The Paci�ic Islands Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Framework A Guide for Community Resilient Development

Developed by The Paci�ic Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD) of The University of the South Paci�ic (USP) and funded by the European Union Global Climate Change Alliance (EU GCCA) Project Phase II

Copyright The University of the South Pacific (USP), 2017 This resource material was written by Patrina Dumaru with input from the PACE-SD team including Tess Martin, Brenda Lowry, Teuleala Manuella, Tessa Koppert, Tyrone Deiye, Siu Pouvalu, Helene Jacot Des Combe and Elisabeth Holland. The Climate Change Unit of the Fiji Ministry of Economy, via Teresia Powell, Waisea Vosa and Danny Southcombe also contributed to this project. The development of the Pacific Islands Vulnerability Assessment Framework was funded by the USP EU GCCA Project Phase .

Table of Content

Introduction











3

2.0 The IVA Framework 2.1 Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity 2.2 Resilience 2.3 Methodology 2.4 Livelihood Assets (LAs) 2.4 Human Security Objectives (HSOs)









5 8 8 8 10 12

3.0 The Community IVA Process 3.1 LA Status, Changes and Risks 3.2 LA capacity to meet HSOs









14 14 16

4.0 The Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard 4.1 Community IVA Scorecard 4.2 Application





17 20 21

5.0 Conclusion













22

References













23







Abbreviations

CCA DRM DRR IVA CIVA FRDP HSO(s) IPCC IVA LA(s) PACE-SD SLR SPC SPREP TVET UNFCCC UNISDR United USP

Climate Change Adaptation Disaster Risk Management Disaster Risk Reduction Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Community Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific Human Security Objective(s) International Panel on Climate Change Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Livelihood Asset(s) Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Pacific Community Secretariat of the Regional Environment Programme Technical Vocational Education and Training United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction The University of the South Pacific

Introduction The Pacific Islands Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Framework supports the operationalization of the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific (FRDP,) which “advocates for the adoption of integrated approaches whenever possible, for coping with and managing climate change and disaster risks, in order to make more efficient use of resources” (SPC et al. 2016b). Vulnerability assessments are increasingly used to determine climate change adaptation hotspots and to inform adaptation and resilience development decision-making at local, sub-national, national and regional levels. The Pacific Islands Framework for Community Integrated Vulnerability Assessment: A Guide for Pacific Resilience Professionals, (referred to as the IVA Framework, the IVA or simply the Framework) can be used for general vulnerability assessments, however, the design specifically supports the assessment of climate change and disaster impacts and the prioritisation and evaluation of resilience interventions in local Pacific island communities. The IVA Framework supports the practical implementation of the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific: An Integrated Approach to Address Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (FRDP) 2017–2030 (SPC et al. 2016b) at the community, sub-national and national levels. It may also inform the implementation and reporting of regional and global frameworks, such as the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2015 – 2030; the UNFCCC Paris Agreement on Climate Change; and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. The IVA Framework approaches the assessment of climate change and disaster vulnerability by examining how the changing conditions of livelihood assets (impacted by climate change and extreme events) affects the community’s ability to meet their human security needs at a particular point in time. The IVA approach is based on the premise that climate change and disaster impacts exacerbate existing problems (e.g. water scarcity, coastal erosion), and create new hardship (e.g. soil and water salinity), but may also generate opportunities to rebuild better and safer. The Framework posits that communities with a greater capacity to address (climate or non-climate related) problems in dynamic and challenging situations are less vulnerable to climate change and disasters. Numerous vulnerability assessment methods have been utilised in the Pacific region and their variation in approach, emphasis and scale disallows for the comparative analyses required to systematically determine national and regional adaptation and resilience development priorities and plans (BMZ 2014; Hay and Mimura 2013; SPC et al. 2016a). (BMZ 2014; Hay and Mimura 2013; SPC et al. 2016a). The IVA Framework aims to create a standardized yet context-sensitive approach to assessing community vulnerability in Pacific island communities. It incorporates the strengths of the various existing methodologies analysed by Hay and Mimura (2013) and SPC (2016a), whilst facilitates community ownership of the vulnerability assessment process and the response actions that follow. As such, The Framework targets community mobilizers, resilience practitioners, policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders with an interest in strengthening community resilience in a changing Pacific environment.

