Keynote Address

by Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Secretary General, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Regional Workshop on Responding to Climate Change in the Pacific:
Moving from Strategy to Action, 12-13 October 2010
Hotel Novotel Nadi, Fiji Islands

Mr. Master of Ceremonies, most of kind of you and thank you very much for that introduction.
The Regional Director of the Asian Development Bank, Mr. Keith Leonard, and Dr. Zhuang of
the Asian Development Bank, senior officers of the ADB, Mr. Evans of the World Bank, and
other representatives of the multilateral system, distinguished senior officials of the region, and
participants.

First, may I thank the Asian Development Bank for the very kind invitation to provide a keynote
statement at this important Regional Workshop, an occasion which presents for us all a timely
opportunity to consolidate ideas on the many complexities about climate change and what theu
mean s is means for our Pacific region.

In doing so, I want to start with an overview of the historical meanderings of an issue so global
and so challenging in character, one often defined by the interests and the prescriptions of so
many and disparate stakeholders. It is important to gain a good understanding of the
multifaceted complexities, so that we can focus attention on deploying effective interventions.

The fact is, that viewed through different lenses, be they political, economic, social, or
environmental, climate change priorities will vary and they vary considerably. There is need for
improved connectivity in all these viewpoints and, more critically, as I would imagine is the true
purpose of this gathering, so that there is coordinated, collaborative, and effective approaches
to implementation.

The perception of climate change over the past 20 years has evolved significantly, as have the
mechanisms and the institutions focusing on this issue. Remember that the Framework
Convention on Climate Change aims to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. It was in many ways the acknowledgment of a possible scenario yet to be
quantified and, even if so quantified, there was no global experience to determine a fix. I‘m not
sure that we have yet determined a global fix.

Efforts in the 1990s in the first decade of the Convention were very much focused on the
science: the degree to which climate change might be happening; if, and by how much,
anthropogenic activities were interfering with this system; and the possible resulting impacts.
This was work significantly driven by the environmental science sector, with little attention to the
economic costs. Coupled with political denial, this process dragged on for some time. Not until
the early part of this decade was proper attention paid to adaptation needs, and then still with
much rhetoric and with little definition or action.

The global acknowledgement that climate change is unequivocal and attributable to

anthropogenic interference has come slowly, but at least now, especially with the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report and also with the Stern Report, we have solid estimates of the economic
and environmental implications. This, of course, was a significant triumph against the denial and
smoke and mirrors of much of the industrial community driven by serious dependency on fossil
fuel.
There is now global transformation, in perception and attitude, among the development sectors
and industrialized countries that meaningful and measurable change must occur and to
relatively occur quickly as all countries are being subjected to climate change impacts. There,
too, is the general acknowledgement of a world already committed to a significant level of
climate change and thus response measures must be deployed with urgency and with particular
focus on the protection and the adaptation of the most vulnerable.

And so, a major challenge confronting countries today is to find ways to change. To transform
economies from over-dependence on carbon-based fuel to using energy more efficiently,
developing renewable energy sources and diffusing technology without comprising economic
growth in the near and the long term. This is critical for securing meaningful mitigation efforts as
well, as it is for the long term sustainable economic growth and development.

These developments in the later part of this decade have moved the climate change issue firmly
from an environmental sector onto the ultimate responsibility of political leaders of all countries,
and of central line agencies of economic planning and finance. They are developments which
demand the engagement and response of economic development and social sectors to play
more involved roles in tackling climate change mitigation and adaptation at all levels.

It would seem however that the respective policy and institutional machinery at the global,
regional, and individual country levels have been slow to reflect this evolution, creating
governance and institutional imbalances.

At the global level, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is still charged largely with catalytic
financing for mitigation activities, many that require huge investments in infrastructure and
technology. Looking forward over the next 10 years, how much money does the GEF really
have to facilitate this mammoth task? Is this task still relevant and what will be the role of
development banks and other international climate change mechanisms? How are the Climate
Investment Fund, the Adaptation Fund, the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit, and the Clean
Development Mechanism to relate to the fast start funding pledged at Copenhagen, including
the issue of whether we are dealing with loans or grants? It is a complicated picture evolving
over time, depending on the issues most prominent under the Climate Change Convention
processes, as these processes are influenced, as influenced they must be, by other global
crises and decisions of the all too influential G8 and the G20.

At the regional level, the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) has continually
been tasked with leading support for negotiations and coordination of climate change activities
in the Pacific region, with little funding for this work. Technical CROP agencies such as the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Geo-science Commission SOPAC, with
expertise in disaster preparedness, energy, agriculture, fisheries, water, and all the key sectors
requiring significant efforts towards effective adaptation, do not have significant access to
climate change funding to effectively carry out and complete their work.

Pacific political leaders in recent years are beginning to drive the climate change mandate for
the region through the Pacific Islands Forum, requesting more leadership and inputs from their
Economic and Finance Ministers and from central line ministries. It is promising that the report
on the mid-term review of the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change
(PIFACC) has noted that climate change is a cross-cutting issue and that the PIFACC needs to
be implemented in line with and to take account of other related regional policies such as the
Pacific Plan, the Cairns Compact for Strengthening of Development Coordination, the Regional
Oceans Policy, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action,

2
and so on. The regional architecture and focus are beginning to find alignment, and as the
premier political and coordination organization in the region, the Forum Secretariat is certainly
focusing on how we can better respond to these challenges as a region, with a diverse array of
regional technical agencies and development partners. The establishment of the CROP
Executive Group on Climate Change, which met yesterday in the adjoining room next door, is
an important step in addressing this issue.

