Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan
A joint strategy for the Honiara City Council and the Solomon Islands Government

Page | iWith support of UN-HABITAT’s Cities and Climate Change Initiative | RMIT University Climate Change Adaptation Program2016

Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan (2016)
Lead Authors: Alexei Trundle and Darryn McEvoy, RMIT University Climate Change Adaptation Program, Melbourne.
Reviewers:

Bernhard Barth, Liam Fee, Steve Likaveke, UN-Habitat

Report developed for the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) Cities and Climate Change
Initiative (CCCI)
Research conducted in partnership with Honiara City Council, Guadalcanal Provincial Government Council, Solomon
Islands Government Agencies (Ministry for Land, Housing & Survey, Ministry for Environment, Climate Change &Disaster Management, Solomon Islands National Statistics Office), as well as numerous community and nongovernment organisations present and operating in the Greater Honiara Area.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ii

Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan

A joint strategy for the Honiara City Council and the Solomon Islands Government

With the support of:

iii

iv

Foreword

The Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan (HURCAP) aims to enhance the resilience of Honiara. It is theoutcome of a concerted effort by many different stakeholders with an interest in the sustainability of our capital city,from national and municipal government to local communities. It recognises that there are many challenges facing theurban resilience agenda and that each of us, whether as policymakers or as Honiara residents, has a part to play.
Honiara has always been, and continues to be, at risk of natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis and tropical
cyclones due to its unique location. In more recent times, rapid urbanization is stretching the city’s ability toaccommodate the increase of rural-urban migrants moving to Honiara in search of a better life. This large movement ofpeople towards the capital city has led to the rapid growth of informal settlements in and around Honiara. Due to poor
housing conditions, the residents of these areas are highly vulnerable to natural hazards. Addressing the resilienceneeds of vulnerable communities is central to this Action Plan.
As we look to the future, climate change will exacerbate the multitude of risks the city and its residents face, throughthe impact of more intense extreme events or longer term stresses such as sea level rise, a reduction in the quantityand quality of the city’s drinking water supply, or ocean acidification which damages local ecosystems and reduces ouraccess to food for consumption or sale. Climate change will also worsen existing challenges such as poverty andinequality.
The complicated mix of climate and non-climate vulnerability causes was recognised in the development of the
HURCAP. It sets out an integrated approach to addressing priority issues in Honiara relating to development, disasterrisk reduction, and climate change adaptation. Indeed, addressing development problems in the informal settlements,and elsewhere in the city, will not only reduce the impact of natural hazards now but will also provide a valuable
platform for implementing climate change adaptation measures and enhancing community resilience into the future.
This plan sets out an innovative framework for action that brings together previously disconnected agendas andinvolves multi-level actions that can be supported, and owned, by many different groups in the city. The priority needs
and responses – at the city-wide, ward, and community level - have been developed in close collaboration with city andnational Government, local communities, NGOs, and a variety of other interested stakeholder groups. This multi-levelparticipatory approach reflects the strong and effective long-term partnerships that are needed to support Honiara’s
path towards a sustainable and resilient future.
The diversity of urban community ownership of the action plan lends HURCAP its strength and is fully endorsed. The
multi-partner approach to resilience building for the city will be led and coordinated with the full support of the
Honiara City Council, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey, and the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster
Management and Meteorology.

Lord Mayor

Minister for Lands, Housing& Survey

Minister for Environment,
Climate Change, Disaster
Management & Meteorology

Honiara
City Council

Solomon Islands
Government

Solomon Islands
Governmentv

Acknowledgements
The Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan was authored by Alexei Trundle and Darryn McEvoy, RMIT
University, Climate Change Adaptation Program, Melbourne as part of the support that the United Nations Human
Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) provides to Pacific Island national and local governments under its Cities andClimate Change Initiative (CCCI). Overall Project management was provided by Bernhard Barth of the Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific.
The process of developing the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan was deliberately designed to be
stakeholder-led, and as a consequence has benefited from valuable inputs from many local sources. Though too
numerous to mention individually, the authors fully acknowledge all the contributions that have informed this action
plan for Honiara.
Particular thanks go to Honiara City Council, the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey (especially the Physical PlanningUnit), and the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Disaster Management, for their valued expert input to thestakeholder engagement processes, and their continuing support for the urban resilience agenda. Representation from
Guadalcanal Province was also very much appreciated in the consideration of important cross-boundary issues.
The contributions from civil society organisations (such as Development Services Exchange) and from the vulnerability
hotspot communities themselves constitute an important component of the action plan. The input from local
community groups and individuals ensure that this document is firmly embedded in the local realities faced by Honiara.
These contributions are acknowledged and appreciated.
Constructive engagement with international organisations with a presence in Honiara (UNDP and the World Bank beingof particular note) has also added value to the compilation of this document. It is intended that a range of local andinternational organisations will continue to contribute to improving the resilience of Honiara into the future.
An early draft of this document which had ensued from these consultations was presented to a two day city
consultation in August 2015 in which 70 stakeholders verified the findings and made significant contributions to the
Honiara action plan.
Finally, special thanks go to the local representative for UN-Habitat, Steve Likaveke, for supporting the local
engagement activity, providing access to the informal settlements, and for providing critical inputs into the community
discussions.

