic losses are largely offset by donors and other development partners. This was the case for Social and Hidden Costs recent cyclones, flooding, and tsunami affecting (mostly, if not totally, some PICTs. This arrangement reduces a country’s borne by the country) incentive to be proactive and invest its own resources in DRR and CCA initiatives designed to avoid or reduce these losses. It also means that donors are spending large amounts of money on relief and recovery, rather than on sustainable development. ■■ Social and other hidden costs. While losses such as injuries and deaths are well documented, this is not true for some other significant social costs, such as increased illness, work and school days lost, Figure 5. Countries tend to focus on direct economic and assistance of volunteers. Nor is there good losses, many of which are offset by donors; social and documentation of smaller and indirect economic hidden costs are often larger if their impact on the losses, including loss of subsistence crops, reduced national economy is taken into account. These costs transport links, and reduced access to services. are seldom offset by donors. Opportunity costs, too, are rarely documented. Examples of these include loss of income due to fluctuations. Benefit-cost ratios as high as 44 have the decline in tourism following an extreme event, already been demonstrated in the Pacific: and the unwillingness of rural communities to grow cash crops because of frequent damage by cyclones ■■ A benefit-cost ratio of at least 2 was found as a and flooding. All these costs, whether documented consequence of reduced repair and maintenance or hidden, are generally an internal burden on a costs over the nominal 50-year life of the main country. If they are large, they can manifest as a road in Kosrae. The lower costs resulted from significant slowdown in economic growth, and investments by the State of Kosrae in climate- they can also set back development more broadly, proofing a new 6.6 kilometer section of the road.13 including achievement of Millennium Development ■■ Benefit-cost ratios of between 1 and 44 were Goals (MDGs). found for several community-based adaptation initiatives designed to alleviate flooding in Fiji and Acting today to reduce the consequences of Samoa.14 future extreme events can be cost-effective. An overall consequence of not acting today to reduce Benefit-cost analyses suggest that investing in DRR and disaster risks and the threat of climate change will CCA is sound policy. Collecting weather and climate be further delays in achieving MDGs or—worse— data and generating forecasts, for example, is costly, backsliding from goals that have already been but the benefits can be considerable: weather-related achieved. Table 2 summarizes the sensitivities of information and forecasts help farmers decide when MDG performance to climate change and disasters. to plant, sow, fertilize, and harvest; guide tourism Significantly, performance in the Pacific is poorest for operators in which activities to schedule; and enable MDG 1 (to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger). electric utilities to anticipate and respond to demand MDG 1 is judged to be the goal most adversely 10 Acting Today For Tomorrow Table 2. Links between the Millennium Development Goals and climate change and disasters in the Pacific Sensitivity of goal PICTs’ MDG performance Potential for CCA to climate change Number of countries and DRR to improve Goal and disasters On track Off track performance Goal 1: Eradicate extreme H 2 6 H poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal M 7 2 M primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality M 3 3 M and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality M 9 3 M Goal 5: Improve maternal health M 7 7 M Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, M 5 1 H malaria, and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental H 5 5 H sustainability Goal 8: Develop a global H 6 1 H partnership for development Source: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Pacific Regional MDGs Tracking Report (Suva: PIFS, 2011), and authors. Note: H = high; M = medium. A grade of “low� was available but not given. PICTs’ MDG performance above is based on two of four progress classifications used by PIFS: ‘On track’ and ‘off track’. It does not report ‘mixed’ progress or where there is ‘insufficient information’ to assess progress. For this reason the totals are not always the same. affected by climate change and disasters. CCA and The root causes of failure to achieve the MDG DRR can do much to reduce this sensitivity and targets, including poor governance, weak hence ensure that efforts made by countries and institutional arrangements, shortages in human their partners to reduce poverty and hunger are not and financial resources, lack of political will and counteracted. The level of achievement is somewhat stability, poor accountability and transparency, and better for MDG 6 (to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and inadequate natural resources management, decrease other diseases). Nevertheless, in the Pacific region the resilience of PICTs and communities to climate there are 6.7 million cases of acute diarrhea every change and natural disasters. Thus climate change year. Of these cases, 2,800 result in death, mostly and natural disasters will further impede progress among children under age five.15 toward the MDGs. 2 Lessons of the Last Decade 1. Project-based DRR and CCA initiatives with relatively short time frames encourage fragmented efforts, inhibit carryover across initiatives, and ultimately do little to reduce underlying vulnerability in a lasting way. 2. Weak coordination and partnership between Key Messages institutions involved with DRR, CCA, and development limit the impact of interventions, and the institutional rigidity of donor organizations can make cooperation and partnership even more difficult. 