At the national and perhaps the most important level, it will be interesting to know how many
focal points on climate change dealing with mitigation and adaptation issues will remain in the
environment ministries and how many in key line ministries, such as economic planning and
finance, especially as some of the latter are beginning to take a lead role in this work. Are there
good links between ministries and coordinated approaches to mainstreaming climate change
into national plans and budgets, which require significant understanding and ownership by
central line ministries? Are national data collecting and management systems well linked to
providing information on analyzing future adaptation requirements, quantitatively and
qualitatively?

It is essential that the stakeholders charged with the responsibility to address climate change be
clear, fully coordinated, and effective in mobilizing, coordinating, and deploying climate change
policy and real action in a sustainable and sensible manner. It is absolutely critical that they
have effective access to climate change resources and their management and policy systems.

Forum leaders have set the Pacific Plan priorities for the next three years on the basis of the
vulnerability of Pacific communities. So, in fundamental terms, the policy of the region is
focused on the need to strengthen and improve the coping abilities of all Forum countries, in
terms of the natural resilience of peoples and communities, of their social and economic
organizations and governance, and to ensure sustainability.

Pacific Island leaders have acknowledged that climate change is the greatest challenge of our
time. Climate change threatens not only livelihoods and living standards, but also the very
viability of communities. Climate change compounds the existing challenges faced by
communities across all sectors and presents direct security threats to the short, medium, and
long terms. Long term, in particular, because we have generational issues to provide for, as Mr.
Leonard has noted. Isolation from major markets, small population sizes and economies,
vulnerability to natural disasters, fragile freshwater supplies, narrow resource bases, costly
infrastructure, and extreme vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise, combine to make
development challenges especially complex for this region.

But you have heard all of these before. The point of emphasis this morning is that it is therefore
not surprising that the systems and policies that have evolved in the region to address these
challenges at all levels are equally complex. Against these already formidable factors, Pacific
countries are often faced with moving goal posts when it comes to resource availability,
development partner interests, and the capacity to implement. The various packages in which
goodwill and support are pledged can become mirage if principles of good governance,
transparency, accountability, and donor best practice are not the foundation upon which they
are delivered; or if strengthened national policy and systems are not the basis for guiding this
development assistance. A common understanding, with a certain degree of trust and mutual
accountability amongst all stakeholders, would be required in order to effectively address these
concerns.

3
There is also need to be clear where resources and efforts are required and thus an articulation
of the priorities must be clear. In their 2010 Communiqué, Forum Leaders “recognized the
importance of both concrete measures to address immediate adaptation needs, and improved
climate change science and understanding of adaptive capacity, to underpin effective
adaptation planning.” So as we pursue improved access to climate change resources we must
ensure we have in place in the Pacific region the quantitative and qualitative information
necessary to effectively utilize such resources. An obvious concern would be a situation where,
the international system is ready to start the flow of Copenhagen funding, and we find ourselves
in the region unable to match the international effort with a credible articulation of our priorities
which require funding.

As we apply this backdrop to the task before us, we must all be clear on what it is we are
seeking and what it is that we must address. The ADB, through the Pilot Program for Building
Climate Change Resilience, has embarked on efforts to help identify some key areas for
supporting some of these challenges with specific intervention as pilots. These are aimed to
support the strengthened resilience to climate change impacts through national and regional
action. At the same time, these areas are undergoing significant scrutiny by the region through
other processes; namely, through directions emanating from the Pacific Climate Change
Roundtable, which met in late 2009, to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a regional
climate change funding mechanism or facility. And more recently, Forum Leaders in the 2010
Communiqué, by their decision for Environment and Economic Ministers, to provide options on
how to improve access to and management of climate change resources; and also for the
CROP Executives to advise on how to improve access to international financing for climate
change.

We must bring these efforts together because the key to addressing all of these issues is
through collaboration. There is no other way, not in the circumstances of this vast and diverse
region and not for a problem of this magnitude. We need a common understanding of the
challenges before us all and of the prospects and opportunities that are there for our collective
and coordinated action. This would require, I believe:

1. A sound understanding of the threats and impacts of climate change in the short, medium,
and long terms. Data and integrated data management systems across all sectors would be
critical, and we must strive for them if we are to achieve and maintain this understanding;
2. Secondly, a sound understanding of the existing policies and systems needs to be in place
to deal with cross cutting challenges in each country;
3. Thirdly, we need to be clear of interventions which are best applied at the national level and
where there are gains to be made through regional interventions and capacity support; and,
above all;
4. For effective collaboration, we need to be agreed on the types of support and comparative
advantage that each of us brings to the table, and more particularly how best to deliver this
support individually and collectively, as necessary, and how best countries can firmly
manage this process.

So, Distinguished Colleagues, over the next couple of days, let us combine in effort. The task
will not be easy, but issues of magnitude and importance are never easy. But we have the
opportunity of this Regional Workshop and its challenge to move from strategy to action.

Thank you very much for listening to me.