People in Vanuatu remain optimistic about their future after two destructive cyclones in two days left parts of the Pacific nation in ruins.

Authorities are yet to determine the full scale of the damage caused by the back-to-back severe tropical cyclones Judy and Kevin.

But those who had to endure the worst of the natural disasters last week believe demonstrating resilience is their only option.

“To have had two category four cyclones in less than a week is history in itself,” Vanuatu’s only female Member of Parliament, Gloria Julia King, told RNZ Pacific.

“[It’s] something that even the elders in our families haven’t seen before.”

She said her island nation has had its fair share of severe weather events, highlighting the destruction caused by Cyclone Pam in 2015 from which the country has still not fully recovered.

“A lot of our schools are still in makeshift classrooms, [children] still sitting on the floor without desks and chairs.”

Hopeful over challenges
But she is hopeful that the ni-Vanuatu people will get through the challenges in front of them.

“I have seen Vanuatu come back from Pam, I’ve seen Vanuatu come back from Harold, and I am positive Vanuatu will be able to bounce back from Kevin,” King said.

The country was hit by a category 4 TC Judy first on March 3, but just as people started to pick up the pieces, they had to rush to evacuation centres the following day as Kevin arrived as a category 3, intensifying to a category 4 and then reaching 5 over open water.

“People [were] carrying people with disabilities on their back to an evacuation building,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s advisor Shiva Gounden, who is in the capital Port Vila, said.

He said three to four families huddled in homes while properties around them were being wiped out.

“Roads are completely blocked or flooded. There’s no access for anyone to leave the village for any type of emergencies.”

‘No power, no water’
“There’s no power. There’s no water,” he added.

Gounden was in a village on Efate island helping people prepare for TC Kevin when it hit with a force much more violent than anyone was prepared for, he told RNZ Pacific.

He had to hold the doors of the house he was residing in for almost 10 hours in shin high water to remain safe.

“It was extremely strong,” he said, describing Kevin’s ferocity.

“I’ve seen and responded to several cyclones in my life and I felt Kevin was as strong as Cyclone Winston which wiped out Fiji.”

“I was trying to hold my door from 5pm till about 3am. I was using all my [strength] with my hands and my back and my legs to try and hold the door because if I didn’t, it would snap. There was water everywhere,” he said.

‘It’s a tough go for many’, says Vanuatu journalist
Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry, who has been on the frontlines documenting the disaster, visited vulnerable communities in the aftermath.

Taila Moses and her son Tom stand in front of what was once their home of 16 years. Countless houses in informal communities such as hers were damaged or destroyed. Cyclones dole put their damage indiscriminately, but society’s most vulnerable feel it more than anyone else. pic.twitter.com/cXBDuznMTz

— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) March 5, 2023

He said people were living in “impromptu housing” in various parts of Port Vila.

“What I found was quite disturbing,” he said.

“It’s becoming obvious that the increasing reliance on a cash economy is creating inequalities in terms of people’s ability to cope with this kind of disaster cycle.”

McGarry said informal settlements up on the hillside in the capital were covered with clothing lines because everything had been soaked.

“There were tarpaulins pulled across roofs to provide some sort of temporary shelter.”

He has spoken with several residents and shared the story of one woman who has lost everything.

“She has no livelihood at the moment because her employer, of course, isn’t calling her into work,” he said.

“She’s lost everything and she is without the means to return it. It’s a tough, tough go for a great many people here in Port Vila,” he explained.

Climate crisis issue
Climate crisis is front of mind for Ni-Vanuatu residents as they start to rebuild.

“[Climate change] turns what used to be sort of periodical issues for Pacific island nations into chronic ones,” he said.

“In this case, we’ve had two severe cyclones in the course of a week an as New Zealanders have seen these weather systems are moving further south.”

He believes development partners of the Pacific cannot afford to walk away; a sentiment echoed by Gounden.

“We have the most resilient people, but there is a deep hurt that is within us,” Gounden said.

He said the “the hurt” stems from fossil fuels being burned across the world which exacerbates climate change.

“The people of the Pacific contribute the least to climate change, yet we face the greatest consequences of it all.”

“The biggest thing we can do is pressure world leaders right now to phase out [the use of fossil fuels.”

Meanwhile, Australia, France and New Zealand have been the first to send support to assist with emergency response.

“We will appreciate any help we can get,” King said.

