Similar to many island states, Fiji also faces a host of weather-related hazards and disasters exacerbated by the adverse impacts of climate change. The country is exposed to tropical cyclones, riverine floods, drought and extreme rainfall, and its coastal areas are hit by sea-level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. All these hazards threaten people’s lives, land and assets, and put them at risk of displacement. To respond to current and potential displacement, Fiji has been developing a comprehensive institutional framework on planned relocation, comprising a policy, standard operating procedures and decision-making tools.
Fiji is a member of the Steering Group of the Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD) and chaired the PDD Steering Group from 2021-2022. In this regard, the PDD through its project to Avert, Minimize and Address Displacement Related the Effects of Climate Change (PAMAD) aims to support Fiji with the development, implementation and financing of these efforts. Most of these efforts are supported by Mr. Nacanieli Bolo Speigth, PDD Regional Advisor in the Pacific. He has been working on internal disaster displacement, climate change and human mobility, disasters, climate change, risk informed development and environment for over 12 years with the UN, Government, and non-governmental organizations.
In this conversation, he shares details and insights on the work that has been done in Fiji through PAMAD.
PDD Secretariat: Can you explain the work you have been doing under PAMAD in the Pacific?
The work under PAMAD directly supporting the Fijian Government is two-fold: one, increase access to finance to support the loss and damage work in Fiji, and two, finalize the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on planned relocation in Fiji, which includes the development of a comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessment methodology (CRVAM). This methodology needs to be applied within any planned relocation process to determine whether a community needs to be relocated or not.
One of our key contributions to the development of the methodology was to ensure that the assessments performed using the CRVAM would also consider the risks related to potential displacement. To this end, we involved experts to review the methodology and integrate relevant displacement indicators. We also pioneered a non-economic loss and damage methodology assessing the non-economic values of cultural assessment (both tangible and intangible) that might be lost in a relocation process, something that had never been done before.
Within the Government of Fiji, a Taskforce on Relocation and Displacement (FTRD) is established under the Climate Change Act of 2021 to guide decision-making on planned relocation. It includes representatives from key government ministries, the climate change division, and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ). The decisions of the taskforce are guided by a multisectoral technical working group (TWG) that comprises technical experts from government agencies, non-government organizations, and academia. Through the task force, GIZ approached PDD to work with the TWG to help Fiji incorporate a non-economic loss and damage assessment methodology into the CVRAM. The Fijian Government had always been thoroughly investing in this and historically has kept records of cultural losses and damage since the 1960s.
The process for the development of this methodology began with a desk-based review, followed by the preparation of a proposal that enabled the TWG to co-develop and refine the methodology collaboratively through a series of consultation workshops.
The methodology was then piloted in two sites identified for relocation. The first was a community in Nabavatu displaced between 2019 and 2020 due to a landslip exacerbated by prolonged rainfall. This dual-trigger event, both geological and weather-related, led to the displacement of about 40 households from Nabavatu village to a temporary camp site. These displaced persons have been awaiting relocation for over four years and are in the priority list of the Fijian government relocation initiative. The piloting of the non-economic loss and damage methodology and the CVRAM supported the decision-making process on planned relocation stipulated in the SOP. The second exercise took place at Vuniniudrovu focusing on the overall operationalization of the entire CVRAM. Vuniniudrovu is less than 45 minutes’ drive away from Suva within Viti Levu. The community needed to be relocated because they’re experiencing flooding owing to their proximity to the Waimanu river and they are unable to divert the water flows.
PDD Secretariat: Can you tell us more about these consultations, especially the exchanges with the communities and their responses to these exercises?
The piloting of the methodology in Nabavatu was a week-long intensive exercise. The process began with a day dedicated to engaging the technical officers in the northern division. This initial step was crucial for socializing the methodology and raising awareness about the planned relocation process before engaging with the community. Once in the community, we spent several days conducting consultations and raising awareness about the relocation process, the community consensus needed to make decisions, and the methodology for assessing non-economic loss and damage. At the end of the week, we held a debrief to summarize the findings and finalize the report.
We entered the community at a time of significant frustration, as its members had been waiting for relocation for four years. This frustration stemmed from unmet expectations, coupled with a dependency that had developed due to these unfulfilled promises. Many residents had chosen to stay in the displacement camps, believing that remaining there was a requirement to receive government-provided housing and shelter support. This belief contributed to making people’s lives in tents more precarious over time.
One aspect that the community particularly appreciated was our effort to delve into their cultural and traditional knowledge. For example, we explored how they used traditional signs like the behavior of birds or animals to predict cyclones and how this knowledge had been used in the past. This led to profound discussions, particularly with women, about their traditional practices and experiences. Notably, this was not the first time the community had been displaced. During a previous flood, they had independently rebuilt without waiting for government support. However, this time around, expectations for external assistance were much higher.
Our engagement process involved group discussions tailored to different demographics: men, women, and young people. This approach brought out critical insights, such as a growing gap in knowledge transfer between generations. For example, traditional farming practices and their cultural significance are not being effectively passed down to younger members of the community as compared to the past.
