Content uploaded by Joeli Veitayaki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joeli Veitayaki on Jul 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
For Review Only
Communi
ty
-
based action in Fiji’s Gau Island: a model for
the Pacific?
Journal:
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
Manuscript ID:
IJCCSM-07-2015-0101
Manuscript Type:
Research Paper
Keywords:
Climate change adaptation, Community-based adaptation, Vulnerability,
Development, Pacific, Fiji
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
For Review Only
1
Community-based action in Fiji’s Gau Island: a
model for the Pacific?
ABSTRACT
Internationally, Community-based adaptation (CBA) is recognised as a promising approach to
help vulnerable populations adjust to climate change. However, with pilot projects in their
infancy documented experience for Pacific islands remains scarce. This limits the ability of
the region – faced with persisting development challenges and predicted significant climate
impacts – to learn from and build on previous experiences, and develop robust responses to
climate change.
Drawing on qualitative fieldwork on a remote outer island in Fiji, the paper aims to address
this shortcoming. By using a community-based initiative in response to environmental
challenges and unsustainable development as a proxy, it interrogates the potential usefulness
of the CBA framework for the Pacific and identifies potential strengths and weaknesses.
Sketching out the process and its outcomes, the paper shows how the initiative has resulted
in a diversity of strategies, ranging from pollution control measures, to improved governance
of resources and community participation in decision making, to livelihood and income
diversification.
Findings indicate that CBA could have a lot of potential for building more resilient
communities in the face of climate change and other pressures associated with modernising
Pacific societies. However to be effective, interventions need to be sensitive to dynamics of
village governance, social rules and protocols, establish trust, use traditional means of
communication and address people’s development aspirations. The conclusions provide a
reflection on the CBA framework in general, as well as make concrete suggestions for
practitioners on how the framework could be usefully implemented in the Pacific context.
KEYWORDS
Climate change adaptation, Community-based adaptation, Vulnerability, Development,
Pacific, Fiji
Page 1 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
2
INTRODUCTION
“Vakarauni se SigaToka” - Prepare while there is time
Pacific Islands are being transformed by climate change. In addition to warming, the signs of
change are manifested through coastal flooding and erosion, loss of coastal ecosystems and
productivity, damage of aquifers due to saline intrusion, and more frequent and intense
weather events such as droughts, cyclones and storm surges (Pelesikoti et al., 2013).
Simultaneously, the limited geographical space presents its own challenges to sustainable
development, as population pressure places strain on available resources (Veitayaki et al.,
2007; Veitayaki and Sivo, 2010). Changes in climate therefore couple with other stressors to
threaten local livelihoods, settlements and infrastructure, and development aspirations. This
situation creates an imperative for what has become referred to as adaptation, or long-term
social transformation that aims to safeguard against harmful impacts associated with climate
change.
People in the Pacific have in the past continually responded to environmental changes, and
possess extensive traditional knowledge and practices that provide coping mechanisms during
times of stress (Veitayaki, 2002). Yet, the attempt to modernize and participate in economic
activities on a global scale has resulted in increased exploitation and degradation of
environment and food sources (McCubbin et al., 2015; Veitayaki, 2012) and the erosion of
people’s traditional resilience. On current trends, the impacts of unsustainable development
are likely to increase in the future, leaving communities more vulnerable to external stressors
such as climate change.
Background: what has gone wrong with development practice in the Pacific?
Despite over three decades of engagement by international development partners in the region
and Pacific Island Countries (PIC) being among the highest per capita recipients of
development and climate-related aid,
1
huge development challenges remain
2
and success on
the ground in instituting long-term sustainable development and improved climate resilience
remains to be seen (Buggy and McNamara, 2015; Nunn et al., 2014). The paradigm for social
and economic development, as well as for improving climate resilience, has been (and
continues to be) dominated by largely short-term, infrastructure-based approaches, driven by
donor priorities and national governments (McCubbin et al., 2015; PINA, 2014). This has
resulted in the expected improvements and ‘most communities […] are no better prepared to
adapt to future climate change than they were before’ (Nunn et al., 2014, p. 222). This
implies the need for a new approach, a re-thinking of development practice. Literature on
development in the Pacific highlights a number of additional reasons that call for a change in
practice:
• First, the importance of acknowledging local culture and context: So far, the approach
to development and adaptation in the Pacific has been dominated by top-down
decision-making that imposes readymade solutions from the outside, not accounting
for local culture and priorities (PINA, 2014; UNDP and AusAID, 2009). Critical
scholarship has questioned whether many of the proposed and/or trialled solutions are
culturally appropriate for the Pacific Island region. For instance, ‘almost all
information received by people in the Pacific Islands about climate change over the
past 25 years has been in a foreign language, mostly in English, and communicated
in ways that do not acknowledge the cultural mores of the region’s peoples’ (Nunn,
2013, p. 159).
Page 2 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
3
• Second, a problematic cycle of dependence: Decades of development interventions
have led some communities to believe that climate and development challenges
cannot be overcome without externally initiated and funded projects (Nunn, 2013).
Generally across the Pacific, increases in expectations and dependence on external
aid have lead to a weakening, rather than a strengthening of response capacity and
self-reliance. For instance, Johnston (2014, p. 124) argues that ‘disaster aid, relief
and rehabilitation assistance have […] been shown to weaken traditional disaster
risk reduction techniques’.
• Third, short project cycles: Donors are usually under pressure to present fast and
visible outcomes. This may result in donors avoiding activities that may be desirable
for their long-term benefits for local people, but which are difficult to quantify as
outcomes in the short-term monitoring and evaluation cycle of projects.
• Fourth, the limited access of the periphery to resources. On peripheral outer islands,
livelihoods continue to depend largely on the surrounding marine and terrestrial
ecosystems and their services (Nunn et al., 2014, p. 221). At the same time influence
and engagement of most Pacific Island governments dwindles from the core to
periphery, which means people on outer islands often have limited access to services
and support from central government. Remoteness thus magnifies the extent to which
people’s wellbeing is linked with how they manage their own immediate
environment. In the context of climate change, this means communities need to
develop and implement their own adaptive strategies to prepare for changing
conditions expected in the future (Nunn et al., 2014).
• Fifth, lack of (sufficient) funding. Although resources for responding to climate
change are being scaled up globally, competition for these finite funds will intensify,
particularly for Pacific Island Countries (PICs), which already receive much higher
per capita support than many other regions of the world. In this context, PICs would
do well to make themselves less dependent on donor-funded initiatives: ‘the fact that
more will need to be done with less in the future should encourage governments and
other local stakeholders in the region to think of adaptive solutions that are less
expensive, perhaps resorting to traditional solutions based on unremunerated
community-sponsored efforts using, wherever possible, materials freely available
locally’ (Nunn, 2013, p. 160).
Furthermore, the dramatic backdrop of climate change and increasing climate-related aid to
the region adds additional urgency to the necessity of embracing a more holistic line of
action. Mirroring observations elsewhere (Cundill et al., 2014), the most common approach to
adaptation currently applied in projects across the Pacific has a focus on technological
solutions that consider the impacts of climate change in isolation from other non-climatic
stressors (McCubbin et al., 2015). This dominant approach is likely to misrepresent local
realities and priorities (Forsyth, 2013) and has been criticized by a number of scholars as
risking being maladaptive or at least inefficient (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010; Bisaro et al.,
2010; Buggy and McNamara, 2015).