3. Reducing vulnerability requires stronger political leadership, improved monitoring and evaluation, and end-user-friendly information; these will ensure that DRR and CCA considerations are mainstreamed in development plans and included in budgets, that well-designed DRR and CCA initiatives are delivered efficiently, and that leaders make informed decisions. Photo: Ciril Jazbec Progress in addressing underlying vulnerability ■■ Implementation of DRR and CCA initiatives has in the Pacific has thus far had limited impact increased at the community level. on climate-resilient development. ■■ Comprehensive data sets and tools that assess In the last decade some progress has been made disaster, climate, and fiscal risk have been in implementing DRR and CCA measures on the developed or identified. ground. Among key achievements are these: It remains true, however, that progress has had limited ■■ Investment in DRR and CCA has grown. impact. This section discusses the achievements and lessons of the last decade to understand why more ■■ Institutions involved in DRR and CCA have been progress has not been made, and to identify solid strengthened. foundations on which to build and move forward. Underpinning the discussion throughout is the five- ■■ Integration of DRR and CCA policies and plans part framework articulated in the 2006 Policy Note has increased, evident in the Joint National Action “Not If, But When� (box 1). Plans (JNAPs) for DRR and CCA. ■■ Some mainstreaming of DRR and CCA has occurred at the sector level. 12 Acting Today For Tomorrow A project-based approach to DRR and CCA Box 1. A framework for effective management encourages fragmented efforts and impedes of disaster and climate risks progress. DRR and CCA initiatives in the Pacific commenced in the late 1990s; the number of projects being implemented has increased significantly since 2007 (figure 7). This increase has not translated into greater progress toward reducing vulnerability, however. A key problem is that current interventions are typically project based. This means that initiatives tend to have short time frames and that there is little carryover from one project to the next. It also means Photo: Carlo Iacovino that projects are generally identified as either DRR or CCA, when—given the overlap in what the two types of interventions seek to achieve—the two should be seen as part of a continuum from hazard focused to development focused (figure 8). Consolidating Five elements (figure 6) make up the framework and streamlining the many discrete projects would for effective management of disaster and climate encourage progress and discourage fragmentation risks: 1) an enabling environment at all levels; 2) of effort. support for decision making (through increased public awareness, targeted information, and Weak coordination and partnership between relevant tools and training); 3) mainstreaming institutions involved with DRR, CCA, and de- of CCA and DRR initiatives in key economic and velopment limit the impact of interventions; social planning processes; 4) implementation of donor organizations’ institutional rigidity initiatives; and 5) ongoing review of initiatives to contributes to this problem by making coop- ensure that goals are being met and that lessons eration and partnership more difficult. learned are documented. A second key reason that CCA and DRR efforts have not had more impact is that organizational links and cooperation among the various projects and programs are too limited, both at the national and Support Enabling for Decission at the regional level. Joint programming of CCA and Environment Making DRR activities by donors and implementing agencies is not widespread. The lack of strong links risks duplication, limits learning, and makes it difficult to Mainstreaming achieve the holistic and multisectoral response that resilient development requires. Donor funding requirements also contribute to this problem. For example, rigid criteria and agency- specific reporting requirements discourage alignment Review Implementation and integration as funds are often earmarked separately and specifically for either DRR or CCA or development. The disjointed global processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for CCA and the Hyogo Framework Figure 6. Five key components of a framework for for Action (HFA) for DRR force and perpetuate this effectively managing disaster and climate risks. division. Source: Adapted from World Bank, “Not If, But When: Adapting Donors’ institutional rigidity also reinforces “silo to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Islands Region,� Policy Note, East Asia and Pacific Region, 2006, http://siteresources.worldbank. effects� in government institutional structures and org/INTPACIFICISLANDS/Resources/Natural-Hazards-report.pdf. approaches, and perpetuates fragmentation and duplication of effort. Because donors may prefer 2. The Lessons of the Last Decade 13 50 45 40 35 30 number of projects 25 20 15 10 5 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 year adaptation—multisector climate risk management capacity building land use adaptation—sectoral mainstreaming Figure 7. Number of CCA and DRR projects implemented in PICTs, 1991–2008. Source: Adapted from J. E. Hay, Assessment of Implementation of the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (PIFACC). Report to the Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) (Apia, Samoa, 2009). Note: some trend lines do not start in 1991 since most CCA and DRR projects began implementation following 1998 