3 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

A key feature of The IVA Framework is a standard IVA Narrative and Scorecard that can be used as a ‘baseline’ for community assessments of climate change and disaster impacts, and for monitoring and evaluating resilience interventions at the community, sub-national and national levels. The IVA Narrative and Scorecard may also be used as an adaptive management self-assessment tool by local community leaders and change agents. The Pacific Islands IVA Framework is supported by competency based training aligned with unit standards from accredited TVET qualifications in Resilience. In addition, a Community IVA Facilitator’s Guide and learning resources also support the implementation of this Framework.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 4

2.0 The IVA Framework

The IVA approach integrates climate change adaptation (CCA), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and the collaboration of sectors in its applied methodology. The Framework builds on the conceptual foundations of the Integrated Vulnerability Assessment (IVA) Framework for Atolls (SPC et al. 2016a) which was designed to integrate climate change and disaster risk assessments in atoll communities. The integration of climate change and disaster risk assessments presents strategic benefits: 1) disaster risk reduction activities could also reduce climate related losses; 2) merging disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts enhances efficient resource use; and 3) both initiatives enhance the likelihood of sustainability for each other’s practice through mutual value adding (SPC et al. 2016b). Moreover, as shown in Table 1, the key concepts are very similar.

Climate change and disasters directly threaten the basic livelihood resources of many local Pacific island communities because they are geographically remote, largely semi-subsistent, and have relatively limited infrastructural support and access to markets.

5 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

The IVA Framework for Atolls (SPC et al. 2016a) combined selected elements of other frameworks that have guided previous assessments in the Pacific (Limalevu 2009; McNamara et al. 2013; Nakalevu 2006; SOPAC 2004; USP 2011). Most of the previous vulnerability assessment approaches use the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (DFID 2000), as shown in Figure 1, to frame the main components and influences on livelihood, while the traditional Vulnerability Assessment Model (BMZ 2014), shown in Figure 2, to guide the identification and assessment of climate and non-climate factors in determining vulnerability. Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 6

Figure 2: Vulnerability Assessment Model

As in the IVA Framework for Atolls, the IVA Framework assesses vulnerability based on the capacity of a population’s assets, capabilities and activities to support human security needs in both regular and extenuating circumstances. The determinants of adaptive capacity may be categorized in several ways. The IVA Framework has adapted a similar classification to that used by the IVA Framework for Atolls from the Sustainable Livelihoods Assessment Framework (Scoones 1998). It includes natural resources, infrastructure and services, human skills, financial resources and social capital. Given the relatively high level of interconnectivity in the socio-political ecosystem of small island communities, the IVA Framework for Atolls (SPC et al. 2016a) recognised social capital as an integral part of the transformative process within the functions of institutions, and hence, merged the two components. Consistent with the IVA Framework for Atolls, the IVA Framework has also combined the components of social capital and functions of institutions from the SLF and named it ‘institutions and governance’. The IVA Framework differs from the IVA Framework for Atolls in two ways. First, the Community IVA is a generic methodology that applies to local Pacific island communities or villages as the unit of analysis while the IVA Framework for Atolls assessed vulnerability from a sub-national (Whole-of-Island) level, and is specific to atoll islands. Second, the IVA Framework includes the assessment of seven human security objectives within each of the five livelihoods assets defined in the IVA Framework for Atolls. 7 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

2.1 Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity The IVA Framework approaches the assessment of vulnerability by emphasising adaptive capacity. Vulnerability is defined by the IPCC as the “propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected . . . including sensitivity to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt” (Murray and Ebi 2012). Adaptive capacity has been defined in various ways, notably by the IPCC as “the ability of systems, institutions, humans, . . . to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences” (IPCC 2014). The enhancement of adaptive capacity generally implies a reduction in vulnerability (Adger et al. 2007; BMZ 2014; Warrick et al. 2016). Importantly, adaptive capacity is indicative only of the ability to adapt and does not necessarily guarantee successful adaptation. Nevertheless, in theory, having the capacity to adapt makes adaptation possible, whereas having no capacity or capabilities implies adaptation is not possible.