3, 4
Community-based adaptation (CBA) is increasingly recognised as one such promising
alternative approach for vulnerable people to adapt to climate change impacts. However,
despite gaining greater interest internationally, pilot initiatives are in their infancy and with a
few exceptions (Dumaru, 2010; Gero et al., 2011; McNamara, 2013; Nunn et al., 2014; and,
as an example from the “grey” literature, UNDP, 2014), little documented experience exists
for PICs. There is a particular gap when it comes to the case for locally oriented empirical
studies. This limits the region’s ability to learn from and build on previous experiences, and
develop robust responses to climate change.
Page 3 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
4
Aims, research questions and methodology
This paper aims to address this shortcoming by contributing to the growing body of work on
CBA in the Pacific. By using a community-based initiative in Gau, an outer island in Fiji, in
response to environmental challenges and unsustainable development as a proxy, it
interrogates the potential usefulness of the CBA framework for the Pacific and identifies
potential strengths and weaknesses. It examines the process and outcomes of the Lomani Gau
initiative and highlights lessons that might be learned for more effective, locally driven
adaptation elsewhere in the Pacific region.
While we recognise that Lomani Gau is not a CBA project per se (and has in fact never
carried that label), the path followed and activities taken match surprisingly well with the
“model” of CBA described elsewhere. In the absence of empirical evidence of planned CBA
projects, we suggest Lomani Gau can be taken as a proxy. The paper addresses the following
questions:
• How did community-led action on Gau Island develop and what factors catalysed the
initiative?
• What changes and outcomes did it generate and how do they correspond to the CBA
framework?
• What lessons can be learned for initiating community-driven adaptation in the
Pacific?
This paper draws upon fieldwork on Gau Island (see Map 1) and provides an overview and
analysis of the initiative after its more than ten years of activity. It builds on work from
several research projects relating to marine conservation, fisheries management and rural
development in Gau over the last ten years (2003 - 2014), as well as ethnographic
observations by the articles’ authors, acting both as researchers and policy community
participants. Qualitative data about community-based action, specifically the process as well
as land-management and governance changes was generated from the island’s sixteen villages
and six settlements. It was collected through household surveys and semi-structured
interviews, personal observations and focus group discussions, as well as several other less
formalised discussions with individuals and groups across the island. Informants include
village leaders, sub-district and district officials, customary leaders, as well as other key
village members. As a review this paper does not seek to be comprehensive, rather it extracts
key ideas and discusses selected material of relevance to the research questions.
The paper proceeds by describing the CDA framework, as developed in other parts of the
world, which will be used as an analytical backdrop to examine the case of Gau’s community-
led action. It then turns to the history and evolution of the initiative, in terms of the process
and the actions taken, followed by a discussion of successes and challenges. Next, these
experiences are compared to the conceptual framework of CBA. One key aim of this paper is
to see what lessons we can draw from this rich experience for future community-driven
climate adaptation in the Pacific. Thus the article concludes with a summary of lessons
learned followed by tentative recommendations for future projects in the Pacific as well as a
few reflections on the usefulness of the CDA framework.
Page 4 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
5
2. COMMUNITY-BASED ADAPTATION
Evolution and principles of CBA
In the context of responding to climate change, the concept of community-based adaption
(CBA) has been gaining traction as one way of reducing vulnerability and building adaptive
capacity. CBA has the primary objective to ‘improve the capacity of local communities to
adapt to climate change’ (CARE, 2010, p. 5). The idea is to equip communities with
information and tools that enable them to make choices that will increase their wellbeing and
livelihood resilience. By emphasising the close synergies between adaptation and
development – because what individuals and communities respond to are multiple challenges
not just increased climate variability and extremes (Eriksen et al. 2011), but a multiplicity of
new and old risks such as overcoming poverty, underdevelopment and environmental and
resource degradation (Heltberg et al., 2012) – CBA has been proposed as a way to make
‘climate change policy and international development more compatible’ (Forsyth, 2013, p.
439).
CBA emerged as a distinct debate in the early 2000s when it combined a number of trends
recognising that (1) adaptation was key and not drawing attention from mitigation efforts; (2)
the social drivers behind people’s vulnerabilities needed more attention; and (3) community-
based natural resource management as a framework to empower and understand local realities
was a good place to start from (Forsyth, 2013, p. 440).
5
As many people directly depend on
ecosystems for their livelihoods, social and economic security, CBA places emphasis on
protecting and sustaining local ecosystems.
A key feature of CBA, which often distinguishes it from other forms of adaptation, is that it is
a community-led process based on meaningful engagement and proactive involvement of
local individuals and organisations. At its core stands the ‘fundamental principle of
community empowerment’ (Gogoi et al., 2014, p. 2), which recognises that communities
should have the means to make their own decisions and self-determine their future. Thus
rather than having external actors predetermine solutions, as commonly the case in adaptation
projects, it capacitates communities to shape development or adaptation interventions,
recognising local communities’ essential roles in the process of assessing climate and
environmental risks, as well as in planning, implementing, and the monitoring and evaluating
of actions (CARE, 2010; Dumaru, 2010). Beyond bringing ‘[…] decisions under the control
of those affected by them and avoiding predetermined solutions’ (CARE, 2013, p. 2), it also
recognises that communities possess skills, experience and local knowledge necessary to
undertake locally appropriate activities (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013).
CBA in practice
As communities face a number of challenges – climate variability and change being only one
of them – actions seldom focus exclusively on climate risks (Reid et al., 2009). Consequently,
CBA projects often resemble development projects, factoring in future changes in climate.
There is no blueprint for a CBA project, as ‘[t]he climatic, environmental, social, economic,
and political context surrounding a community determines the design, implementation and
possible outcomes of CBA processes and activities’ (CARE, 2014, p. 57). This means
solutions are very case-specific, but according to CARE International (2010, p. 5f), a vocal
promoter of the approach, projects ideally incorporate four key strategies:
• ‘Promotion of climate-resilient livelihood [strategies], including income
diversification and capacity building for planning and improved risk management;
Page 5 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
6
• Disaster risk reduction to reduce the impact of hazards, particularly on vulnerable
households and individuals;
• Capacity development for local civil society and governmental institutions so they
can provide better support to communities, households and individuals in their
adaptation efforts; and
• Advocacy, social mobilisation and empowerment to address the underlying causes of
vulnerability.’
Unlike conventional approaches to adaptation, CBA includes an ‘element of deliberation, or
social learning, between different forms of expertise’ (Forsyth, 2013, p. 442), with the aim of
addressing current vulnerabilities and building the capacity of people to respond to new
challenges (CARE, 2010, p. 5). Knowledge and information from local and external sources
are brought together in a participatory process which, importantly, combines local perceptions
of risk and larger-scale risk assessments, such as regional climate predictions (Forsyth, 2013).