Confronting climate Anticipating impacts Building capacity Addressing drivers change and opportunities for action of vulnerability Increasing likelihood of benefits in absence of climate change Interventions assume Climate change-related Interventions laying the Poverty alleviation and the certainty of climate interventions that may foundation for more other activities to reduce Development change, with serious also result in significant targeted, on-the-ground vulnerability to climate context adverse consequences for development benefits – initiatives – climate data change not considered in the economy, society, and high reliance on climate help identify the most development plans natural systems information vulnerable parts of sectors Pro-poor surcharge for Adaptation Malaria prevention Land use plans include Installing cyclone early- participants in ecotourism example, campaigns for locations coastal setbacks and land warning and shelters for ventures including DRR thought to be at risk for new developments at-risk areas Figure 8. Responses to climate change, from development focused (left) to climate change focused (right), with illustrative examples. Source: Adapted from S. Becken and J. E. Hay, Climate Change and Tourism: From Policy to Practice (UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis, 2012). high-visibility projects, their assistance is often ongoing capacity building required for country concentrated on funding “hard� measures, such as ownership and implementation of DRR and CCA. coastal protection projects and water tanks. They tend to focus less on ensuring support of “softer� Currently, DRR, CCA, and development largely measures, such as institutional strengthening and operate as three distinct communities of practice ecosystem-based solutions, or on the longer-term, in the Pacific. The last five years have seen the 14 Acting Today For Tomorrow pare joint DRR/CCA national action plans. However, Why is progress toward reducing DRR and CCA considerations are rarely incorporated vulnerability inadequate? into economic or physical planning. To date, central ministries such as Finance and Economic Planning 1. Initiatives are project based. Short time have not played a principal role in DRR and CCA, frames and rigid categorization (as either which is problematic given their mandate for oversee- DRR or CCA) mean little carryover from one ing and coordinating national development, financ- project to the next. ing, and aid effectiveness. Improved coordination is 2. Links between projects and programs, needed to allow technical line ministries involved in both at the national and regional levels, DRR and CCA to concentrate more on the services are limited. Joint programming of CCA and that they are mandated, and have the capacity and DRR activities by donors and implementing comparative advantage, to deliver. agencies is not widespread. The lack of strong links risks duplication, limiting At the regional level there have been recent learning, and makes it difficult to achieve expressions of intent to integrate DRR and CCA the holistic and multisectoral response that through the implementation of a joint Roadmap resilient development requires. towards a Post 2015 Integrated Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. This approach would go a appearance of a plethora of DRR, CCA, and long way to redress the current arrangements, which development sector policy and planning instruments mandate that DRR and CCA be facilitated separately at national and regional levels. This includes three by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) regional policies for DRR, CCA, and national and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment development as well as National Action Plans for Programme (SPREP), respectively. However, the Disaster Risk Management (NAPs) and National integration of DRR and CCA within regional economic Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). A more development, which is in the remit of the Pacific recent initiative is Joint National Action Plans for DRR Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), is less advanced. and CCA (JNAPs). These policy instruments have been influenced by various guidelines produced in the Pacific for mainstreaming DRR and CCA into A recent institutional policy analysis development. While each initiative is well intended of CCA and DRR, in the Pacific came and reflects substantial thought and effort, greater to these conclusions: cooperation among the three communities (DRR, 1. Few regional institutions in the Pacific would CCA, and development) and greater integration of be capable of providing tangible support to their instruments would undoubtedly use available national and local DRR and CCA efforts in the resources more efficiently and produce more effective absence of donor assistance. and lasting improvements. 2. Institutional fragmentation is resulting in Improved coordination and alignment be- considerable inefficiencies in the use of the tween existing DRR and CCA institutions, and limited financial and other resources. greater involvement by relevant ministries (in particular Finance and Economic Planning), 3. Most PICT governments and administrations would make CCA and DRR into economy-wide are structured along sectoral lines, which makes and development-wide issues and would fa- it difficult for them to address the intersectoral cilitate effective whole-of-government and and integrated approaches that are needed to regional approaches. make development climate resilient. Source: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Improved coordination and alignment between DRR Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development and CCA institutions and planning