“The biggest challenge now is just getting power and water back into full circuit around the country.”

Taking off for Vanuatu with assistance following TC Judy & TC Kevin. Australia has a rapid assessment team in Vanuatu & is delivering shelters & other items for communities.

We stand with the Pacific family #YugetaYumiStrong pic.twitter.com/IGYVrchew9

— Pat Conroy MP (@PatConroy1) March 5, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

While news from Tonga is still disrupted following the massive undersea eruption and tsunami on January 15, it’s clear the island nation has suffered significant damage to housing stock and infrastructure.

Once initial clean-up work is done, the focus then turns to rebuilding — specifically, how to rebuild in a way that makes that housing and infrastructure stronger, safer and more resilient than before the disaster.

This is where the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction comes into the picture. It advocates for:

The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.

Beyond the framework, however, we have the lessons learned from previous disasters and recovery efforts in the same region — notably what happened in Fiji after Cyclone Winston in 2016.

These lessons can be applied to the Tonga rebuild.

Lessons from Cyclone Winston
Winston was a category 5 cyclone, one of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the South Pacific. When it approached Fiji’s largest and most populated island, Viti Levu, winds reached 230 km/h, with gusts peaking at 325km/h.

Over 60 percent of the Fijian population was affected, with around 131,000 people left homeless. The cyclone destroyed, significantly damaged or partially damaged around 30,000 homes, or 22 percent of households, representing the greatest loss to Fiji’s housing stock from a single event.

Notably, some models of the traditional Fijian bure survived the cyclone with minor or no damage.

Our research team from New Zealand followed and recorded the housing recovery. What we found could benefit Tonga as it faces reconstruction of so much housing stock.

As in Tonga, power, infrastructure and communication systems in Fiji were extensively damaged. Given that “building back better” involves applying higher structural standards than existed previously, we looked for evidence that Fiji was rebuilding in a more resilient and sustainable way.

Fiji carefully recorded and analysed data, employing systematic reconnaissance surveys and damage assessments to identify building performance, structural vulnerabilities and failure mechanisms, as well as community needs.

These assessments were done well, to international standards.

Understandably, Fijians were also aware of the need to reduce risks to housing from future cyclones. After the immediate post-cyclone humanitarian response, housing was their main concern. This became a key focus for government agencies as a way of demonstrating the recovery was under way and that communities were at the heart of the process.

Problems with rebuilding
We studied two main initiatives: a government-funded rebuilding programme for houses (the “Help For Homes Initiative”) and the rebuilding programmes led by various international and local NGOs.

Help For Homes provided credit for construction materials to people who had lost homes, assuming recipients met certain criteria related to household income, damage and location.

Communities were free to choose the basic type of dwelling, its interior design, external features and materials. Information and instructions about building best practices and standards were provided, but technical or practical support was limited.

Overall, the initiative had mixed reviews. On the one hand, people had autonomy over their future homes; if things went to plan, they liked the outcome. On the other, lack of building skills led to some poor-quality construction, and limited resources (mainly materials) pushed costs up.

A lack of suitable alternative building material also created problems. Material choice, material substitution, resource costs, low community technical expertise and low building standard knowledge are all issues Tonga might also face.

Some homeowners were left without the material they needed, and in some cases with only a partially rebuilt home.

The NGO rebuilding programmes, by contrast, usually employed their skilled workers to build and supervise construction activities, often with the help of community labour. But again, reviews were mixed, especially when the communities didn’t have sufficient input into the rebuilding process.

While housing design was largely standardised for quick construction, the NGO houses tended to be technically strong and more resilient to future hazard events.

The best of both worlds
The main lesson was that high levels of community involvement and strong technical support were key to building resilient, future-proofed houses. For Tonga, the Fijian experience offers the opportunity to apply that lesson in four principal ways:

• ensure the initial assessment process is thorough and up to international standards
• recognise that housing stock overall needs to improve, and commit to higher construction standards
• analyse local architecture and building practices for disaster-resistant features
• combine the best of government-led and NGO building systems to maximise community involvement while ensuring good technical support and building expertise.

Overall, to have the best chance of rebuilding with the resilience to withstand future shocks, Tonga will benefit greatly from a three-way partnership between the government, NGOs and local communities.

As advocated by the authors in their book Resilient Post-Disaster Recovery through Building Back Better, co-ordination of such partnerships should be government-led and include trusted local community leaders and a consortium of NGOs.