Such process also builds on existing cultural norms and address local development concerns
that underlie vulnerabilities (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009), by considering both the local context
and (broader) environmental drivers of stress (Forsyth, 2013). Hence, two important
outcomes of CBA are the sharing of information and analysis, and achieving social change.
6
Challenges to CBA
It goes without saying that CBA is not without its challenges. First, communities are not
homogenous: They are made up of different groups such as young and old, men and women,
rich and poor. Members of a community will have different levels of vulnerability (Schipper,
2009), as within communities or even households roles, rights, power and access to and
control over resources may differ significantly (Buggy and McNamara, 2015; CARE, 2010).
Second, ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ does not mean ‘inclusive’: Any decision-making process is
likely to entail a variety of power relationships and exclusions. As Ensor and Berger (2009, p.
231) highlight, ‘[i]t may be that situations are encountered ‘where “local culture” is
oppressive to certain people’ and may rob the most vulnerable within a group of a voice’.
One example of such a challenge is when gender-based exclusion is deeply rooted in the
culture, requiring a thorough understanding of local power dynamics to address these
(Dodman and Mitlin, 2013). For instance, in the strongly patriarchal societies of the Pacific,
cultural norms often assign decision-making responsibility to men (SPC et al., 2014). Third,
traditional livelihoods are not necessarily sustainable: It is important to acknowledge that
‘small islands may be both victims and agents of inadequate responses to climate change’
(Hay et al., 2013, p. 304). There might be traditional practices that are harmful to the
environment, in which case they need to be critically examined, altered and possibly even
abandoned.
A model for adaptation in the Pacific?
Three points make CBA a promising model for sustainable change in Pacific island
communities: First, it focuses on the local level (meaning the neighbourhood, settlement or
village level) (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009) and is thus much better equipped to respond to
specific vulnerabilities on the ground. Second, and a major strength, CBA looks beyond the
climate risk at other stressors already affecting communities and seeks general improvements
in livelihoods (McCubbin et al., 2015), generating a no-regrets development approach to
climate change adaptation and reducing the risk of maladaptation (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010).
Third, as it builds on self-determination the generated change can be expected to be
sustainable beyond the (often) limited project cycle. Because local communities formulate
Page 6 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
7
actions, CBA also is more likely to avoid investment in efforts that are likely to fail in the
local context.
Keeping the above discussion in mind, the paper will now turn to its case study to evaluate
the suitability of CBA approach for the Pacific context – one of the world’s regions expected
to be most affected by future climate impacts.
3. CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY-LED ACTION IN GAU, FIJI
Introducing Gau Island: a community in transition
Gau (pronounced N‘gau’) is the fifth largest island in the Fijian archipelago and located 80km
east of the main island Viti Levu (Map 1). Gau is home to around 3,000 people, who are
predominantly indigenous Fijians.
7
For their livelihoods, locals are heavily dependent on
products and services provided by healthy ecosystems, such as fish and agricultural produce.
Neighbouring islands are accessed by open fiberglass boats and the nearest urban centre, the
capital city of Suva, is two to six hours away. This geographic isolation presents unique
challenges in accessing alternative sources of income and basic government services. Gau has
a total land area of 300km² that extends from coastal lowlands and river plains to mountain
ridges and plateaus in its rugged interior. A virgin cloud forest in the island’s mountainous
interior is home to the indigenous bird Kacaunigau (Fiji Petrel, Pseudobulweria
macgillivrayi). This forest has not been logged and provides the island’s population with
essential environmental services such as clean water, wild food and building materials.
Traditional medicine, farming implements and household items are also sourced from the
forest. Gau Island is divided into three administrative units (tikina), or districts. These are
Sawaieke, which consists of eight villages and four settlements, Navukailagi, which has three
villages and Vanuaso, comprising of five villages and two settlements.
8
All villages and
settlements are located on the coast, the part of the island where human activities have been
most profound.
[Insert Map 1 about here]
As in many other Pacific islands (Buggy and McNamara, 2015), people on Gau are transiting
from their present semi-subsistence existence to a more commercial-oriented one. With these
changes towards a more ‘modern’ lifestyle, people are aspiring to maximise income, improve
living standards and, in order to do so, are taking up commercial agriculture, fishing and
timber milling. These non-traditional activities have caused a rapid expansion of areas of
secondary vegetation, a clearing and alteration off the virgin forests, increasing deforestation,
alteration of riverine and littoral vegetation and habitats, alteration of coastal habitats and the
depletion of resources. Other side effects of this modernisation are an influx of invasive
species and the unregulated use of pesticides and other farming chemicals that come with
modern farming practices, whose adverse effects for health and the environment local people
often know little about. In addition, these modernising communities have to cater for
increased numbers of people, more permanent waste and other challenges related to health,
deficient links to markets and poorly planned development activities. These threats to local
natural resources are harmful to livelihoods and increasingly felt in villages and settlements.
Page 7 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
8
History and evolution of the Lomani Gau Initiative
Resource management in Gau Island started in the 1990s, when the Gau Island Council
decided to work with Fiji’s National Trust to preserve the island’s native forest, home to the
endemic Fiji Petrel (Kacaunigau). This island-wide conservation initiative echoed global
trends at the time to support community-based conservation projects (Reid, 2014). After a
series of community consultations and training workshops on marine awareness and
management at the turn of the century, participants formulated resource management
arrangements, such as banning the use of fish poison and declaring ‘no take’ areas. To
manage their marine resources the three tikina on Gau started collaborating with each other
and with different non-government organisations and development agencies.
Traditional resource management practices still used in some parts of Fiji help people
appreciate the need to look after forests and land resources for these to be healthy and
productive. This dual relationship between responsibility and dependence means that
communities are often aware of vulnerabilities and threats associated with degraded local
environmental resources. In some cases, this has lead to the protection of local resources. On
Gau people established community-based Marine Managed Areas (MMAs) to enhance local
marine resources, knowing that they cannot easily move elsewhere and have to take measures
ensuring the health of the resources they depend on for their livelihoods.
Through these engagements communities on Gau illustrated drive and commitment to
resource conservation. However, it soon became obvious that in order to consolidate these
protective measures, communities needed to address other, interrelated, challenges. Not long
after the establishment of the MMAs, external collaborators introduced the concept of
integrated resource management and as a consequence local communities began to extend the
initial management of marine resources to address sources of related land-based threats such
as waste management and harmful land use practices. In this context people also began to
discuss the attainment of their communal development aspirations. Given Gau’s small size
and the interconnectedness of its ecosystems, it was evident to communities that an integrated
management approach was required, balancing communities’ resource management activities
and the development of appropriate sources of livelihood in the different villages. In Vanuaso
district, a consortium of international donors and partners supported the pursuit of alternative
sources of livelihood to complement conservation activities in coastal communities. Known
as Mositi Vanuaso, this initiative made people more aware of the interconnected
environmental and developmental challenges they were struggling with and needed to address
to improve living standards.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Mositi Vanuaso was successful in engaging local communities, and its ideas and approach
quickly diffused into other villages (see Table 1). In 2005 this lead to the expansion of the
project to cover the whole island under a broader initiative named Lomani Gau.