2.2 Resilience The term resilience is very closely related in meaning to the concepts of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. The word resilience is often used in the field of disaster management to refer to a system’s “self-organization (versus lack of organization or organization forced by external factors) and the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation” (Adger et al. 2005). Many researchers indicate that resilience refers to the processes of learning, development and change as opposed to a status (Adger et al. 2005; BMZ 2014; Gallopín 2006). As such, resilience refers mainly to the social, economic, political and cultural elements of adaptive capacity (BMZ 2014). Hence, enhancing adaptive capacity to reduce vulnerability increases resilience, and thus the centrality of resilience in the IVA Framework depicted in Figure 3.

2.3 Methodology The IVA approach assesses vulnerability by examining the conditions, changes and (climate and disaster) risks to existing livelihood assets in the community, and the capacity of these assets to meet community needs. The IVA Framework recognises that adaptive capacity is not equitably distributed between individuals, households, communities, provinces and nations, and when those with lower adaptive capacity already have difficulties meeting their needs in ‘normal’ situations, the impacts of climate change and natural disasters on their livelihood assets is likely to make their circumstances even more challenging. As such, participatory methods of community problem identification and solving are core elements of the community IVA process and outcome.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 8

The IVA Framework acknowledges that adaptive capacity to climate change is a multi-faceted concept that incorporates strengths across a number of disciplines. For example, a community’s ability to plan, prepare and respond to a natural disaster is dependent on having healthy natural resources, a strong environmental infrastructure, adequate sources of income, people with relevant skills and knowledge, and governance and leadership structures that can guide the community through times of stress. If all of these are in place, then the community should be able to adapt to support its needs in a changing environment. The definition of adaptive capacity adopted by The Framework is as follows: the ability of local communities to effectively utilize accessible livelihood assets to meet their human security objectives in a changing environment The IVA measures adaptive capacity to climate change and natural disasters based on the extent to which communities are able to access five livelihood assets (LAs) necessary to meet seven human security objectives (HSOs). The five LAs are 1) natural resources, 2) infrastructure and services, 3) financial resources, 4) human skills, and 5) institutions and governance. The seven HSOs are 1) ecosystem health, 2) community health, 3) security of place, 4) water security, 5) food security, 6) energy security and 7) income security. Accordingly, the IVA Framework comprises 35 intersecting LA-HSO components that collectively represent a community’s ability to meet their human security needs at a particular point in time. The relationships of the 35 elements of the IVA Framework are depicted in Figure 3.

9 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

2.4 Livelihood Assets (LAs) The term livelihood includes the “capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living” (DFID 2000). A livelihood is considered to be sustainable and adaptive when it can adequately deal with climate, disaster and various other shocks whilst maintaining or strengthening its capacity, without undermining the health of natural ecosystems (DFID 2000). As noted above, the Framework uses the term Livelihood Assets (LAs) to refer to the range of assets, capabilities and activities that exist in communities, including natural resources, infrastructure and services, financial resources, human skills, and institutions and governance. The LA-based approach to assessing community adaptive capacity is based on a belief that people require a range of assets to achieve positive livelihood outcomes and human security. It also suggests that no single category of assets on its own is sufficient to yield all the many and varied livelihood outcomes that people seek. This is particularly true for economically disadvantaged people whose access to any given category of assets tends to be very limited. As a result they have to seek ways of nurturing and combining what assets they do have in innovative ways to ensure survival (DFID 2000). The five LAs of the IVA Framework, as shown in Table 2, are consistent with those in the IVA Framework for Atoll Islands (SPC et al. 2016a). Table 2: Livelihood Assets Natural resources: Marine and land-based natural resource stocks, flows and services that support people’s short and long-term livelihood and human security. Natural capital ranges from the more intangible public goods such as atmosphere and biodiversity to the more tangible dividable assets such as land and marine resources that make up coastal, forest and watershed ecosystems. Infrastructure and services: Built structures and equipment (e.g. roads, bridges, buildings, freezers, etc.), as well as technical extension services provided by governmental and non-governmental agencies. Infrastructure and services may be categorized by systems that support basic services such as housing, water and sanitation, health, education, justice and others; and those that enable economic activities including transport (roads, bridges, airports, ports/jetties), ICT, energy, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism and other sector industries.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 10