The authors acknowledge the collaboration of Diocel Harold Aquino (Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines) and Sateesh Kumar Pisini (Principal Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Fiji National University) in the preparation of this article.

Dr Suzanne Wilkinson is professor of construction management at Massey University; Dr Mohamed Elkharboutly is lecturer in built environment at Massey University, and Dr Regan Potangaroa is professor of resilient and sustainable buildings (Māori engagement) at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The narrative
It is noteworthy that there was no communications or consultations nationally, regionally or internationally as Fiji lobbied to get the presidency for COP23 in Marrakech. Even our fellow members of the Pacific and SIDS (Small Islands Developing States) were caught unaware.

A robust consultation nationally would have helped government appreciate the gravity of the task which Fiji as a nation was committing to, both in terms of the costs of undertaking this and our capacity to do so.

Coming straight after Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston, as many of our citizens are still struggling to get their lives together, a legitimate question is whether this should be really our priority. This has been further exacerbated by the recent revelation of over F$11 million costs because of the recent floods.

Does the government have the resources for accepting such an extravagant international agenda, when nationally it is in dire need of resources to assist with the recent disasters?

The government should be open and reveal details such as the expected costs and arrangements of hosting both the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) COP23 and the Oceans Conference and the cost of consultants if any. Aren’t these fundamental values; openness, transparency, inclusiveness in the UN ways of doing things?

It is extraordinary that Fiji has opted to take the leadership on two of the most important issues on the international agenda for 2017. The taxpayers of this country have a right to know how much of their money is being spent on these commitments, especially when the wealthier members of the Asia-Pacific group opted not to take on this responsibility.

The PM talked effusively about his “need” to travel the world and host pre-COP meetings. This comes at a significant cost to the nation when the leader of our executive branch takes (not seeks) approval by way of a New Year’s message, to traipse all over the world.

Fundamentally, citizens and taxpayers of this country, must to be consulted extensively on what positions we are taking on many of the vexed issues within the climate change and oceans agenda with a clear view in mind of the benefits to us or in economic terms, the return on investment. After all it is still unclear what tangible benefits we derived from the chairmanship of the G77 and recently the SBI within the UNFCCC.

Now that Fiji has cajoled the UN membership into taking on this huge privilege and responsibility for the COP23 presidency, the National Federation Party will advocate that this critical issue of climate change and environmental leadership is only possible through genuine and meaningful partnership, backed by a strong track record at the national level.

As members of the Opposition, we will strongly advocate for transparency in multilateral environmental negotiations that should, in the first instance, be taken to the people’s house for robust debate and scrutiny

We offer the following observations.

COPs: Unravelling

The ‘technicalese’
It is widely recognised that COP23 will be a “technical” COP where work on the “rule book” for implementing the Paris Agreement will continue. We also know that the technical capacity within government is extremely limited.

Does the Climate Change Unit, now situated in Ministry of Economy have the required expertise to deal with this issue? Perhaps the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Economy should consider where the Climate Change Unit should be based, given the COP23 will be handled by the PM’s office.

It becomes manifestly evident that the move of climate change to the Ministry of Economy is with one objective in mind — to access global climate change funds. If this is the mind-set which is the driver of our engagement at these negotiations, it is a zero sum game.

The much lauded Green Growth framework that was echoed at the PIDF (Pacific Islands Development Forum) and again in the 2016/2017 Budget supplement remains glaringly non-existent at the implementation level. High-level narratives can no longer cut it.

The strength of our participation in our negotiating bloc AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States), which corralled the world into the acceptance of the 1.5 degree benchmark has been because of the strength and exceptionalism of our technical arguments, driven by our environment ministries and their performance on our reporting obligations.

All of which were based on science and research. It isn’t the cutting edge science alone that won these debates, but rather the ingenuity of our technical specialists in putting forward suggestions that AOSIS members had to work with, based on our limitations.

Over the years, Fiji’s contributions in the negotiations has been almost non-visible as is evident from the lack of communications to UNFCCC Secretariat on matters seeking parties’ views, the dearth of Fiji participants taking the lead on any of the technical issues on behalf of AOSIS (in spite of a delegation size of over 40 — one of the highest from any developing country!) and our abysmal record in terms of fulfilling our reporting obligations under the UNFCCC. The fact that Fiji’s INDC report, supported by off-shore technical assistance reached the UNFCCC late, is telling.