vi

Executive Summary
Honiara, the capital city of the Solomon Islands, faces a myriad of resilience challenges. Not only is the city already
exposed to multiple natural hazards, a changing climate will amplify many of the adverse impacts into the future. At thesame time, rapid urbanization - most obviously expressed through the growth of informal settlements in urban andperi-urban areas - is heightening community exposure and sensitivity to a range of climate and non-climate shocks andstresses.
In order to begin addressing these critical urban challenges, an initial vulnerability assessment was conducted as part of
the UN-Habitat ‘Cities and Climate Change Initiative’. Published just before the major 2014 Honiara flood event, theassessment had identified some of the most vulnerable informal settlements; and these were the communities thatwere worst impacted by the event. This experience of a recent natural disaster reinforced the need for actions to makecommunities in the city, particularly the urban poor, more resilient to other shocks and stresses in the current day andinto the future.
To address this agenda, the vulnerability assessment was followed up by local adaptation planning activity that was
designed to identify key issues, and establish priority objectives, for enhanced community resilience. This process was
carried out in close collaboration with key stakeholders at different levels across the city (community, ward, and citylevel); involving representatives from national, provincial and city government, NGOs, as well as members ofvulnerability ‘hotspot’ communities. The Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan (HURCAP) represents theculmination of the program of adaptation planning activity and sets out a portfolio of adaptation actions that can be
implemented to directly contribute to resilience building in Honiara.
Priority actions that were identified through the participatory planning processes have been categorised according to
10 high-level thematic strands. The themes include: 1) Urban Planning & Land Development, 2) Housing, 3)
Infrastructure, 4) Water, Sanitation and Waste, 5) Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes; 6) Human Health andWell-being; 7) Communication: Awareness and Education, 8) Livelihoods and Behaviour Change, 9) Disaster
Preparedness and Response, and 10) Governance and Partnerships. These categories are considered useful for framing
adaptation processes and actions at multiple scales across the city.
Whilst the original intention was to develop a climate change adaptation plan, it became evident through engagementwith local stakeholders that climate change is only one driver affecting the vulnerability of poor communities in Honiara.
Existing exposure to climate variability (cyclones) and natural hazard extreme events (earthquakes and tsunamis)
meant that disaster risk reduction principles also needed to be accounted for i.e. considering the impacts of immediateshocks as well as longer term stresses. Furthermore, Honiara has significant development needs relating to inadequate
infrastructure and housing stock, and in the case of some informal settlements, even access to basic essential services
such as water and energy.
Addressing these immediate development needs is therefore strongly reflected in this broader urban resilience andclimate action plan which integrates climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and development goals. The
implementation of actions will not only reduce community exposure and sensitivity to shocks and stresses but will also
result in a more solid socio-economic foundation for longer-term climate adaptation.

vii

List of Organisations and Acronyms
ADB – Asian Development Bank
CCA – Climate Change Adaptation
CCAP – Climate Change Adaptation Program
CCCI – UN-Habitat’s Cities and Climate Change Initiative
CLGF – Commonwealth Local Government Forum
DRR/M – Disaster Risk Reduction / Management
FTE – Fixed Term Estate
GPG – Guadalcanal Provincial Government
HURCAP – Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action PlanJICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency
LUPS – Land Use Planning Scheme
MECCDM – Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change and Disaster Management
MEHRD – Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development
MoFR – Ministry of Forestry and Research
MHA – Ministry of Home Affairs
MHMS – Ministry of Health and Medical Services
MID – Ministry of Infrastructure and Development
MLHS – Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey
MWCY – Ministry of Women, Children and Youth
NCCP – National Climate Change Policy
NDMO – National Disaster Management Office
NHL – National Health Lab
PACCSAP – Pacific-Australia Climate Change Science and Adaptation Planning Program
PCRAFI – Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative
PSUP – Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme
RCP – Representative Concentration Pathway
REP – Rapid Employment Program
RMIT – Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
RSIP – Royal Solomon Islands Police Force
SICC – Solomon Islands Chamber of Commerce
SIDS – Small Island Developing States
SIMS – Solomon Islands Meteorological Service
SINSO – Solomon Islands National Statistics Office
SOPAC – SPC Applied Geoscience and Technology Division
SPC – Secretariat of the Pacific Community
TOL – Temporary Occupation License
UN-Habitat – United Nations Human Settlement Programme
WDC – Ward Development Committee
WBG – World Bank Group