Financial resources: Money that can be accessed via available stocks (such as cash and bank savings, liquid assets such as livestock and jewellery, insurance and credit availability), regular inflows such as income earnings, pension, state transfers and remittance and income in-kind. Financial resources have the following combined features: improves prevention, preparedness and management of risks; uses microfinance to enable ‘smart’ risk taking (e.g. diversifying income sources), enables risk transfer (insurance) and risk reserves (savings). Human skills: Traditional and modern knowledge and skills of people in a community that enable them to utilize existing resources to meet daily livelihood needs as well as to plan, implement and monitor development actions and processes. However, the number of ‘capable’ people relative to accessible resources within a community also determines resilience, and so demography and mobility are critical factors. The human resources of a community are therefore assessed according to their health, skills and education levels. Institutions and governance: Informal mechanisms (values, norms, customs and culture) and formal rules (policies, laws and regulations) that influence the way individuals and groups interact, govern and act collectively (via informal and formal organizations). Hence, institutions shape the way people and groups respond to climate change and disaster risks and impacts, by channeling the flow of resources and influences needed to adapt to change. Decisions and actions aimed at strengthening the adaptive capacity of local communities to climate change and natural disasters requires a sound understanding of factors that shape people’s ability to meet their livelihood needs on a daily basis. These factors are often determined by what resources the community has access to, and how the community uses those resources. The first four LAs (natural resources, infrastructure and services, financial resources and human skills) indicate what a community has while institutions and governance explains what a community does to meet their HSOs. For example, the CIVA approach recognizes that assets, such as natural resources, are critical to supporting food security, but the rules, values and culture of a particular place determine if, when and how food resources are harvested, distributed and managed.

1 1 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

2.4 Human Security Objectives (HSOs) Climate change adaptation is a process of ensuring that climate-related risks to valued objectives are kept at a tolerable level (Dow et al. 2013). The “limits of adaptation are reached when a human system is no longer able to secure their valued objectives” (Wallimann-Helmer 2015). Hence, the prevention of loss and damage from climate change impacts is a goal of adaptation. The IVA Framework recognizes that climate change and other disasters influence the capacity of LAs to support HSOs. Human security is defined as “a condition that exists when the vital core of human lives is protected, and when people have the freedom and capacity to live with dignity” (Adger et al. 2014). The Framework structures human security into seven broad objectives (HSOs), namely ecosystem health, community health, security of place, water security, food security, energy security and income security. Unsustainable development, disasters and climate change impact negatively on LAs, and consequently reduce the capacity of communities to achieve their HSOs. A key feature of the IVA is that the seven basic HSOs for assessing community adaptive capacity are defined by the community based on their specific valued objectives (e.g. harvesting fresh seafood for family meals from the nearby lagoon). It is essential that a IVA practitioner is familiar with universal definitions of the seven HSOs, in order to facilitate the process of contextually defining and valuing each human security objective or in simple terms, community needs. The contextual definitions are achieved through participatory consultative methods, such as focus group discussions. The generally accepted global definitions of the HSOs are listed in Table 3.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 12

Table 3: Human Security Objectives Ecosystem health: The status and potential of an ecosystem to maintain its structure, function and resilience under stress, and to continuously provide quality ecosystem services for present and future generations (Lu et al. 2015). Community health: “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition” (WHO 2013). Security of place: Having access to adequate housing (Habitat 2009) in a place that is physically and socially safe. Water security: Having access to protected water systems that are relatively safe from the impacts of water-related hazards such as floods and droughts, as well as access to water supply functions and services that are managed in an integrated and equitable way (Cook and Bakker 2012). Food security: The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (FAO 1996). Energy security: The “uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” (IEA 2017). Income security: The ability to generate the financial income required to pay for necessities at the household and community levels.

1 3 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

3.0 The Community IVA Process

The IVA Framework may be applied to analyse vulnerability at the national, sub-national and national levels. This resource material focuses the application of the IVA approach at the community level. The Community IVA Framework comprises two key steps that allow for an assessment that is based on a combination of objective technical knowledge and subjective local knowledge. The approach and methods used to conduct a Community IVA requires a particular skill set that may be met collectively by a group of facilitators of varied and relevant qualifications and experience. The quality and validity of information gathered via field consultations generally depends on the ability of the Community IVA facilitators to (individually or collectively) •

describe the universal definitions of the Livelihood Assets (LAs) and Human Security Objectives (HSOs)

•

effectively communicate the definitions, functions and relationship between LAs and HSOs within the IVA Framework and how these relate to climate change vulnerability in a way that is relevant to the culture and language of the community being assessed

•

effectively facilitate the inclusive participation of a wide and representative sample of community informants by age, gender and abilities in the IVA process

•

effectively mediate the verification and co-production of knowledge from both technical and local sources

A more detailed explanation of the skills, methods and steps required to facilitate an IVA that generates community learning, participation, ownership and action towards resilience building may be found in the supplementary Community IVA Facilitator’s Guide (in press 2017).