Fiji cannot claim to be impoverished by a lack of intellect on climate change. There are many individuals, civil societies and institutions who are experts on climate change and multilateral environmental fora and who would only be willing to provide assistance, if they are politely requested to.

Indeed, if the mantra of this government on trade is to “Buy Fiijan Made”, this should surely also extend to our local knowledge and expertise that we should be aggressively promoting if we are sincere about COP23 being Fijian made.

That being said, being completely inclusive does not ensure sincerity.

The genesis of the PIDF, another publicly assisted body that is yet to show any tangible benefit at the ground level, was advocated for by certain IGOs. It remains to be seen how taxpayers paying about $100,000 for parking for the PIDF complex a few years ago, has added any real value to our people.

If citizens and taxpayers are subjected to a COP23 presidency that is held up by publicly funded offshore contractors with no obligation or commitment to Fiji, and whose ultimate interests and agendas leave us wide open and vulnerable as a COP president, the zero sum game then becomes riddled with added vulnerabilities that our people then become liable for.

A genuine SIDS presidency by Fiji is possible but it can only be meaningful if we reach out to involve our AOSIS family. It would be important to define the key issues that our COP23 presidency will promote.

This is a great opportunity to bring to the top of the climate agenda the specific issues of small island states. Clearly the identification of these issues should be done through inclusive consultations nationally, sub-regionally, regionally as well as with our fellow members of the AOSIS.

Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement recognises the participation of the civil society and the private sector as vital to the goal of implementing the Paris agenda. The government needs to reach out to the civil society groups and the business sector in an open, transparent process where these can contribute meaningfully to the process.

Fiji should begin by signing the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol and lobby to have this ratified so tangible actions are taken by countries for the next three to four years before the Paris Agreement comes into effect.

Given the PM’s stated goal to get the industrialised nations to reduce the emissions, and the concerns that the current commitments would lead to nearly 30C temperature rise, actions taken before 2020 will be vital in our attempts to reduce global emissions. The Doha amendment will require these countries to take pre-2020 actions according to the Kyoto Protocol commitments.

These are not new ideas, the whole world is aware of the changes that need to take place, and industrialised nations continue to lag behind.

What will make Fiji’s COP 23 presidency different where decades of international pressure has failed to curb the world’s worrying 3-degree trajectory? These are valid strategic and tactical negotiation aspects that only a sincere and meaningful “Fijian Made” COP23 presidency can unleash.

From the ground up
The greatest strength to any negotiation tactic is to “show not tell”. Around the world, technological innovations are happening at breakneck speed. What seemed impossible, is now possible and many of these great ideas are coming from places least expected.

Inquisitive young minds are encouraged to break the mould and venture into start-ups. All this is possible if policies and incentives are in place to encourage radical innovation.

Imposing reduced tariff’s for electric cars as a policy by the Ministry of Economy is old-school thinking.

Our record on renewables and energy efficiency can be enhanced greatly through use of solar, wind and ocean power, through the use of efficient energy appliances, and proper policies and plans at sectoral levels that should all converge nationally.

However, Fiji’s NDC lacks depth and scope, as it merely talks about the electricity sector (where we are fortunate to have a significant contribution from hydro but contributions of other renewables is less than 1 percent) but fails to consider opportunities in transport (the largest growing sector for emissions), agriculture, forestry, tourism etc. Cabinet has yet to adopt the draft Energy Policy that was developed over two years ago.

Loss and damage, a key negotiation push is being timidly approached nationally.

Conversations with the insurance industry are necessary but there is much in the national policy space that can also be explored so that there is parity in the burden.

Chance for new narrative
Citizens should all actively look forward to detailed announcements on the preparations for the COP23. Questions like which particular ministries or arms of government will be directly involved; who will be the key experts advising Government; meaningful strategies for the participation of NGOs and the private sector; anticipated costs and how Government should raise revenue, should be answered both in public spaces and in the august house.

As always, the NFP stands ready to assist but the record of FijiFirst government on bipartisanship in matters of national importance will prove us right again.

While time ticks on, Mother Nature the final arbiter, is under no obligation to the Qorvis narrative.

Professor Biman Prasad is the leader of the opposition National Federation Party (NFP). This article has been republished from The Fiji Times with the permission of the author.

Fiji to chair next COP23 climate summit

President Bainimarama’s 2017 New Year message – video