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................ix
1. Background: Planning a Resilient Honiara under a Changing Climate .............................................................................. 1
1.1 Plan Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Plan Development Process & Context ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 The UN-Habitat Planning for Climate Change Process ........................................................................................ 2
1.2 A Participatory Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Urban Planning Context ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2. City Profile & Climate Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 City Structure, Demographics & Governance ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Vulnerability Assessment Framework....................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Exposure to Climate-related Hazards ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Average Annual Climate Conditions .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Extreme Weather Events and Spatial Variability .............................................................................................. 14
2.3.3 Climate Trends and Projected Climate Change ................................................................................................. 15
2.4 Socio-Economic Sensitivity & Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 18
2.4 Adaptive Capacity: Institutions, Policy and Community Structures .......................................................................... 24
2.6 Vulnerability Hotspots .............................................................................................................................................. 27
2.6.1 Community Vulnerability Hotspots ................................................................................................................... 28
2.6.2 Critical Infrastructure & Sectors ........................................................................................................................ 30
3. City-wide Adaptation & Urban Resilience Objectives ..................................................................................................... 33
3.1 From Issues to Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Objective Categories ................................................................................................................................................. 34
3.2.1 Urban Planning and Land Development Objectives .......................................................................................... 35
3.2.2 Housing ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
3.2.3 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 36
3.2.4 Water, Sanitation and Waste ............................................................................................................................ 37
3.2.5 Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes ....................................................................................................... 38
3.2.6 Human Health and Well-being .......................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.7 Communication: Awareness and Education ..................................................................................................... 39
3.2.8 Livelihoods and Behaviour Change ................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.9 Disaster Preparedness and Response ............................................................................................................... 40
3.2.10 Governance and Partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 41ix