3.1 LA Status, Changes and Risks The first step of the Community IVA aims to describe the status, changing conditions and risks associated with each community LA. This first step involves a ‘desk review’ of existing reports, publications, databases, websites and other available sources of reliable data. The ‘desk review’ allows the Community IVA facilitator(s) to become familiar with the community through existing documents providing evidence of factors shaping the community vulnerability context. The description of the status, changes and climate and disaster risks associated with the five LAs may be structured as shown in Table 4. The Community IVA facilitator has the opportunity to fill any gaps identified in the secondary data via field observations and community input during the field consultations.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 14

An overview of suggested focus areas and data acquisition tools is contained in the IVA Framework for Atoll Islands, and a guide for field assessment tools that includes focus group discussions, a field walk, risk mapping and others can be found in the PACE-SD V&A Guidebook (McNamara et al. 2013) Table 4: Proposed Structure for Describing the Vulnerability Context within the CIVA Framework Natural Resources: • • • • •

Location and physical geography of the community (including climate and climate variability) Existing land-use and changes in past years Existing coastal and marine area use and changes in past years Impacts of previous natural disasters on community natural resources Experienced and anticipated effects of climate change in the local area (including changes in air and sea temperature, rainfall and cyclone intensity, sea level and ocean acidification)

Infrastructure and Support Services (governmental and non-governmental): • • •

Existing status and condition of basic infrastructure and support services, including housing and settlements, water and sanitation, health, education and justice Existing status and condition of economic enabling infrastructure services including roads, bridges, airports, ports/jetties, ICT, energy, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism and other sector industries Impacts of previous natural disasters on infrastructure and support services

Financial Resources • • • •

Household income source and levels Household expenditure and levels Access to savings, credit and insurance facilities Impact of previous disasters on access to financial resources

Human Skills (Modern and Traditional) • • • • • • •

Demographic profile (age, gender and population change rate) Population mobility and trends (age and gender) Population health Literacy levels Formal educational level reached Local practical knowledge related to supporting basic needs such as gardening, house building, plumbing, fishing, etc. Impacts of previous disasters on community population health, size and profile

Institutions and Governance • • • • • • • •

Size and type of community (e.g. traditional rural/urban, modern rural/urban, formal or informal settlement) Community institutions and structure (e.g. traditional, administrational, religious, non-governmental) Land tenure Community development decision-making process and plans (when and how decisions are made on what issues) Influence on decision-making by gender, age and ability Linkages between community and sub-national and decisions and plans Changes in community development emphasis and priorities (e.g. communalism vs individualism) Community leadership and collective action in preparation for future disasters and recovery from previous disasters

1 5 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

3.2 LA capacity to meet HSOs The second component of the Community IVA aims to assess the capacity of each LA to support each HSO at a particular point in time. This analysis is largely based on local community perceptions and knowledge gathered via field consultations. Studies show that community risk perceptions are culturally and psycho-socially determined (Béné et al. 2016; Kuruppu 2009; McLaughlin and Dietz 2008). Understanding people’s perceptions of a situation or event within a community context is important for identifying the factors that enable learning and adaptive action. Thus the Community IVA adopts a largely subjective approach to assessing adaptive capacity. Depending on the time and resources available to the community being assessed and the Community IVA facilitator(s), the field consultations may be conducted using various participatory methods and tools, such as focus group discussions, key informant interviews, transect walks, and community risk mapping as described in the PACE-SD Guidebook (McNamara et al. 2013). Community perceptions on the capacity of each LA to support each HSO must be gleaned in a procedurally structured way that engages participants meaningfully in i. ii. iii. iv. v.