9
Lomani Gau
is a social network of people spearheading integrated resource management and promoting
the sustainable use of natural resources. A committee consisting of representatives of all
sixteen villages meets regularly to coordinate and lead the work to enhance community
livelihoods with the goal of reducing alterations of local ecosystems associated with these
transitions and maintaining an island environment that can cater for current and future needs.
The network also monitors the implementation of resource management- and development
plans from each of the villages. This preservationist approach - that at the same time focuses
Page 8 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
9
on improving household income and meeting local development aspirations - is recognised as
a key feature of the initiative (see Table 2).
What have been tangible effects of the initiative and how do they relate to the framework of
CBA? The next section will discuss concrete activities and outcomes of Lomani Gau against
CARE’s (2010, 2014) characterization of key CBA strategies (for a summary, see also Table
3).
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Analysis of outcomes
New sustainable rural development ideas and practices that have been introduced to Gau
communities include participatory decision-making, the use of the integrated resource
management approach and the promotion of alternative sources of livelihood. An island-wide
Resource Management Plan summaries Lomani Gau’s objectives (see Table 2) and reflects
the village plans, which highlight how villages will address environmental challenges and
improve local livelihoods. These plans were formulated by village representatives at Lomani
Gau meetings and have been endorsed by the villages that are to implement them. This
process ensures that people work together as a group to attain common goals, to serve their
local village’s needs and those of the island as a whole.
Promotion of climate-resilient and diversified livelihoods strategies
Livelihood diversification on Gau has focused on crops, livestock, fisheries, non-food
products and household energy. Farming and other sustainable agricultural practices, such as
tree planting and the use of organic manure, are promoted under the initiative and villagers
are selling watermelon, taro, fish, coconuts, coconut products (such as virgin oil and biofuel)
and pigs to the main markets in Suva. Cattle, root crops, fruits and vegetables are occasionally
sold locally. The villagers are continuing with the cultivation of yaqona
10
and the production
of copra
11
. To help further diversify income and enhance income security, the cultivation of
seaweed and pandanus
12
has become a new source of income for many families. The weaving
and selling of mats in Suva has opened new income generating opportunities, particularly for
women. Villagers are harvesting plantation forests and planting sandalwood and timber trees
as future sources of income. Pine forests on the island are now being sawn to facilitate the
return to wooden building materials. At sea, a bêche-de-mer
13
farm has been erected in one
village to trial a new style of harvesting, while another village is collecting oyster spat in a
new initiative with the Fiji Fisheries Department. Solar powered lights are being introduced to
replace fuel dependent lights in the village communities.
Disaster risk reduction strategies
The villages on Gau have a network of sixteen marine managed areas and a series of resource
management plans including those for reducing disaster risks. These Disaster Risk Reduction
plans were formulated in a workshop in early 2012. The workshop provided a platform to
exchange knowledge and information on environmental challenges and measures for coping
and adapting to these. The main objectives were to increase people’s awareness of disaster
risks and to identify suitable solutions to prepare for and guard against related hazards.
Representatives from each village assessed the most important disaster risks and formulated
plans to address these. Some villages have already implemented their plans and established
local response strategies, such as the restoration of mangrove forests, which act as natural
buffers during spring tides and tsunamis.
Page 9 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
10
Capacity development for communities and local institutions
Training, capacity building, advocacy and funding workshops have been carried out and
continue to be organized regularly at district and island level, as well as for individual
villages. Issues discussed include pressing environmental problems on the island and its
surrounding marine areas and action plans on how to address them, rural development
planning, alternative sources of livelihood and income, good governance, and disaster risk
reduction and management. In addition, communities receive orientation and training in a
wide range of topics important for their economic activities, including risk management,
proposal writing, project management and women’s participation and empowerment. The
initiative has enhanced civil society networking, information sharing, learning and
collaboration on environmental challenges and climate change by strengthening governance
at all levels of local administration. The Gau Island Council receives support to coordinate
local government activities and has set up Lomani Gau Tikina Committees to lead community
work in the three districts.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Advocacy and social mobilisation to address underlying causes of vulnerability
As discussed in the beginning of this section, unsustainable land use and the destruction of
ecosystems are key factors influencing people’s vulnerability. Gau residents have addressed
these underlying causes by focussing on the importance of healthy forests and marine habitats
and taking necessary steps to correct earlier mistakes and malpractices. Coral reefs,
mangroves and coastal habitats are now protected and rehabilitated, to complement the
recovery of fishing areas and protection of shorelines. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) have
been deployed in deeper coastal waters to establish pelagic fisheries and provide relief for the
reef resources by diverting some of the fishing effort to other areas. Additional measures
currently undertaken to ameliorate environmental degradation and address harmful land use
practices include the following:
• Battling deforestation associated with shifting cultivation;
• Eradicating indiscriminate burning of coastal slopes which threatens biodiversity;
• Protecting watersheds and drinking water sources;
• Minimising hillside cultivation to reduce soil loss and erosion;
• Rehabilitating degraded coastal habitats to enhance their health and integrity; and
• Emphasizing the sustainable use of coastal resources.
Beyond these direct interventions, Lomani Gau is organising regular meetings and training
activities to promote sustainable land use guidelines that protect water catchments. The
disposal of village waste through appropriate management and composting, and the
maintenance of a healthy and clean living environment are currently pursued in all villages.
4. DISCUSSION: LESSONS FROM LOMANI GAU?
Lomani Gau did not start off as a CBA project. Instead, it commenced as an environmental
protection and resource management initiative. However, over the past decade the process has
evolved to embrace and adopt many characteristics and goals typical for a CBA project
(CARE, 2010), covering income diversification strategies, efforts to reduce the impact of
hazards, capacity development, and actions to address underlying causes of vulnerability (see
Page 10 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
11
also Table 3). In our view this makes it a compelling case to look at – and one that can serve
as a useful proxy – for it provides insight into how community-driven development may be
replicated in other Pacific Islands. So what can this case in Gau teach us about the potential
for CBA across the wider Pacific region, what interesting and useful advice can the
experience offer? The following aspects stand out:
Change takes time
The multitude of issues that need to be addressed on a path to sustainable development, even
on a small island such as Gau, makes the change process complex and drawn out. The
initiative has taken over a decade to develop into its current state, extending far beyond
activities and timelines with which major donors usually work. Lomani Gau exemplifies how,
after a decade of working with people and building local capacity, sustainable development
principles seem to be much better understood and accepted by people challenged by the
interrelation between degraded ecosystems and unsustainable development activities.
Putting local development needs on the agenda – not climate change
Climate projections do not mean much to people on Gau. Such projections are complex and
the inherent concepts hard to understand. Instead, locals are concerned about non-climatic
forces that are profoundly affecting their livelihoods, such as coastal erosion, depleting
marine resources, degraded vegetation and the need for improved sources of income. Thus,
rather than focussing on climate change as the major driver for change, meetings on Gau
addressed current pressing challenges to livelihoods, future risks and how to address these.