instruments is Programme (UNDP), Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate crucial. It is now occurring in some PICTs such as the Change Adaptation in the Pacific: An Institutional and Policy Analysis (Suva, Fiji: UNISDR and UNDP, 2012). Cook Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and Niue. Other countries are poised to pre- 2. The Lessons of the Last Decade 15 The need for greater coordination and coherence ex- opment planning and implementation, and recognize tends to other DRR, CCA, and development actors its importance in national development strategies and such as international financing institutions, multilat- in relevant sector policies and plans. There has been eral and bilateral development partners, alliances and considerable progress in addressing some priorities in networks, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), some NAPs and NAPAs; and some countries, such as and civil society organizations. Effective coordination the Cook Islands and Papua New Guinea, have includ- is of particular importance given the critical issue of ed some consideration of CCA and DRR in budgetary limited absorptive capacity in PICTs and their com- processes. However, most NAPs, NAPAs, and JNAPs munities, a fact that NGOs in the Pacific are begin- fall short of their intended mainstreaming function in ning to recognize. Some have established coordina- that budgetary allocations at the sector level generally tion positions within their organizations, and there do not reflect DRR and CCA. is some movement toward forming consortiums between NGOs. Donors have made less progress in Stronger political authority and leadership is coordinating financing for DRR and CCA, although necessary to root DRR and CCA in regional debates some initiatives aimed at coordination have been es- on development and economy. Because DRR and tablished, such as the Development Partners for Cli- CCA lack political visibility at the regional level, PICTS mate Change meetings organized by the United Na- cannot reap the full benefits that would accrue from tions Development Programme (UNDP). Progress has mainstreaming DRR and CCA across the regional also been made in other sectors, for example in the development agenda. The PIFS has recently taken a lead advisory role to PICTs in the important matter of Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility, which facili- accessing and managing climate change financing, tates donor coordination in the infrastructure sector. but it does not yet have the support it would need Stronger political leadership would facilitate to take on the role of raising the political visibility needed inclusion of DRR and CCA consider- of DRR and CCA at the regional level in order to ations in national and subnational budgetary promote resilient development. It is worth looking processes. to DRR/CCA practice in other regions, such as risk governance and risk financing in the Caribbean, A substantial number of NAPs and NAPAs now say to identify approaches and options that could hold they consider DRR and CCA an integral part of devel- merit for the Pacific islands region. World Bank Institute Cairns Compact (governance Indicators) (development coordination) Paris Declaration Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles (aid effectiveness) National Development Plans Millennium Development Goals Hyogo Framework for Action Monitor Pacific Plan (DRR progress indicators and drivers) Regional Tracking of MDGs United Nations Development Assistance Framework Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (DRR- & CCA-sensitive indicators) Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Global Network for Disaster Reduction Framework for Action 2005-2015 (risk governance indicators) Vulnerability Reduction Assessment Tool Figure 9. Selected development, DRR, and CCA monitoring, evaluation, and reporting instruments that have been prepared for use at international, regional, and local levels; these offer starting points for designing an appropriate approach to measuring progress of integrated CCA and DRR in development. Source: Authors. 16 Acting Today For Tomorrow End-user-friendly information is necessary for development contain highly relevant proxy indicators informed leadership and sound decision mak- of resilient development. However, many of the ing as well as for the technical design and de- existing national or regional development and sector livery of resilient development initiatives. policies and frameworks focus on monitoring and evaluating inputs and outputs, rather than outcomes Appropriate, rigorous, and targeted information and the longer-term impacts that are much more can help avoid maladaptation. Over the last five relevant to measuring results and effectiveness. years considerable advances have been made in the development of comprehensive databases and tools Experience to date with monitoring and evaluation that assess disaster, climate, and fiscal risk. These frameworks for CCA and DRR shows that there is a include the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and need to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), the Pacific Sea Level and indicators that embrace principles of flexibility, Climate Monitoring Project, and the Pacific Climate learning, and participation (figure 10). Change Science Programme. To avoid maladaptation, these programs need to develop products and applications that are directly targeted to the needs of end-users in PICTs. CC A Considerable progress has been made in developing and applying approaches and tools to support integrated DRR and CCA decision making at DRR the community level in the Pacific. Increasingly, Resilie nt Develo disaster and climate risk information is being p