Pacific Island responses to Australian and Japanese government assistance in dealing with problems of adaptation to climate change

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and that they have limited resources and capacity to deal with the problems of adaptation without assistance from the international community. While PICs might logically take a regional approach in requesting international assistance to implement adaptation measures, climate change affects a wide range of activities. This study examined Pacific Island responses to donors' assistance, with particular focus on Australian and Japanese assistance and explored cross-sectoral issues associated with planning and implementation of adaptation measures by PICs. Australia asserts that a scientific knowledge base and capacity to use timely locally tailored scientific data is a fundamental requirement for guide policy makers and planners to provide cost-effective resource management and the implementation of locally appropriate adaptation measures. Australia has provided assistance on that basis through its overseas aid program from the early 1990s. However, given the diversity of local concerns, the different stakeholders have different perceptions of the threat and risks of climate change and preferred response measures. Under these conditions, robust scientific knowledge alone does not necessarily translate into sensible decision-making processes, in the absence of further assistance to assist PIC in enhancing their institutional capacity and to implement climate change projects. Japanese assistance, which specifically targets climate change in PICs, was found to be limited to the promotion of climate change research and human resource development. More broadly, Japanese ODA has prioritized PICs' environmental problems and the improvement of their livelihood over time, because the primary objective of Japanese assistance is to support PICs' taking ownership of their own development through capacity development with its grant aid and technical cooperation. Interviewees' opinions, particularly those of government officials, regarding Japan's assistance indicated that PICs adaptation needs were generally consistent with their needs for livelihood improvement and economic growth. Responses also revealed that it was of fundamental importance to PICs that donors' recognize and understand the diverse condition in each country and develop individually tailored responses through comprehensive program-based assistance. The delivery of Japanese ODA on a bilateral basis was thus welcomed by many PICs. It is clear that PICs are unable to implement the necessary adaptation responses without significant financial and technical assistance from donors. Interviewees responses tended to highlight their personal or agencies' preferred process for obtaining and delivering aid. Both Australian and Japanese assistance to date have provided little impetus for institutional change to promote a long-term commitment to the implementation of adaptation measures by PICs. In addition, the different funding mechanisms have caused institutional fragmentation between agencies in PICs, resulting in limited information sharing and lack of policy coordination across agencies. Donor expectations and PICs' adaptation needs are unlikely to be met until PICs' institutional challenges, including the ability to effectively utilize existing funds, are addressed.