defining each HSO describing the resources required and (culturally influenced) practices involved in addressing each HSO rating the capacity of each LA to support each HSO based on the community defined resources and practices identifying key actions required to improve future LA-HSO capacity rating identifying actions that can be carried out by the community themselves and those activities that will require support from external agencies (governmental or non-governmental)

The information gathered is recorded in a Community IVA Narrative and then compiled into the Community IVA Scorecard, and enables community ownership of climate adaptation assessments, decisions and actions. It also helps inform higher level (sub-national, national and regional) resilience development planning and programming.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 16

4.0 The Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard

The Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard are the tools used for compiling the scores and supporting narratives for each of the interacting LA-HSO components (thirty-five in total, applying the five LAs to each of the seven HSOs). As shown in Table 5, the Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard contains the community’s views about the meaning of each HSO; the resources and practices required to meet them; a subjective score to represent the capacity of each LA in meeting an HSO; the reason for the score and responses to addressing low scoring LAs. A qualitative, subjective scoring system using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 is used: • • • • •

1 = Serious Problem 2 = Minor Problem 3 = Satisfactory (no issues) 4 = Good 5 = Very good

A score of one or two is indicative of areas that should be prioritized for climate change adaptation or disaster risk management interventions. These identified problems should be included in a Community Action Plan for Resilience, such as that presented in Table 6. A score of three or more generally suggests no intervention is required at that particular time.

1 7 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

Table 5: Community IVA Narrative for Water Security for DD/MM/YEAR

WATER SECURITY NARRATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES

Community definition

INSTITUTIONS & GOVERNANCE

HUAMN SKILLS

INFRASTRUCTURE

FINANCE

Having safe, affordable and accessible water at all times

Local resources and practices related to ensuring community water security

A well-protected water source that provides sufficient and clean water at all the times

A group of people (e.g. village water or health committee) who effectively mobilizes the community to work together to ensure that the water supply needs of everyone in the village are met at all times (including disaster periods)

People in the community who have the knowledge and skills to maintain the required standards of the water supply system

Sufficient materials and equipment (e.g. tanks and pipes) and external technical service support from government and NGOs to ensure the community water supply needs are met as well as disaster resilient

Community members who are able and willing to pay for the community’s water supply service at all times

LA capacity

4 (Good)

2 (Challenging)

4 (Good)

2 (Challenging)

3 (Satisfactory)

Explanation

A well protected water source (land use activities in the surrounding area is restricted) and quantity and quality of water supply to the community is mostly reliable. The water turns into a light brown colour after a heavy rain but clears up after a day or two. Existing source cannot meet community water demands during the recent long dry periods. Nearby spring used to supplement the existing dam source.

Traditional leaders placed restrictions on land use activities in the surrounding dam area. Community has a water committee but they don’t meet regularly and there are no women represented. The committee does not have a water management and maintenance plan that they follow. Water shut-downs are common - leaking storage tanks and unmaintained pipes. Some houses have unmaintained leaking taps.

The community has 2 vocationally trained water plumbers who are members of the village water committee. One of the village plumbers is a retiree from the government public works department.

All houses (53 houses in the village) are connected to the village water supply. However, the community experiences regular water cuts due to the leaking water tanks and the low supply at source during dry spells. Broken pipes also reduce supplies and causes water to shut-down.

The community’s main source of income is from agricultural crops. Most community households are able and willing to pay the $1 per week charge for the village water supply fee.

How could the score be improved?

[Not a priority]

•

Review water committee reps and functions and role as community water managers

[Not a priority]

•

[Not a priority]

•

Develop community water management action plan (or incorporate into an existing village plans)

Increase storage capacity by fixing or replacing old tank

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 18

Table 6: Community Action Plan for Resilience for DD/MM/YEAR

HSO

Resilience Action

Community member responsible?

Will external agency support be required?

When?