4. Urban Resilience & Adaptation Action Planning............................................................................................................. 42
4.1 Honiara City-wide Actions ........................................................................................................................................ 42
4.1.1 Urban Planning and Land Development ........................................................................................................... 42
4.1.2 Housing ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.1.3 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 45
4.1.4 Water, Sanitation and Waste ............................................................................................................................ 46
4.1.5 Ecosystem Services and River and Coastal Processes ....................................................................................... 48
4.1.6 Human Health and Wellbeing ........................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.7 Communication, Awareness and Education ..................................................................................................... 50
4.1.8 Livelihoods and Behaviour Change ................................................................................................................... 51
4.1.9 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management ....................................................................................................... 52
4.1.10 Governance and Partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 53
4.2 Ward Level Adaptation Profiles & Actions ................................................................................................................ 55
4.2.1 Nggosi Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions................................................................................................... 56
4.2.2 Rove-Lengakiki Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions ..................................................................................... 58
4.2.3 Mbumburu Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions ........................................................................................... 60
4.2.4 Cruz Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions ...................................................................................................... 62
4.2.5 Vavaea Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions .................................................................................................. 65
4.2.6 Vuhokesa Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions .............................................................................................. 68
4.2.7 Mataniko Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions .............................................................................................. 70
4.2.8 Kola’a Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions.................................................................................................... 72
4.2.9 Kukum Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions .................................................................................................. 74
4.2.10 Naha Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions ................................................................................................... 76
4.2.11 Vura Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions .................................................................................................... 78
4.2.12 Panatina Ward: Profile and Adaptation Actions ............................................................................................. 80
4.3 Hotspot Community Actions ..................................................................................................................................... 82
Ontong Java Hotspot Community-level Actions: ....................................................................................................... 82
Aekafo Planning Zone, Kola’a Hotspot Community-level Actions: ............................................................................ 84
Kukum Fishing Village Hotspot Community-level Actions: ........................................................................................ 86
5. Communication: Awareness Raising and Education ....................................................................................................... 88
6. Resourcing: Options & Opportunities ............................................................................................................................. 90
7. Monitoring & Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 92
8. References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 93xList of Figures
Figure 1: Outline of the second phase activities involved in the development of HURCAP ................................................ 2
Figure 2: Publicly Available UN-Habitat Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments in the Pacific...................................... 2
Figure 3: UN-Habitat Planning for Climate Change high-level structure .............................................................................. 3
Figure 4: Planning for Climate Change stakeholder & community activities ....................................................................... 4
Figure 5: Study area delineated by ward and associated peri-urban surrounds .................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Solomon Islands historical and SINSO-projected population & average annual growth rates .............................. 8
Figure 7: Honiara population growth estimates 1999-2009 by 1999 Enumeration Area ..................................................... 9
Figure 8: Relative population distribution by ward 1999 & 2009 ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 9: Percentage of total enumeration area population less than 15 years old, 2009 ................................................ 10
Figure 10: Illustration of the vulnerability framework ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 11: Honiara Monthly Average Rainfall and Temperature ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 12: Honiara Long-term rainfall variability and trends by season ............................................................................. 14
Figure 13: Identified Climate-related Hazard Areas ........................................................................................................... 15
Figure 14: Long-term rainfall trends in Honiara by ENSO Status ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 15: Long-term temperature trends, Honiara ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 16: Projected Change to Annual Mean Temperatures in the Solomon Islands ....................................................... 17
Figure 17: Projected Change to Annual Rainfall in the Solomon Islands ............................................................................ 18
Figure 18: Projected Mean Sea Level Rise in the Solomon Islands ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 19: Informal Settlement Zones as determined by MLHS & UN-Habitat Country Team .......................................... 19
Figure 20: Informal housing structures outside of ITZs in Mataniko Ward ........................................................................ 20
Figure 21: Population Density by Enumeration Area, 2009 ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 22: Households with unsealed or no sanitary/toilet facilities, 2009 ....................................................................... 21
Figure 23: (L) Informal secondary water connection (C) Kitchen Facilities in Kola’a (R) Natural Spring for Washing ........ 22
Figure 24: Households with Access to Metered Water, 2009 ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 25: Households with Access to Electricity, 2009 ...................................................................................................... 23
Figure 26: Households with Makeshift, Improvised or Traditional Roofing by EA, 2009 ................................................... 24
Figure 27: Adaptive Capacity Assessment by Workshop Participants, May 2015 .............................................................. 25
Figure 28: Household mobile phone ownership rates by Enumeration Area, 2009 ........................................................... 26
Figure 29: Internet-connected Households by Enumeration Area, 2009 ........................................................................... 27
Figure 30: Vulnerability Hotspot – Model Structure & Inputs ............................................................................................ 27
Figure 31: Vulnerability Hotspots across Honiara............................................................................................................... 28
Figure 32: Pollution in the riverbed Vara Creek, Aekafo Planning Area, December 2014 .................................................. 29
Figure 33: Kola’a ISZ topography (L) & example of housing responses (R)......................................................................... 29
Figure 34: Septic tank collection truck pumping effluent into the Honiara Landfill ........................................................... 30
Figure 35: View of the Point Cruz Port Facilities and Fuel Depot ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 36: Objective Identification Workshops: NDMO (L) & Kola’a ISZ (R) ....................................................................... 33
Figure 37: Issue Identification by Stakeholders by break-out group frequency & category .............................................. 34
Figure 38: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Urban Planning and Land Development ......................................................... 35xi

Figure 39: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Housing ........................................................................................................... 36
Figure 40: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Infrastructure.................................................................................................. 36
Figure 41: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Water, Sanitation and Waste ......................................................................... 37
Figure 42: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes .................................................... 38
Figure 43: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Human Health and Well-being ....................................................................... 38
Figure 44: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Communication: Awareness & Education ...................................................... 39
Figure 45: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Behaviour Change........................................................................................... 40
Figure 46: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Disaster Preparedness and Response ............................................................. 40
Figure 47: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Governance and Partnerships ........................................................................ 41
Figure 48: Ward divisions across Honiara City .................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 49: Honiara Urban Resilience and Adaptation Forum Ward Break-out Activities (August 2015) ........................... 55
Figure 50: Nggosi Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 51: Nggosi Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ..................................................................................... 57
Figure 52: Rove-Lengakiki Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison .............................................................................. 58
Figure 53: Rove-Lengakiki Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ....................................................................... 59
Figure 54: Mbumburu Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison .................................................................................... 60
Figure 55: Mbumburu Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ............................................................................. 61
Figure 56: Cruz Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ............................................................................................... 62
Figure 57: Cruz Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ........................................................................................ 64
Figure 58: Vavaea Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison........................................................................................... 65
Figure 59: Vavaea Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile .................................................................................... 67
Figure 60: Vuhokesa Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison....................................................................................... 68
Figure 61: Vuhokesa Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ................................................................................ 69
Figure 62: Mataniko Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ....................................................................................... 70
Figure 63: Mataniko Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ................................................................................ 71
Figure 64: Kola’a Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ............................................................................................ 72
Figure 65: Kola’a Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 66: Kukum Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ........................................................................................... 74
Figure 67: Kukum Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile .................................................................................... 75
Figure 68: Naha Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison .............................................................................................. 76
Figure 69: Naha Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ....................................................................................... 77
Figure 70: Vura Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ............................................................................................... 78
Figure 71: Vura Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ........................................................................................ 79
Figure 72: Panatina Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison ........................................................................................ 80
Figure 73: Panatina Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile ................................................................................. 81xii

