USAID Climate Risk Analysis for Pacific Island Countries Assessment Report
Recognizing the risks associated with climate change, several PIC have developed ambitious plans to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to address adaptation needs. These ambitions are articulated in the NDC documents as well as the NAPs. There is an opportunity to leverage these policy commitments and support them through the USAID Strategic Framework for PIC. At the same time, there are a number of donors that are actively engaged in the region – including the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, India, the United Kingdom, France and various multilateral organizations (the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations system). The presence of partners which share a common vision with USAID offers an additional opportunity to build on existing initiatives and scale climate change interventions.
Despite these opportunities, key gaps remain. Discussions with regional stakeholders reveal that climate change investments are biased towards larger countries such as PNG, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and Vanuatu, whereas smaller countries like Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Tonga, and Kiribati receive less donor attention. In part this is because of smaller populations, the size of the countries, and their NDC targets. The bias in investments can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities for countries which already lack financial resources to invest in climate risk management. In addition, key informants highlighted that funding for climate change interventions does not currently address the needs of marginalized groups – especially women, youth, and people living with disabilities, again exacerbating vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, USAID incorporates mainstreaming of gender and social issues throughout the program development cycle. Cofinancing development projects in the Pacific region with other development agencies can foster stronger relationships with partners and local governments. For instance, given that many development partners require a mitigation component, it may be beneficial to collaborate with other agencies and agree on a set of mitigation criteria. Similarly, major climate finance bodies such as the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility and the Adaptation Fund have established criteria for inclusion of marginalized groups and women in climate change projects.
Finally, another major gap is the lack of capacity to interpret and use climate information for decision making. Currently, a major source of information for PIC is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization’s (CSIRO) “Climate Change in the Pacific: Scientific Assessment and New Research” reports. Moving forward, efforts should focus on regularly updating climate data and building local capacities to use the kind of information provided in the CSIRO reports across various sectors. At the same time, there is a need to build the capacities of scientific institutions to understand information needs and processes in local contexts to ensure that information is useful for end users.
Source: USAID
Year: 2022