m e nt provided to communities in a way that is relevant to socioeconomic, livelihood, and cultural contexts and complementary to indigenous knowledge. Accessibility of appropriate information products and services is vital, since communities are at the front line of disaster and climate change impacts. Recent M&E increases in coordination between NGOs should help Adaptive Dynamic to encourage tools’ consistency and quality. Active Participatory Improved monitoring and evaluation is essen- Adaptive Thorough Adaptation & tial to enhance the capacity of organizations Capacity DRR Actions and leaders to make better DRR, CCA, and de- velopment decisions in the future. Several current monitoring and evaluation frameworks provide solid starting points for approaches to Figure 10. A conceptual monitoring and evaluation measuring progress in achieving resilient development (M&E) approach that measures progress at the CCA- DRR-development interface and incorporates principles (figure 9). The long-term intended outcome of CCA of flexibility, learning, and participation. and DRR is reduced vulnerability. Thus many of the existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks for Source: Authors. 3 The Way Forward Overcoming Remaining Barriers Key Messages Critical barriers to achieving climate- and disaster- resilient development can be overcome if n risk considerations are grounded in development; n political authority, leadership, and accountability are robust and effective; and n coordination and partnerships are strong. Photo: Simpson Abraham, FSM PACC Project Pacific regional DRR and CCA reports and reviews Resilient development requires grounding published over the past decade discuss a litany of risk considerations in development. recurring challenges that obstruct efforts both to integrate DRR and CCA initiatives and to incorporate Current governance arrangements at the regional level, DRR and CCA considerations at all levels of and in most countries, do not easily facilitate the in- development. The barriers discussed in this section tegration of risk considerations into development. The are the main obstacles to addressing these ongoing separate institutional, legal, and policy frameworks for challenges. Until these barriers are overcome and CCA and DRR are counterproductive. These frame- the three key requirements for resilient development works also have weak and often tenuous links with the (figure 11) are met, resilient development will remain development sectors. Both these separations serve to out of reach for most countries and their people, diffuse efforts to integrate DRR and CCA and to main- with progress limited and results patchy at best, and stream them in development planning and processes. with vulnerability increased at worst. It is easy for the very case for integration and main- streaming to get lost amid these separations. And with- out agreement among relevant actors that integration and mainstreaming are needed, it becomes difficult to add one more priority to a development agenda that is Political Authority, Leadership, and already crowded, complex, and competitive. Accountability Separation also encourages inefficiency, since it tends to encourage planning, financing, programming, and Resilient implementing of stand-alone DRR and CCA projects Development at all levels. These self-contained initiatives are able Strong Grounding Risk to only nibble away at the periphery of DRR and Coordination Considerations CCA and are not fully integrated into development- and Partnerships in Development planning, budgetary, and other processes. At the highest levels, both the overarching Pacific Plan and national development policy frameworks need to commit political authority and commensurate Figure 11. Key requirements for climate- and disaster- levels of resources to a focus on the underlying drivers resilient development. of disaster risk. Failure to do so will almost certainly winnow away any development gains thus far. Efforts Source: Authors. 18 Acting Today For Tomorrow should concentrate on integrating risk considerations in within relatively peripheral ministries. Thus the ability development and ensuring meaningful integration of to ensure DRR and CCA policy coherence across and DRR and CCA interventions that focus on risk-sensitive between development sectors, and to influence the development outcomes. An “outcomes focus� would shaping of development investment and multisector help clarify the roles and responsibilities of various key approaches, is limited. DRR and CCA anchored in the actors and stakeholders based on their comparative heart of the planning process within a central ministry advantages, and determine who should be involved such as Finance and Economic Planning, and strongly in the delivery of DRR, CCA, and development backed by the Office of the President/Prime Minister, outcomes. This clearer division of labor would facilitate would ensure political visibility for and responsible appropriate institutional arrangements and provide implementation of resilient development. lasting benefits. Important instruments and tools for this focus on outcomes are land use planning, building Resilient development requires strong coordi- codes, environmental impact assessment, catchment nation and partnerships. and coastal zone management, and integrated water The multitude and diversity of stakeholders, partners, resources management. and financing sources in the fields of DRR, CCA, Resilient development requires sustained and and development often overwhelm the absorptive robust political authority, leadership, and ac- capacity of countries. This complexity for DRR and countability. CCA is illustrated in figure 12. The political and economic imperatives for DRR Donors, development partners (including NGOs), and and CCA are clear. Over the last decade PICTs regional organizations need to coordinate their work have recognized these imperatives at international, to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, regional, and national meetings. In spite of these harmonize and simplify approaches to reduce the bur- public political commitments, in many PICTs the den on countries’ systems and capacity, and be more sustained effort needed to address DRR and CCA responsive to the needs and priorities of countries. An remains elusive. Short electoral timelines do little appropriate transparent consultative mechanism to to encourage politicians to “invest today for a safer ensure this type of coordination and cooperation has tomorrow.