1. BACKGROUND: PLANNING A RESILIENT HONIARA UNDER A CHANGING CLIMATE
1.1 PLAN RATIONALE
Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) in the Pacific region have historically been exposed to a wide range of bothclimate-driven and geologically-related hazards; facing significant year-to-year variability in rainfall, weather extremes,
and an ever-present risk of tectonic activity potentially leading to earthquakes and tsunamis. In addition to this, rapidlyincreasing tropical ocean temperatures compound the sea level threats to low-lying islands, with observed rates ofincreases in sea level in the region often well above global averages. As a consequence, saline intrusion into watertables is compromising subsistence food crops, pressurising rural lifestyles and traditional ways of life. A combination of
overfishing, plastics pollution, and warming-driven bleaching events are also impacting coral reefs and fish stocks;
another key livelihood sector, tourism, offers an income source for island residents.
Major cities such as Honiara provide an alternative set of livelihood options for rural-dwellers; in particular throughgreater economic opportunities, services and education facilities. Over the last two decades this has led to significant
rural-urban migration and rapid rates of urbanisation; with limited local capacity to meet the growing demand forurban infrastructure, job creation, health, education and basic services. Given current day development needs in thecity, as well as having to plan for inevitable urban growth in the future, actions to adapt to climate change need to beembedded within this broader urban development context.
As a result of the many challenges facing the city, this plan has been widened in scope to address urban resiliencebeyond just climate change adaptation, and as such has been titled the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action
Plan (HURCAP). This aligns with the new strategy for resilient development in the Pacific region, which seeks to“strengthen the resilience of Pacific Island communities to the impacts of slow and sudden onset natural hazards bydeveloping more effective and integrated ways to address climate and disaster risks, within the context of sustainable
development” (SPC and SPREP 2015, p2).
1.1.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS & CONTEXTThis document concludes the second phase of UN-Habitat CCCI’s Planning for Climate Change (PfCC) Honiara Process,with the first phase culminating in the release of a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the city in early 2014
(UN-Habitat 2014a). The first phase Vulnerability Assessment was formally endorsed by the Honiara City Council andthe two Solomon Islands Government (SIG) focal ministries (MLHS & MECCDM) in August 2015, with the Lord Mayor
and the respective SIG Ministers committing to work across scales of government in the development andimplementation of this Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan. An overview of the key milestones and outputs fromthe HURCAP process is outlined in Figure 1 below.
As set out in the Solomon Islands National Climate Change Policy 2012-2017 the development of Adaptation Strategies
and Vulnerability Assessments for Honiara is an explicit policy priority for the country [NCCP 8.3.1(3)(i)]. This legislation
provides a clear directive for urgent action to reduce the climate risks that the city and other urban areas face
(MECCDM 2012, p21). As such, the HURCAP provides a valuable and timely platform for implementing adaptation andresilience-building actions for Honiara. For example, ecosystem-based adaptation actions [highlighted in NCCP policy
directive 8.3.1(3)(h)], have been prioritised and proposed by community, government, and civil society representatives
throughout a series of workshops and the Honiara Adaptation Planning Forum held in 2015.

1

Figure 1: Outline of the second phase activities involved in the development of HURCAP

1.1.2 THE UN-HABITAT PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROCESSThe UN-Habitat Cities and Climate Change Initiative (CCCI) seeks to integrate climate change preparedness andmitigation activities within cities in developing countries across the globe. As part of this agenda, CCCI is in the processof developing climate change assessments and strategies in over 300 cities in the Asia-Pacific region, following thestages set out in Planning for Climate Change: A Strategic, Values-based Approach for Urban Planners (UN-Habitat
2014b). A number of Climate Vulnerability Assessment reports from the first Phase of this process are available to the
public on the UN-Habitat website, with those in the Pacific Region shown in Figure 2. It is intended that these reports
will provide a baseline for comparison between cities, and allow for collaboration and sharing of climate change
adaptation planning techniques and approaches.