Through workshops and trainings (as well as the discussion about receding shorelines and
processes to rehabilitate coastal habitats, protect local forests, water catchment areas and food
sources) communities have established that only a healthy environment can support their
basic needs for food and clean water, and draw connections to broader environmental changes
such as climate change. Future CBA projects in the Pacific may want to focus on acute
community vulnerabilities and local realities as effective entry points for adaptation action.
Demonstrate that changes make economic, cultural and ecological sense - immediately
To conserve important biodiversity and re-generate ecosystems preservation approaches can
be effective. Nevertheless, it is hard to expect people to conserve the resources they need to
make a living, when their immediate worry is about day-to-day existence. Workable
environmental protection and adaptation strategies should complement, rather than constrain
primary development aspirations and have to go hand in hand with income generating
activities. Pacific peoples have development aspirations beyond ‘maintaining the status quo’.
Thus, securing alternative sources of livelihood and income are equally important as
adaptation measures. One success of the Gau case has been the inclusion of local (economic)
development aspirations and the use of natural resources to empower people economically.
Mirroring observations elsewhere (Reid, 2014), one major challenge in Gau has been to
motivate communities enough to adopt longer-term adaptive practices. People’s long-term
involvement in desired actions depends on how well the immediate challenges are addressed.
Adaptation is a long-term process, but local momentum can be built on and motivation
maintained by also delivering short-term benefits (such as the provision of food or additional
income from new activities).
Empowerment, self-determination and local ownership
Local participation and priorities that reflect people’s needs and wishes are critical, in order to
have people identify with and take ownership of the initiative. This is also more likely to
Page 11 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
12
generate sustained outcomes beyond the project cycle (McCarthy, 2014). Furthermore, it
helps to mobilise local support and minimise the cost of public services by shifting
responsibility to local people and organisations. Lomani Gau has been successful because of
local engagement right from the start in the development of action plans and programme
implementation strategies. This has empowered people to work collectively in a way that
engenders ownership of the local programmes.
Learning from others and through hands-on experience
While local people need to determine their own development strategies, it is beneficial to
involve external insights and expertise, so communities may learn what has worked
elsewhere. Improving the provision of information represents one opportunity that can help
communities make more informed decisions. Furthermore, local people need to be trained in
the appropriate new skills so that they can be as competent in new technologies and practices
as they have been with traditional ones. On Gau, workshop and training activities have proven
critical to build local capacity as well as equip people with knowledge and skills necessary to
undertake action. They have also ensured the integration of climate change into development
objectives and planning processes. Many of Gau’s residents have never left their island home
and have a low level of formal education. For this reason, providing local communities with
the knowledge to understand the complex interrelations in their ecosystems and appreciate
their rights and obligations under contemporary statutory management arrangements has been
an important part of the engagement.
Successful demonstration is fundamental to changing behaviour in communities in transition.
In Pacific societies, learning-by-doing is often how people conduct their training. This makes
demonstrations and pilot sites crucial for the introduction of new practices. In the case of
Gau, when neighbouring communities began to see the benefits of Mositi Vanuaso they
actively approached the district to learn from the initiative and then requested to join Lomani
Gau.
Partnerships – between local communities and external actors
Unsuccessful development or adaptation activities are often related to a lack of communities’
understanding of why the development activities are useful, and the outsider’s poor
understanding of local context (PINA, 2014; UNDP and AusAID, 2009) Locals need to
understand the objectives of a project and the reasons why it is beneficial to do certain things
differently, while external partners and development agencies must appreciate the lifestyles in
villages, people’s value systems, practices and needs. External partners need to be familiar
with the way local people live, do things and relate to their development aspirations. One way
of achieving this in community-driven initiatives would be to engage a social scientist as part
of the team.
Local legitimacy and agents of change
Social networks and local leadership have been essential to the success of the initiative,
providing the basis for long-lasting associations. Rather than establishing a new system, the
initiative has adapted established local authority structures, something that has been
acknowledged as a success factor elsewhere (McCarthy, 2014).
14
For this, the support of
Gau’s community leaders and chiefs has been paramount. In line with this, good and
legitimate governance has been essential on Gau. People need to feel assured that their
interests are foremost and the process emphasises the common good, is fair and to everyone’s
benefit. Dynamic and enlightened leadership is needed to be familiar with the customary
Page 12 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
13
relations and systems. At the same time, community leaders must be transparent, fair and lead
by example to act on issues that are important to them and their communities.
Agents of change have played a key role in Gau. These dedicated and respected individuals
have played a key role in fostering initiatives and motivating fellow community members.
Identifying potential agents of change can thus be an important step in generating success.
Having exemplary agents of change, that are for instance interested in testing new agricultural
techniques, can make the exercise cost-effective.
Access to seed funding and long-term support
Gau people live semi-subsistent lives where little money is accumulated, which means that in
spite of local commitment and manpower, activities still required seed funding. With the costs
that have to be met for implementing community activities such as learning about alternative
sources of livelihood, little will be done without support of development agencies, NGOs or
government agencies. From the very start Lomani Gau collaborated with external partners,
educational institutions, non-government partners and development agencies.
15
Yet, funding
has been a major hurdle in Gau. The short project cycles of many donors – the average time
frame for CBA projects in the Pacific has been estimated to be just over three years
(McNamara, 2013) - it has been a challenge to secure long-term funding. Building capacity
and creating awareness are long-term goals that, despite being important and essential for the
sustainability of a project, often do not attract donor support. Requirements for accessing
external funds and financial assistance often still isolate local communities, who do not have
the capacity to access the assistance mounted for them nor any reputation with donors and
financial institutions. In the wake of increasing competition over scarce climate funds, future
CBA initiatives could also consider linking to mitigation initiatives such as REDD+.
16
Limitations of the analysis and next steps
The evolution of Lomani Gau, a locally driven, organic process, means that no baseline data
was gathered prior to the initiative. This makes a proper evaluation of the environmental,
social and economic benefits (or drawbacks) for local communities and individuals
impossible. Furthermore, given that climate change impacts have yet to strongly materialise,
it remains difficult to gauge the true overall success of measures taken - positive or negative -
at this stage. The changes in Gau reflect a growing level of awareness and commitment to
contribute to the protection and development of natural resources. We argue that this makes
Gau’s communities better equipped to respond to future stressors. Whether this actually has
resulted in an increased ‘adaptive capacity’ in communities – in other words people’s ability
to adapt to the impacts of climate change – remains to be seen in the years to come.
Gender, along with other factors such as wealth and family, often determines the roles,
opportunities, power, access to and control over resources for women and men in Pacific
communities. Such inequalities form an important - and often insufficiently addressed -
barrier to equitable improvement of livelihoods and adaptation. While there has been some
emphasis and encouragement of women’s participation in the process, there is insufficient
evidence to suggest that Lomani Gau has promoted equal participation of men and women in
the decision-making and implementation phases of activities. Whether women, or other
disadvantaged groups such as people with disabilities, have benefitted equally, or at least
have not been impacted negatively by the initiative remains unanswered. It is safe to assume
that lasting, transformative change in gender relations has not been part of the efforts so far. A
next step in the involvement in Gau would therefore be to apply a gender sensitive approach
when revising plans/programs of socio-economic development on the island. So what
conclusions can we draw from these experiences?