Another significant finding was the uneven distribution of responsibilities between genders. Women were handling much of the daily household and family needs, including providing food and caring for children, while men were still grappling with trauma and were hesitant to farm or seek alternative income sources on unfamiliar land. Privacy and hygiene concerns were also prevalent, with the tent-based living arrangements contributing to skin diseases and other health issues.
A critical outcome of the pilot was achieving consensus within the community. Under the SOP, various levels of consent are required: consent to move, consent to be assessed, agreement on the new village layout, and approval of housing designs, among others. Securing 60% of the community’s signatures was essential for the government to release the next phase of funding for construction. The consultation workshops emphasized the importance of designing a village layout that preserved traditional elements, like communal spaces such as rara or open ground, churches to ensure that the communities feel comfortable and integrated in the new location.
PDD Secretariat: What surprised you the most about interactions and conversations with the local communities?
When we began, we had a set methodology and a prepared list of questions. However, the way we approached asking these questions and conducting the workshops made a significant difference. One of the main challenges we faced was translating the questions into Fijian language. In some cases, a single English word required multiple Fijian words because of the nuanced meanings. Ensuring the consistency of these translations was critical, as inconsistent translations led to responses that didn’t align with the intent of the questions we had originally constructed in English.
To address this, we spent time clarifying the questions and revisiting discussions. Sometimes, instead of conducting the process conversationally, we wrote the questions on paper and let participants walk around and fill them out themselves. This approach allowed them time to think and respond thoughtfully.
We also observed varying levels of in-depth discussions among different groups. For instance, men who are the main decision-makers in the planned relocation process showcased a range of perspectives. Some were in favor of the relocation, others were opposed due to dissatisfaction with the prior process, and some were undecided.
Fortunately, we were accompanied by senior government officials skilled in conflict resolution. Their involvement was invaluable, as they facilitated continued conversations and helped mediate disagreements. In fact, we frequently had to visit the high chief of the village to keep him informed of the sensitive discussions and seek his guidance on resolving conflicts. These visits became a necessary part of the process to maintain transparency and ensure the chief’s support.
PDD Secretariat: Can you share more about the role of the government in developing such a methodology?
From the government’s perspective, incorporating non-economic loss and damage into planned relocation has been crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of the true cost of these processes. Initially, the cost of planned relocation was viewed primarily through the lens of tangible expenses such as housing and land which were estimated at about FJD2 to 5 million per relocation.
However, when we conducted the non-economic loss and damage assessment, the cost rose significantly and almost doubled when these factors were accounted for. This revealed how much of the actual costs were previously underestimated. The losses and damages that aren’t easily quantifiable such as cultural losses, social cohesion, and traditional knowledge are significant and need to be factored into the overall cost of relocation.
This information has been critical for the Fijian Government in global negotiations, as it provides a more accurate picture of the realities faced by communities on the ground. It allows the government to argue for adequate resources and support based on the actual needs of the people affected.
Beyond the financial aspect, having a sound methodology to assess non-economic loss and damage has been pivotal. It equips the government with a tool to evaluate the broader impacts of human mobility and planned relocation. This approach ensures that the true costs, both tangible and intangible, are acknowledged and addressed. This is exactly what we were responding to as part of PAMAD.
PDD Secretariat: What kind of challenges did you face in your work with the community?
Many discussions centered around food security, traditional farming practices, and negotiations with traditional landowners. In this specific case, there were two distinct landowning units that owned the land identified for the community’s relocation. This required careful documentation within the government system to formalize the process. Once the title was established, it enabled negotiations with the landowning units to secure their agreement and finalize decisions on relocating the village to those pieces of land. These negotiations were complex and time-consuming, as they involved balancing the interests of the community with those of the landowners while ensuring alignment with government processes. Despite these challenges, the process in Nabavatu proved incredibly valuable in informing and shaping the broader work on planned relocation efforts elsewhere.
PDD Secretariat: What are the next steps in the process, and when can we expect the finalization and launch of the methodology?
The next steps involve completing the report from the two pilot projects conducted in 2024 to inform the finalization of the comprehensive risk assessment and vulnerability assessment methodology (CRVAM) before it is publicly launched.
PDD Secretariat: Any final thoughts to share?
Yes. I would first like to pay tribute to the leadership and significant contribution of the late Ms. Christine Fung who inspired this NELD idea in the CVRAM and facilitated PDD’s technical support to the Taskforce and TWG.
Secondly, one of the unexpected outcomes from this piloting work has been the broader application and influence of cultural assets mapping that provided the basis for the methodology conversation. The mapping of tangible and non-tangible cultural assets developed by Dr. Erica Bower supported by the work of Mr. Simione Sevudredre, informed a lot of the conversation on non-economic loss and damage work for Fiji. I have personally used this table extensively in contributing to the development of a regional methodology on the evaluation of ecosystem services. Similarly, this mapping has also been shared and reference academics in conducting research on non-economic loss and damage at the national level.
Header Photo: PDD