Figure 2: Publicly Available UN-Habitat Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments in the Pacific

The Planning for Climate Change approach (PfCC) consists of four cyclical modules, structured to enhance compatibility
with the ongoing and iterative nature of urban planning structures and action plan implementation. A high-level
overview of the approach, as well as some of the core step-by-step activities and suggested timelines is shown in Figure
3, with the steps specific to Phase 2 highlighted in blue.
2

Although PfCC Steps 4 through 6 were the focus of the HURCAP development process, the ongoing widening ofstakeholder engagement and participatory input (Step 2), as well as engagement with other adaptation-related
initiatives and implementation programs (such as the development of the Honiara Land Use Planning Scheme(SPC/HCC/MLHS), and the Honiara Flood Risk Management project (WBG)) were also critical to ensuring the planscurrency and maximising stakeholder ‘buy-in’. Additional data availability, new policies and plans, as well as thecommunity’s experience through the April 2014 floods, were also integrated into the original vulnerability assessment(Steps 1 and 3). These updates are detailed in Section 2 of this Action Plan.
UNH CCCI Planning Process Stage

Activities & Key Issues

Timeline

Step 1: Getting Started

Desk-based review of publicly
available documents, data gaps

2 to 3-months, with review of literature
as new policies & documents emerge.

Step 2: Stakeholders andParticipation

Best facilitated with in-country‘champions’ who can act as local
contact points/co-ordinators.

An ongoing task over the course of the
project, with several days of meetings at
the beginning to get organized.

Step 3: Vulnerability Assessment

Integration of community viewpoints
with climate and non-climate data.

A 1 or 2-day workshop followed byseveral months to a year of study.

Activities and community
engagement will vary.

From a 1-day workshop withstakeholders, to several months or
more.

Module A: What is Happening?

Module B: What Matters Most?
Step 4: Issues & Objectives

Module C: What Can We Do About It?
Step 5: Identify Options

Depends heavily on level ofengagement, expertise and funds.

Initial options can often be identified ina 1 or 2-day workshop.

Step 6: Option Assessment

More comprehensive assessment
can take several months.

Options can be evaluated in a 1 or 2-day
workshop plus advance preparation.

Step 7: Implementation

Actual implementation timelines willvary depending upon the scale andscope of the actions.

Depending on organizational capacity,
development of the final Climate
Change Action Plan can take months.

Step 8: Monitor and Evaluate

M&E processes required and needextensive mainstreaming for ongoingdata collection.

Initial framework could be developed in
a 1-day workshop. Development of fullplan will likely take 1 or 2 months.

Step 9: Adjust and Modify

As climate impacts evolve andchange, corresponding adaptation
actions may require modification.

Ongoing.

Module D: Are We Doing It?

Figure 3: UN-Habitat Planning for Climate Change high-level structure

The effective implementation of climate adaptation actions will require the support (and leadership) of local
communities as well as differing levels of government. This action plan has been structured to map to departmental
jurisdictions, objectives, and multiple scales of government. The 12 urban wards are considered to have considerable
potential for resilience actions, with engagement through Ward Development Committees (WDCs) and local social
networks. With English literacy rates in Honiara estimated to be around 86%, use of alternative verbal, theatrical and
Pijin-based communication and engagement approaches will be a critical aspect of the PfCC process as it continues into
the next implementation-focused phase. Section 5 of this Action Plan goes into more detail on some of the approaches

3for building broader awareness of the HURCAP, as well as a deeper stakeholder and community understanding of theissues and potential approaches related to urban resilience and climate change adaptation.
1.2 A PARTICIPATORY APPROACH
Development of this strategy was underpinned by participatory, bottom-up engagement approaches and input, with all
adaptation and resilience-enhancing actions being identified and developed by community representatives and local
stakeholders. The data around climate vulnerabilities that informed this process was developed through the integrationof quantitative datasets with community-based observations of past events and recent changes, allowing for criticalconsideration of both community and scientific understandings of climate variability and change.
Figure 4 shows some of the activities conducted across the city throughout 2014/15, which in total involved over 280
individuals representing informal settlements, government, youth, donor organisations, NGOs, utilities and businessgroups. These activities culminated in a two-day forum, attended by 93 community members who provided high-level
input to the plan through open forums and project presentations; and informing the ward-level actions that form thebasis of the action component of this plan (Section 4).

Figure 4: Planning for Climate Change stakeholder & community activities (Photo Credits: Mullett & Trundle)

With approximately a third of the city’s population living outside of government-tenured land, and strong cultural andsocial networks and community leadership structures providing the basis of much of the response to the April 2014
floods, it is clear that participatory action planning is already deeply embedded within Honiara’s daily life. The HURCAP
aims to provide a model for building existing knowledge, approaches, and social structures into the formal governancemechanisms for the city.