Page 13 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
14
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PACIFIC?
Climate change is a real threat to Pacific nations and their people and measures to build
adaptive capacity are critical in ensuring that communities are able to cope with the
immediate and long-term effects of global warming. Nevertheless, what local communities
are struggling with are pre-existing problems of economic and rural development, food
security and poverty alleviation. In this context, clarity and awareness about future climate
change, will not necessarily stimulate ownership of the climate change agenda nor will it
drive social or behavioural change. In the case of Lomani Gau, local development needs and
economic challenges have been driving the shift to more sustainable development practices
and adaptation, rather than awareness about future physical changes.
In many projects across the Pacific, adaptation is conceptualised as requiring infrastructure-
based solutions such as sea walls or systems to improve water supply. Yet, in contrast to these
high-cost, high technology strategies, actions chosen by Gau’s communities are relatively
low-cost, address non-climatic socioeconomic conditions and focus on ‘soft’ measures
including livelihood diversification, ecosystem management and regeneration, capacity
building and training, and community mobilisation. These actions target deep structural
vulnerabilities related to underdevelopment and environmental and resource degradation.
Building on local development aspirations and utilising the benefits of healthy ecosystems
can be a compelling and viable alternative to traditional approaches to development in the
Pacific, that have recently come under increased scrutiny (Buggy and McNamara, 2015;
McCubbin et al., 2015; Nunn et al., 2014). In view of future climate uncertainty, building
local capacity and sustainable livelihoods present ‘no-regrets’ approaches, as with or without
climate change these measures are likely to increase community adaptive capacity. The
efforts being tried in Gau Island offer appropriate alternatives to resource-strapped PICs and
represent a more ‘autonomous’ form of adaptation - one that many Pacific Islanders will
likely have to rely on in the future. Furthermore, as large numbers of people in the Pacific live
subsistence lifestyles, healthy and diverse ecosystems are important for sustaining livelihoods
and people’s ability to adapt their behaviour. As such, we expect this approach to provide a
promising alternative to manage future risks associated with climate change. As donors and
aid agencies gear up for adaptation, lessons from initial experiences in the Pacific region
should be used to inform future decisions. We believe the Gau case depicts that if
communities are in the driving seat, they can enrich and broaden an understanding of
adaptation processes that often differs from those suggested by external actors. In conclusion,
a number of practical implications emerge from our study:
First, the level of action: While the initial focus of the intervention was on one sector
(fisheries/marine conservation), Gau residents soon realised they needed a more holistic
approach. This led to the expansion in geographical area to a ‘ridge-to-reef’ approach and –
eventually - to cover the entire island (for another example see WCS, 2012). Future CBA
initiatives would do well in considering the appropriate geographical scale of intervention.
This reflects one problematic aspect of the CBA approach (highlighted by colleagues very
recently, see Buggy and McNamara, 2015): The overemphasis on the level of the community
could potentially limit the success and effectiveness of a development or adaptation project
significantly in contexts where other scales, such as that of an island or ecosystem, might be
more suitable.
Second, over the last decade Gau communities have shown their commitment and support for
resource management. Yet, there are limits to what local communities can do autonomously
and the lack of government support for community development can significantly hinder
Page 14 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
15
potential community-driven initiatives. This is a difficulty Pacific Governments can address
by providing enabling conditions to mobilise local action. The national level plays a key role
in adaptation planning and implementation, not the least by funnelling funding and providing
guidance. One useful step could be to establish national guidelines for community-based
initiatives, and a database of ‘good practice examples’ (e.g. similar to weADAPT, but at
national or regional level). Another would be to provide seed funding and rewards for
communities that succeed in attaining their objectives. While there is a lot of government
support for the introduction of new agricultural practices (for instance in Fiji through the
Ministry of Agriculture, Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster
Management), it would be beneficial to provide additional support for local communities that
goes beyond technical trainings.
Third, at a broader level, there is a need for innovative financing mechanisms, as existing
funding structures and systems of aid support make genuine local level engagement difficult
or impossible. This in our view is a key weakness in the CBA framework, which is silent
about coordination and cooperation with higher administrative levels. If these levels remain
disconnected, CBA is likely to remain a fringe activity in the Pacific where local economic
power is low. It would be a valuable step to integrate CBA into national policy and planning
with a commitment to dedicate resources to the local level. Without such a commitment, there
is a risk that climate finance will continue to support top-down, centralised activities that may
struggle to address the needs of vulnerable Pacific communities.
Finally, avoid delinking adaptation from development. While it makes sense to argue for new
and additional finance at international level, the case of Gau shows that at the local level this
separation is an artificial one. The case demonstrates how current livelihood vulnerability on
a small Pacific island is caused by unsustainable land use and development activities.
Measures that protect the local environment and improve people’s livelihoods will also make
them more resilient to future challenges.
Page 15 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
16
REFERENCES
ADB, UNESCAP and UNDP. (2013), Asia-Pacific Aspirations: Perspectives for a Post-2015
Development Agenda Asia-Pacific Regional MDGs Report 2012/2013, Bangkok: Asian
Development Bank, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific and United Nations Development Programme, available at:
http://www.adb.org/publications/asia-pacific-aspirations-perspectives-post-2015-
development-agenda (accessed 3 July 2015).
Ayers, J. and Forsyth, T. (2009), “Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change”, Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 22–31.
Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. (2010), “Maladaptation”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.
211–213.
Bisaro, A., Wolf, S. and Hinkel, J. (2010), “Framing climate vulnerability and adaptation at multiple
levels: Addressing climate risks or institutional barriers in Lesotho?”, Climate and
Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 161–175.
Buggy, L. and McNamara, K.E. (2015), “The need to reinterpret ‘community’ for climate change
adaptation: a case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu”, Climate and Development, pp. 1–11.
CARE. (2010), Community-Based Adaptation Toolkit ( No. Digital Toolkit – Version 1.0 – July 2010),
London: CARE International - Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.
CARE. (2013), Community Based Adaptation: An empowering approach for climate resilient
development and risk reduction, London: International - Cooperative for Assistance and
Relief Everywhere, Inc., available at:
http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CBA_Brief_nov_13.pdf (accessed 3 June 2014).
CARE. (2014), Community-Based Adaptation in practice: A global overview of CARE’s practice of
Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) to climate change, London: International - Cooperative
for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc., available at:
http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CBA_Brief_nov_13.pdf (accessed 3 June 2014).
CIA. (2015), The World Factbook: Fiji, Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, available at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fj.html (accessed 2 July
2015).
Cundill, G., Shackleton, S., Sisitka, L., Ntshudu, M., Lotz-Sisitka, H., Kulundu, I. and Hamer, N.
(2014), Social learning for adaptation: a descriptive handbook for practitioners and action
researchers., Grahamstown: IDRC/Rhodes Univeristy/Ruliv.
Dodman, D. and Mitlin, D. (2013), “Challenges for Community-based adaptation: Discovering the
potential for transformation”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 640–
659.