�16 Only when they face a major disaster yet to be achieved, however. To maximize the efficient event within their term of office do politicians tend allocation of available resources and achieve effective to focus on resilient development. coordination and implementation, a balance is need- ed between regional capacity, national capacity, local Donors, too, have little incentive to concentrate capacity, and capacity substitution. Where appropri- their efforts on long-term resilient development; ate, budget support may be a viable option to address responding to disasters irrespective of a country’s the capacity challenge. efforts in DRR and CCA is highly visible and has high short-term impact. Donors and other actors Effective mechanisms are currently lacking for linking are missing the opportunity arising from disasters local priorities with national strategies for DRR, CCA, to highlight the benefits of DRR. In the case of and development. A stronger collaborative partner- CCA, moreover, the high profile of climate change ship between NGOs, government, and donors is provides significant opportunity to mobilize political needed to ensure available resources are appropri- and financial resources for risk-smart development ately allocated to respond to local-level priorities. investment and to enhance and build resilience. Significantly, individuals, families, and communities tend not to differentiate between CCA, poverty al- But without the strong will and commitment of leviation, or DRR interventions. Rather, they focus leaders at all levels to make DRR and CCA a national on the impact on their security and well-being. An development priority, DRR and CCA will remain enabling environment is required that encourages invisible at the highest political levels. With strong inclusion of community representatives in decision leadership, politicians will be expected to include making and implementation efforts. Building capac- DRR and CCA considerations in development and be ity at subnational levels is fundamental to an effec- held accountable for the results. tive enabling environment. Currently, leadership responsibility for DRR and CCA policy rests mainly with Departments of Disaster Management or Departments of Environment, or 3. The Way Forward: Overcoming Remaining Barriers 19 Actual and potential climate support SPC PIFS ADB SPREP LDCF GEF World Bank SCCF Country PPCR X Climate investment UN-REDD Funds SCF UNDP Japan CTF New EU Adaptation Other UN Australia Zealand Fund agencies USAID “Green Fund� Figure 12. The diversity and complexity of climate funding and support sources to a typical Pacific Island Country Source: Courtesy of Toily Kurbanov, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP, Fiji. Note: Orange boxes indicate support from multilateral development banks; green boxes indicate support from other multilateral sources; red boxes indicate support from bilateral sources; and blue boxes indicate support from regional organizations. ADB = Asian Development Bank, CTF = Clean Technology Fund, EU = European Union, GEF = Global Environment Facility, ICCAI = International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, JICA = Japanese International Cooperation Agency, LDCF = Least Developed Country Fund, MDGF = Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund, PPCR = Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience, SCCF = Special Climate Change Fund, SCF = Strategic Climate Fund, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme, UN-REDD = United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, USAID = United States Agency for International Development . 4 Fostering Resilient Development This section offers practical guidance on achieving more- resilient development and on addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability, poverty, and limited access to financial and other resources. It recommends specific steps for attaining each of the three requirements for resilient development identified in the previous section. Photo: John Hay Resilient development requires grounding Resilient development requires robust and risk considerations in development. effective political authority, leadership, and accountability. PRACTICAL STEPS: PRACTICAL STEPS: 1. Strengthen support to relevant institutions to ensure that DRR and CCA are coordinated at all 1. Anchor high-level coordination of DRR and CCA levels. in a central ministry with a high level of political authority such as Finance and Economic Planning. 2. Focus on outcomes rather than inputs to clarify the roles and responsibilities of key actors and 2. Secure political leadership and accountability at stakeholders and to assign them based on the regional level by providing support to PIFS, the comparative advantages. region’s preeminent political agency. 