41.3 URBAN PLANNING CONTEXTFrom a legislative perspective, urban planning in the Solomon Islands falls under the Town and Country Planning Act(1996), which provides for local planning scheme development for the entirety of the Honiara Town Council’s
jurisdiction, as well as adjacent areas of Lengo and Saghalu in Guadalcanal Province (outside of the boundaries ofcustomary land). Governance within the Honiara municipal area is determined through the Honiara City Act (1999),
with the structure of the Honiara City Council (HCC) set out in more detail in Section 2.1. The amended Land and Titles
Act (1996) provides the basis for land releases and zoning within the municipal boundary, under the directives of the
newly-established Land Board which consists of representatives from HCC, the Ministry for Land, Housing and Survey(MLHS), and permanent secretaries of a number of relevant ministries. MLHS is also responsible for the ongoing
implementation of a city-wide initiative to subdivide and formalise the large areas of land settled on illegally, or
through short-term temporary occupation licenses (TOLs), with the support of the UN-Habitat Participatory Slum
Upgrading Programme (PSUP).
Updating the HCC Local Planning Scheme was a key preliminary recommendation of the Honiara Climate Vulnerability
Assessment (UN-Habitat 2014a, p43). This task has subsequently been completed, with the Honiara Local Planning
Scheme 2015 (LUPS) gazetted in October 2015 following a lengthy period of public and expert consultation. In addition
to enhanced regulations around protection of service and utility network access routes and infrastructure, the LUPS
explicitly aims to prevent unsafe development in areas exposed to natural hazards under both current conditions andprojected climate change (including a coastal and riverine flooding overlay, and engineering requirements in areas witha gradient steeper than 45 degrees). The scheme also outlines areas for future urban expansion, urban greenspacereserves, and a structure plan for the city centre (including open space and a potential rezoning of the Point Cruz
industrial area).
Urban planning processes interact with national climate change legislation through the Solomon Islands National
Climate Change Policy 2012-2017, which sets out a number of high-level policy directives for the communication,
development and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation approaches and actions (outlined in Section 1.1).
Central to this within the urban context is policy directive 8.8.1(c), which requires the national government to:“…strengthen coordination and consultation between government Ministries and Provincial governments to ensure that climatechange funding via the government or NGOs support the implementation of this policy and includes provincial government, Honiara
City Council and community representatives in the project cycle stages” (MECDM 2012, p35).

Other related SIG policies and strategies include the National Development Strategy 2011-2020 (which contains
initiatives such as the Honiara Road and Bridge Improvement programme and the Tina River Hydropower Scheme), as
well as standalone initiatives such as the development of an urban health policy and the relocation of the National
Referral Hospital. An updated National Development Strategy was launched in April 2016, with five headline objectives:






Sustained and inclusive economic growth.
Poverty alleviated across the whole of the Solomon Islands, basic needs addressed and food security improved,
and benefits of development more equitably distributed.
All Solomon Islanders have access to quality health and education.
Resilient and environmentally sustainable development with effective disaster risk management, response andrecovery.
Unified nation with stable and effective governance and public order.

The municipality operates eight portfolios: education; land and planning; works and transport; trade and commerce;
law enforcement; finance administration; health and environment; and youth, sports and women. Although each ofthese portfolios has relevance to urban planning, climate change, and urban resilience, the Honiara City Council 5-Year

5

Strategic Plan 2014-2018 provides the overarching framework for urban planning across the city at a local government
scale. The city wide vision and mission statements, as contained with this document, are as follows:

HCC Vision Statement: For the City of Honiara to be acknowledged as a clean, safe, harmonious,
environmentally-responsible, prosperous and resilience capital city providing a high quality of life for its multicultural community and its visitors.



HCC Mission Statement: For the City to work in partnership with the community to deliver a range of highstandard facilities and services, and to improve the quality of life for its citizens.

The HURCAP development process has attempted to align initiatives with the 8-point development agenda set out inthe HCC Strategic Plan, allowing actions to maximise and reinforce existing or proposed projects (such as, for instance,
waste water treatment at the Ranadi dump site, and cleaning programs for the Mataniko River). The HURCAP will also
set out specific tasks to more broadly defined Strategic Plan projects, such as the improved resilience of vulnerable
communities (Project No. 3.8, 2017).

62. CITY PROFILE & CLIMATE VULNERABILITY
Honiara’s city-wide Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment was completed in early 2014, following a year and a halfof extensive consultation with community members, government experts and stakeholder groups (UN-Habitat 2014a).
The following section of the plan summarises the findings of this assessment, as well as integrating supplementary
information and data collated during the second phase of the PfCC-Honiara project including new quantitative socioeconomic information at a sub-ward level (Trundle & McEvoy 2015). Similarly, preliminary identification of key
adaptation actions in the Vulnerability Assessment Report (UN-Habitat 2014a, p37) was used to inform the adaptation
options outlined in Section 4 of this action plan.
Shortly after the release of the Honiara Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, a prolonged period of heavy rain in
April 2014 led to a significant flood event that resulted in 22 fatalities, displacement over 9,000 residents, destructionof 675 homes, and an estimated total damage bill of US$108.9 million. Additional information arising from this event
has been considered in the actions and the findings embedded within this plan.
2.1 CITY STRUCTURE , DEMOGRAPHICS & GOVERNANCE