Review water committee reps and functions and role as community water managers

Village headman and leader of the village water committee

No

Within the next CIVA Scorecard Review period (e.g. 3 months)

Develop community water management action plan (or incorporate into an existing village plans)

Village Development Committee

Yes. Water management agencies to be approached to provide community water and sanitation (WASH) planning and training

Within the next CIVA Scorecard Review period (e.g. 3 months)

Increase storage capacity by fixing or replacing old tank

Village Water Committee

Yes. Technical and financial assistance from Rural Water Authority or NGO

Within the next CIVA Scorecard Review period (e.g. 3 months)

Ecosystem Health Community Health Security of Place Water Security

Food Security Income Security Energy Security

1 9 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

4.1 Community IVA Scorecard Once all the HSOs have been scored with narratives all thirty-five scores are compiled in the Community IVA Scorecard, as shown in Table 7. The Scorecard is a quantitative representation of the integrated vulnerability status of the community at a particular point in time. At a glance, the example Community IVA Scorecard in Table 7 shows that there are existing underlying vulnerability factors that challenge the community’s ability to meet their food security, energy security, security of place and ecosystem security objectives. This situation is suggested by the total average score of these HSOs below three. The Scorecard also indicates that these vulnerabilities stem mainly from existing weaknesses in LA capacity, in particular infrastructure and services, and natural resources, scoring an average total of 2.3 and 2.6 respectively. The Community IVA approach recognizes that these vulnerabilities have the potential to be worsened by the effects of climate change (e.g. intense rainfall, prolonged drought, sea level rise) and disasters (e.g. strong winds, storm surge, landslides, floods). Thus, these scores suggest priorities for actions that aim to minimize or avoid loss and damage to climate change and disasters in the future. Table 7: Community IVA Scorecard for DD/MM/YEAR

(*Scores transferred from Table 5 Community IVA Scorecard on Water Security. A full community scorecard will have similar scores and supported narratives on the other 6 HSOs)

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 20

It is important to note that Community IVA Scorecards and Narratives provide a broad and integrated preliminary assessment of community vulnerability that can inform adaptation prioritization at the sub-national and national levels of governance. A more comprehensive and specialized technical assessment may be required by sector experts (e.g. water, coastal, health, education, agriculture, forestry, etc.), contingent upon the urgency and magnitude of the vulnerability problem identified via the Community IVA. For example, a more in-depth and thorough follow-up assessment would be required for adaptation interventions that incur significant financial, environmental and/or social costs, such as the installation of artificial coastal protection structures or community relocation.

4.2 Application The IVA may be applied for a range of purposes, such as for impact assessments, as a community self-assessment tool for resilience planning, and for action and learning. A Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard that is reviewed or updated periodically may be used as ‘before-and-after’ data to support the tracking of climate change and disaster impacts as well as the effectiveness of climate change adaptation and disaster risk management interventions in a community. In cases where ‘Before’ IVA data is needed but has not been gathered, assessors could ask community informants to give a retrospective narrative and score of each intersecting LA-HSO component. Impact or evaluative assessments such as these may be done by analysing the changes in scores and supporting narratives between two or more time periods. As such, the first IVA score and narrative outcomes for a community may be used as a ‘baseline’ for future impact assessments, including that of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). Community IVA Narratives and Scorecards may be revised by the community on a regular basis as a means of identifying changes in the capacity of the five LAs to meet the community’s seven HSOs. These changes may be influenced by the effects of climate change and natural disasters, or resilience development interventions in both positive and negative ways. Accordingly, the Community IVA Scorecard may be used as a common reference tool by community leaders, resilience practitioners and other stakeholders for assessing the impact of climate change and related disasters, and the effectiveness of interventions that seek to reduce vulnerability and avoid or minimise loss and damage to climate change and natural disasters. A well-designed community resilience development plan would also incorporate the views of relevant sector experts from external agencies that include government and non-governmental organisations. In this way, the Community IVA Scorecards enable community leaders to strategically channel internally and externally sourced resources and knowledge towards solving community-identified problems and vulnerabilities in an inclusive and coordinated way.

2 1 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

5.0 Conclusion

The Pacific Islands IVA Framework presents a simplified methodology that focuses on participatory and consultative approaches to assessing community vulnerability at a particular point in time. It has been developed through an extensive process of trials throughout the Pacific islands region and incorporates elements of reputed global, regional and local Vulnerability Assessment frameworks and methodologies. Through the application of the Community IVA Narrative and Scorecard it presents quantified information that can be analysed by community members, technical experts, development partners, government and non-government agency stakeholders to meet various needs. The information on community vulnerability presented in both qualitative and quantitative terms is particularly relevant for informing resilience development planning, monitoring and evaluation. The Pacific Islands Community IVA Narrative can also be used to assess climate change and disaster impacts.