Dumaru, P. (2010), “Community-based adaptation: enhancing community adaptive capacity in
Druadrua Island, Fiji”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp.
751–763.
Ensor, J. and Berger, R. (2009), “Community-based adaptation and culture in theory and practice”, in
Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I. and O’Brien, K.L. (Eds.),Adapting to Climate Change Thresholds,
Values, Governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 227–239.
Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C.S., Martins, R.D., Molefe, J.I., Nhemachena, C., O’Brien, K., et
al. (2011), “When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles
for sustainable adaptation”, Climate and Development, Vol. 3, pp. 7–20.
Page 16 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
17
Forsyth, T. (2013), “Community-based adaptation: a review of past and future challenges: Community-
based adaptation”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 439–
446.
Gero, A., Méheux, K. and Dominey-Howes, D. (2011), “Integrating community based disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation: examples from the Pacific”, Natural Hazards and
Earth System Science, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 101–113.
Gogoi, E., Dupar, M., Jones, L., Martinez, C. and McNamara, L. (2014), How to scale out community-
based adaptation to climate change ( No. CDKN Working Paper), London: CDKN - Climate
and Development Knowledge Network.
Hay, J.E., Forbes, D.L. and Mimura, N. (2013), “Understanding and managing global change in small
islands”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 303–308.
Heltberg, R., Gitay, H. and Prabhu, R.G. (2012), “Community-based adaptation: lessons from a grant
competition”, Climate Policy, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 143–163.
Johnston, I. (2014), “Disaster management and climate change adaptation: a remote island
perspective”, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 123–137.
McCarthy, J.F. (2014), “Using community led development approaches to address vulnerability after
disaster: Caught in a sad romance”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 27, pp. 144–155.
McCubbin, S., Smit, B. and Pearce, T. (2015), “Where does climate fit? Vulnerability to climate
change in the context of multiple stressors in Funafuti, Tuvalu”, Global Environmental
Change, Vol. 30, pp. 43–55.
McGray, H., Hammill, A. and Bradley, R. (2007), Weathering the Storm. Options for Framing
Adaptation and Development, WRI Repoer, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
McNamara, K.E. (2013), “Taking stock of community-based climate-change adaptation projects in the
Pacific: Climate change adaptation in the Pacific”, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp.
398–405.
Ministry of Fisheries and Forests. (2015), The Fiji National REDD+ Programme, Republic of Fiji,
available at: http://fiji-reddplus.org/fiji-national-redd-programme (accessed 8 June 2015).
Nunn, P.D. (2013), “The end of the Pacific? Effects of sea level rise on Pacific Island livelihoods: The
end of the Pacific?”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 143–171.
Nunn, P.D., Aalbersberg, W., Lata, S. and Gwilliam, M. (2014), “Beyond the core: community
governance for climate-change adaptation in peripheral parts of Pacific Island Countries”,
Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 221–235.
OECD DAC. (2013), Aid to Climate Change Adaptation, OECD DAC Statistics, Paris: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Assistance Committee.
Pelesikoti, N., Ronneberg, E., Nakalevu, T. and Leavai, P. (2013), Report on Adaptation Challenges in
Pacific Island Countries, Apia: SPREP - Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Programme/APAN - Asia Pacific Adaptation Network.
PINA. (2014), “Pacific Nations Need Help Away From Aid”, Pacific Island News Association,
available at:
http://www.pina.com.fj/?p=pacnews&m=read&o=186962652552e978ff4b5110c37198
(accessed 19 May 2014).
Reid, H. (2014), Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from natural resource
management ( No. 17243IIED), IIED Briefing Papers, London: International Institute for
Page 17 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
18
Environment and Development (IIED), available at: http://pubs.iied.org/17243IIED.html
(accessed 2 July 2015).
Reid, H., Alam, M., Berger, R., Cannon, T. and Milligan, A. (Eds.). (2009), Community-based
adaptation to climate change, Participatory learning and action, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London.
Schipper, E.L.F. (2009), Expanding the Community of Community-Based Adaptation, Bankok:
Stockholm Environment Institute, Asia, available at: http://www.sei-
international.org/publications?pid=1283 (accessed 3 February 2012).
SPC, SPREP, GIZ, UNWomen and UNDP. (2014), The Pacific Gender and Climate Change Toolkit,
Suva: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Programme, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH,
UN Women, and United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP. (2014), Community-Based Adaptation: Samoa, United Nations Development Programme,
available at: http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/spa-community-based-adaptation-samoa
(accessed 19 May 2014).
UNDP and AusAID. (2009), The gendered dimensions of disaster risk management and adaptation to
climate change - Stories from the Pacific, Suva: United Nations Development Programme
Pacific Centre and Australian Agency for International Development, available at:
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/10492_StoriesPacific.pdf (accessed 12 November 2014).
Veitayaki, J. (2002), “Taking advantage of indigenous knowledge: the Fiji case”, International Social
Science Journal, Vol. 54 No. 173, pp. 395–402.
Veitayaki, J. (2012), “Vakarau ni se Siga Toka (Prepare while there is time): Lomani Gau’s response to
climate change”, in Qalo, R. (Ed.),Pacific Voices Local Government and Climate Change,
USP, PACE-SD and Commonwealth Local Government Pacific Forum, Suva, pp. 85–101.
Veitayaki, J. and Sivo, L. (2010), “Using Traditional Knowledge to Address Climate Change: the Fiji
Scenario”, in Painemilla, K.W., Rylands, A., Woofer, A. and Hughes, C. (Eds.),Indigenous
peoples and conservation: from rights to resource management, Conservation International,
Arlington, VA., pp. 235–246.
Veitayaki, J., Tawake, A., Bogiva, A., Meo, S., Ravula, N., Vave, R., Radikedike, P., et al. (2007),
“Addressing Human Factors in Fisheries Development and Regulatory Processes in Fiji: The
Mositi Vanuaso Experience”, Ocean Yearbook Online, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 289–306.
WCS. (2012), Integrated Coastal Management in Vatu-i-Ra Seascape, Suva: Wildlife Conservation
Society Fiji, available at: http://wcsfiji.org.fj/tag/ridge-to-reef/ (accessed 2 July 2015).
1
Overseas development assistance (ODA) to the region amounts to USD 469 per capita, compared to
64 dollars in Caribbean small states and 54 dollars in Sub-Saharan Africa (PINA, 2014). In terms of
climate finance, according to OECD DAC (2013, p. 4) ‘SIDS in the Pacific make up all of the top ten
recipients of adaptation-related aid per capita, receiving at least 20 times more than the average
across other recipient countries’.
2
As a case in point, the Pacific Island country group is off track for four of the seven national
Millennium Development Goals, namely primary education (goal no. 2), reduction of child mortality
(goal no. 4), improvement of maternal health (goal no. 5) and environmental sustainability (goal no. 7)
(ADB et al., 2013).
3
It is often difficult to accurately predict the impacts of climate change, particularly at the local level.
For instance for small islands in the Pacific downscaled projections are typically unavailable or have
too coarse resolution. This means it is often unclear what exactly communities need to adapt to.