3. Make mainstreaming of climate and disaster risk 3. Make full use of existing mechanisms, such as considerations in development planning and strategic and corporate planning, budgetary processes a priority. processes and performance management, harmonizing DRR and CCA financing, and 4. Ensure that climate and disaster data are easy exploring financial assistance mechanisms, to to access, meet the needs of end-users, and increase pre-disaster and climate risk investment. inform the selection of appropriate DRR and CCA measures. 4. When planning and implementing on-the-ground DRR and CCA initiatives, use established inclusive 5. Proactively identify development initiatives that and participatory best practice, adapted to local address the drivers of risk and seek to strengthen context, to help close gaps between communities, resilience; screen initiatives to ensure that benefits provincial governments, and central governments. would not be jeopardized by changing weather and climatic conditions or by an extreme natural 5. Make sure leaders have the knowledge, skills, and hazard event. awareness to make sound decisions about disaster and climate risk management. 6. Adapt existing instruments and tools—such as land use plans, building codes, environmental impact assessments, etc.—to achieve high levels of resilience to all hazards. 4. Fostering Resilient Development 21 Photo: Thinkstock.com Resilient development requires strong coordi- 4. Encourage an atmosphere of trust, respect, and nation and partnerships. flexibility among actors to promote coordinated and effective CCA and DRR efforts and to PRACTICAL STEPS: ensure appropriate levels of resourcing, access to information and local knowledge, and capacity 1. Divide labor among regional institutions so they support. assume suitable roles; for instance, coordination responsibility could be anchored in the PIFS, which 5. Promote joint planning, programming, and oversees regional development, cooperation, and implementation of DRR and CCA interventions by integration; and DRR and CCA services could PICTS and their development partners in ways that be handled by SPC and SPREP, which have the make optimum use of the comparative advantages mandate, capacity, and comparative advantage to of each. deliver them. 6. Provide flexible financing arrangements that 2. Align funding sources for CCA, DRR, and address both current and anticipated risks and development to encourage stronger coordination deliver both shorter- and longer-term benefits. and cooperation within donor organizations as well as between donors. 3. Use strong and transparent consultation and coordination mechanisms to facilitate sharing of data, good practices, and lessons learned. 22 Acting Today For Tomorrow Notes 1 These seemed reasonable initiatives when they were undertaken but have ultimately proved harmful. See P. D. Nunn, “Responding to the Challenges of Climate Change in the Pacific Islands: Management and Technological Imperatives,� Climate Research 40, no. 2–3 (2009): 211–31. 2 J. E. Hay and N. Mimura, “The Changing Nature of Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Risks to Sustainable Development,� Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 1, no. 1 (2010): 1–16. 3 Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, Climate Change in the Pacific: Scientific Assessment and New Research, Vol. 1: Regional Overview; Vol. 2: Country Reports, 2011, http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/ PCCSP/publications.html. 4 Ibid. 5 Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) currently comprises data sets, information, and risk models for the following hazards: tropical cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunami. 6 Asian Development Bank, “Solomon Islands: Strengthening Disaster Recovery Planning and Coordination,� Project Number 41105, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Programme, Asian Development Bank, 2007. 7 Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, “Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in the Pacific Islands Region and Measures to Address Them,� Out of Session Paper, Forum Economic Ministers’ Meeting, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, October 27–28, 2009. 8 Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), “Socioeconomic Flood Impact Assessment in Nadi and Ba, Fiji,� SOPAC, Suva, Fiji, no date. 9 World Bank, Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Samoa (Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2010). 10 P. N. Lal, R. Singh, and P. Holland, Relationship between Natural Disasters and Poverty: A Fiji Case Study. SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 678 (Suva, Fiji: SOPAC, 2009). 11 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific: An Institutional and Policy Analysis (Suva, Fiji: UNISDR and UNDP, 2012). 12 Ibid. 13 Asian Development Bank, Climate Proofing: A Risk-Based Approach to Adaptation (Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2006). 14 O. Chadburn, J. Ocharan, K. Kenst, and C. Cabot Venton, “Cost Benefit Analysis for Community Based Climate and Disaster Risk Management: Synthesis,� Tearfund and Oxfam America, 2010, http://www. preventionweb.net/files/14851_FinalCBASynthesisReportAugust2010.pdf. 15 World Health Organization (WHO) and Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), Sanitation, Hygiene and Drinking-Water in the Pacific Island Countries: Converting Commitment into Action (Suva, Fiji: WHO and SOPAC, 2008). 16 This was the slogan for the 2009 and 2011 Global Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction. 1818 H Street, NW 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 202 477-1234 Telephone: 202 458-0640 Facsimile: 202 477-6391 Facsimile: 202 522-3227 Internet: www.worldbank.org Internet: www.gfdrr.org www.worldbank.org/pi E-mail: drm@worldbank.org E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org