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 22

References

Adger, W Neil, et al. (2005), ‘Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters’, Science, 309 (5737), 1036-39. Adger, W Neil, et al. (2007), ‘Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity’, Climate change, 717-43. Béné, C, et al. (2016), ‘The Influence of Subjective and Psycho-social Factors on People’s Resilience: Con ceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence’. BMZ (2014), ‘The Vulnerability Sourcebook: Concept and guidelines for standardised vulnerability assessments ‘, (2017; https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wp-content/uploads/filebase/va/vulnerability-guides-manuals-reports/Vulnerability_Sourcebook_-_Guidelines_for_Assessments_-_GIZ_2014.pdf: German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development). Cook, Christina and Bakker, Karen (2012), ‘Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm’, Global Environmental Change, 22 (1), 94-102. DFID (2000), ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets’, (Department for International Development). Dow, Kirstin, et al. (2013), ‘Limits to adaptation’, Nature Climate Change, 3 (4), 305-07. FAO (1996), ‘Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996’, (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). Gallopín, Gilberto C. (2006), ‘Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity’, Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 293-303. Habitat, UN (2009), ‘The right to adequate housing’, Fact Sheet No, 21. Hay, John E and Mimura, Nobuo (2013), ‘Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation Assessment Methods in the Pacific Islands Region: past approaches, and considerations for the future’, Sustainability Science, 8 (3), 391-405. IEA (2017), ‘What is Energy Security?’, 16 February IPCC (2014), ‘Annex II: Glossary [Agard, J., E.L.F. Schipper, J. Birkmann, M. Campos, C. Dubeux, Y. Nojiri, L. Olsson, B. Osman-Elasha, M. Pelling, M.J. Prather, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, O.C. Ruppel, A. Sallenger, K.R. Smith, A.L. St Clair, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, and T.E. Bilir (eds.)]’, in V. R. Barros, et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press), 1757-76.

2 3 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

Kuruppu, Natasha (2009), ‘Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: the importance of cultural values and meanings’, Environmental Science & Policy, 12 (7), 799-809. Limalevu, L (2009), ‘Rapid vulnerability and assessment approach of the PACE-SD Methodology’, (Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific.). Lu, Yonglong, et al. (2015), ‘Ecosystem health towards sustainability’, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 1 (1), 1-15. McLaughlin, Paul and Dietz, Thomas (2008), ‘Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated perspective on vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, 18 (1), 99-111. McNamara, Karen, Hemstock, Sarah, and Holland, Elisabeth (2013), ‘PACE-SD Guidebook: Participatory Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment’, (Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific). Murray, Virginia and Ebi, Kristie L (2012), ‘IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX)’, (BMJ Publishing Group Ltd). Nakalevu, T (2006), ‘CV and A: A guide to community vulnerability assessment and adaptation action. ‘, (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). Scoones, Ian (1998), ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis’. SOPAC (2004), ‘Environmental vulnerability indicators: Description of indicators. ‘, (The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission and the United Nations Environment Programme). SPC, SPREP, and PIFS (2016a), ‘Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Framework for Atoll Islands A collaborative approach’, (Pacific Community (SPC), Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH). SPC, et al. (2016b), ‘Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific: An Integrated Approach to Assess Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management (FRDP) 2017 - 2030’, (Pacific Community (SPC), Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS),

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 24

Pacific (USP)), 31. USP (2011), ‘Pacific adaptive capacity analysis framework (PACAF): An assessment of the capacity of 12 rural communities in the Pacific islands to adapt to climate change.’, (University of the South Pacific, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, and the Australian Red Cross). Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo (2015), ‘Justice for climate loss and damage’, Climatic Change, 133 (3), 469-80. Warrick, Olivia, et al. (2016), ‘The ‘Pacific adaptive capacity analysis framework’: guiding the assessment of adaptive capacity in Pacific Island communities’, Regional Environmental Change, 1-13. WHO (2013), ‘A state of complete physical mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’, Available onli ne: http://www. who. int/about/definition/en/print. html (accessed on 20 June 2016) (World Health Organisation).

2 5 | T H E P A C I F I C I S L A N D S I N T E G R A T E D V U L N E R A b I L I T y A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E w O R k

A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITy RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT | 26

The Paci�ic Islands Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Framework A Guide for Community Resilient Development