Page 18 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
19
4
Based on empirical analysis of more than 100 adaptation projects, McGray, Hammill, and Bradle
(2007) frame adaptation as a continuum, ranging from activities that address the drivers of
vulnerability, build response capacity, manage climate risks, or confront climate change. While the first
type is development focused, the latter type is a technological approach to adaptation.
5
Early promoters of CBA included organisations such as Practical Action, the Bangladesh Center for
Advanced Studies and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (Forsyth,
2013). In recent years the discourse relating to CBA has been growing along with a ‘community of
practice’ (Gogoi et al., 2014, p. 5), international conferences, web-based discussions (e.g. weADAPT
and the Community Based Adaptation Exchange) and an ever-increasing body of academic literature.
The subject is now a common feature of many global and regional stakeholder meetings and is
promoted by development agencies such as CARE, UNDP and FAO. In most documented cases it is
such external actors that facilitate and support the CBA process (Gogoi et al., 2014, p. 1).
6
In the Pacific, a number of CBA projects have been undertaken, though documentation remains
scarce. For example in Samoa by UNDP under the ‘Small Island Developing States Community-Based
Adaptation (SIDS CBA)’ programme (UNDP, 2014). For a broad overview of CBA projects in the
Pacific, see McNamara (2013).
7
Fiji is a multicultural society with people of Oceanic, European, South Asian, and East Asian origin.
The biggest demographic groups are indigenous Fijians, or iTaukei, with 56.8%, and Indo-Fijians, who
are descendants of Indian contract labourers brought to the islands by the British colonial
administration in the 19th century, with 37.5% (figures from CIA, 2015).
8
Villages are formally registered indigenous Fijian communities under Fijian Administration, while
settlements include villagers settling on their own land outside their villages, leased land and
government stations.
9
Lomani Gau is iTaukei vernacular and means ‘(to) Care for Gau’.
10
Yaqona (kava, Piper methysticum) is a small shrub whose roots have sedative properties. Mixed into
a drink kava is of great cultural importance and widely used across Pacific Islands. It is a long-term
crop, which can be harvested after three years, and is a source of major income in the rural areas of
Fiji.
11
Copra is the processed and dried flesh, or kernel, of the coconut, which is used to make oil and soap.
12
Pandanus are palm-like trees that grow leaves commonly used by women across the Pacific to weave
mats, baskets and other handicrafts.
13
Bêche-de-mer is the common name for sea slugs, or sea cucumber, used in fresh or dried form in
various cuisines (mainly in China). Sea cucumbers include all species of echinoderms and are
harvested by hand in near shore coral reefs for export purposes.
14
While this has proven to be a successful model for Gau, such and approach ‘might differ from the
ideals of equity and participation in processes described by participatory manuals’ (McCarthy, 2014,
p. 151) as it does not address structural questions of power and equity at the local level. See also our
remarks on gender equality in the ‘limitations’ section.
15
These include different agencies of the Government of Fiji, the United States’ National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and the UK registered FrontierFiji, educational institutions such as the University
of the South Pacific, non-government partners such as the International Ocean Institute and
development agencies such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Global
Environment Facility and United Nations Development Programme Small Grants Programme.
16
Currently there are a limited number of REDD+ pilot projects under way in Fiji (Ministry of
Fisheries and Forests, 2015).
Page 19 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
Map 1: Location of Gau Island in the Fijian archipelago
Source: T. Weinzierl on behalf of the authors.
Page 20 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
1
TABLES
Table 1: Evolution of community-driven action in Gau
Steps and activities in the process
Step 1: Step 2:
Decision to protect the island’s forested interior and habitat of
the endemic bird Kacaunigau (1990s).
Engagement and awareness programs to promote the
involvement of communities in the sustainable management
of local marine resources (2000).
Step 4: Step 3:
Mositi Vanuaso in Vanuaso district begins a ‘ridge to reef ’
approach that recognises the interconnectedness of the
island’s ecosystems (2002).
Establishment of community-base d Marine Managed Areas
(MMAs) in villages to protec t degraded fish resources.
Step 5: Step 6:
Success generates spin-offs; other communities express
interest to join the initiative. Estab lishment of Gau MMA
network and strengthened island governance, e.g. through an
island-wide ban on wild bush fires and rehabilitation of coastal
habitats.
Inclusion of socio-economic development activities into
conservation measures.
Formalization of resource management practices to cover
the whole island under Lomani G au and address sources of
land-based threats such as was te management, land use
practices, use of local resou rces and the pursuit of people’s
development aspirations.
Integrated sustainable resource management in combination
with the development of appropriate sources of livelihood
(2005).
Table 2: Objectives of the initiative
The objectives of the Lomani Gau initiative
• Make Gau Island a model for the sustainable rural development of sma ll islands in transition from subsistence to commercial
and economically viable rural dev elopment.
• Conduct participatory learning and ac tion (PLA) training workshops within the v illages to raise awareness and stimulate self-
determined rural development ac tivities.
• Formulate and implement Gau Is land guidelines on sustainable rural development practices.
• Mobilise community to rehabilitate imp ortant coastal habitats that are under increasing threat from human activities.
• Promote community actions t o reduce environmental degradation o f coastal habitats.
• Use of scientific information as the basis for the sustainable use of islan d resources.
• Build capacity and promote good environmental resource use practices within the communities.
• Promote an integrated coas tal management approach.
• Facilitate the development of alterna tive sources of livelihood and incom e.
• Facilitate monitoring and enforcement through regular follow-up an d applied research activities.
• Publicise the project and the features through publications and produc tion of visual aids.
Source: Summarised from Veitayaki and Murai (2008); Veitayaki and Holland (forthcoming).
Page 21 of 22 International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Review Only
2
Table 3: Action in Gau plotted against CBA’s four key strategies
Key CBA
strategies
At community level At household/individual level
Climate-
resilient
livelihoods
- Village and island-wide resource management plans
formulated and implemented
- Support of local climate-resilient livelihoods initiatives
- Local government and NGO extension workers
understand climate risks and are supporting adaptation
strategies
- Households are employing c limate resilient and
sustainable agricultural practices
- Households have diversified liv elihoods, including
non-agricultural strategies
- People are managing risk by planning for and
investing in the future
Disaster risk
reduction
- Identification of major risks
- Formulation and implementation of local disaster risk
management plans
- People have access to ea rly warnings for climate
hazards
- People have knowledge and mobility to escape
danger in the event of clima te hazards
- Formulated emergency plans a re known to people
Capacity
development
- Governance and commun ity networks supported and
strengthened
- Communities are informed of climate change and
other environmental challenges
- Local institutions and groups have capacity and
resources to plan and implemen t adaptation activities
- People have knowledge and skills to employ
adaptation strategies
- Enhanced climate change an d environmental
awareness
- People have access to seasona l forecasts and
other climate information
Addressing
underlying
causes of
vulnerability
- Participatory local planning process es
- Women and youth groups actively engag ed in local
planning processes
- External funds secured to sup port local initiatives
- Women and youth groups have equal a ccess to
information, trainings and se rvices
Table format based on: CARE (2014, p. 61).
Page 22 of 22International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