Figure 5: Study area delineated by ward and associated peri-urban surrounds

HCC has jurisdiction over the municipal area, as shown in Figure 5, encompassing approximately 23 square kilometresof rugged hills and valleys rising up from the northern coastline of Guadalcanal Island. Honiara is the capital city of –and the only city in – the Solomon Islands, although there are a number of urban-classified townships and settlements
on other islands across the archipelago (such as Gizo, Noro, Munda and Auki), as well as peri-urban wards on the city
fringe within Guadalcanal Province (Tandai and Malango). The Honiara municipal area is divided into 12 wards, each ofwhich is represented by a single elected councillor. The remaining council positions are comprised of four members
appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs – of which one is a female councillor put forward by the Solomon Islands
Council for Women – the three members of parliament that represent the Honiara city area, and the premier of
Guadalcanal Province (CLGF 2012).
7

From a population of less than 20,000 at the country’s Independence in 1978 the city has grown rapidly to an estimated
87,000 residents in 2015, despite civil unrest disrupting rural-urban migration in the early 2000s (SINSO 2011). While
the growth rate of the municipal population has slowed over time, peri-urban areas around the city have continued to
grow rapidly, including the Guadalcanal wards of Tandai and Malango which grew at an annual rate of 16.4% over the
decade prior to 2009. Figure 6 depicts total population growth and average annual growth rates for urban areas, rural
areas, and the Honiara municipality over the last four decades, as well as the official projections for a medium
population growth scenario to 2050. Notably, the disrupted process of urbanisation in the Solomon Islands following
the 1999 census limits the capacity to project future trends. Fieldwork conducted as part of the HURCAP processsuggests that rural-urban migration has accelerated, and may continue at significantly higher rates than those projectedin the SINSO ‘Constant Migration’ scenario shown below.

Figure 6: Solomon Islands historical and SINSO-projected population & average annual growth rates

Although Honiara’s population growth rate has slowed in recent years, a sizeable area of land within the municipal
boundary could yet be developed, particularly in the southern sections of the Kola’a and Panatina wards (see Figure 5).
However, growth in these areas has been limited by a lack of road access, utilities and government land releases. Thishas contributed to the growing share of the city’s population living in informal settlements – in temporary or makeshift
housing – now estimated to house 35 – 40 percent of the municipality’s total population. This figure is likely to increase
yet further if not addressed through relocation and formalisation of tenure. This process, which is already underway,
1
includes the transfer of Temporary Occupation Licenses (TOLs) and un-licensed or lapsed settlement areas into Fixed
Term Estates (FTEs). UN-Habitat currently supports SIG and HCC through the Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme
which includes the development of a comprehensive settlements upgrading strategy which incorporates therecommendations of this strategy. This will not be a simple exercise however as community negotiations, surveying,
and relocation of informal settlements that obstruct road access and utilities access or are in areas at high risk fromnatural hazards requires extensive administrative support and planning time.

1

Temporary Occupation Licenses were established prior to national independence during the 1960s, and were designed to allow construction of nonpermanent housing on a short-term, annual basis for a minimum fee, with no access to services and utilities. Collection of these fees and regulationof TOL zones has lapsed for a number of years, with only 2% of informal settlers holding a valid, current license in 2005 (UN-Habitat 2014a, p20).

8

As shown in Figure 7, spatial analysis of the growth patterns across the city over the decade preceding the 2009 census
shows that Honiara’s urban footprint continues to expand, with the population in the more established areas of central
and eastern Honiara largely stable (Trundle & McEvoy 2015). A breakdown by wards highlights this distinct spatial
distribution, with population growth since 1999 focused within Nggosi (5.7% p.a.), Mbumburu (5.0% p.a.) and Panatina(4.7% p.a.), while Cruz and Naha shrunk significantly (at rates of -6.3 and -6.0 percent per annum respectively) (Trundle& McEvoy 2015). In contrast the peri-urban provincial area of Tandai grew by 25.75% annually to reach a total
population of 10,083 by 2009.

Figure 7: Honiara population growth estimates 1999-2009 by 1999 Enumeration Area (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

As shown in Figure 8, ward populations have shifted significantly since their establishment, and legislative review toadjust proportionality of representation is long overdue. Although the development of this action plan involved theidentification of climate adaptation and resilience-enhancing actions at a ward and sub-ward level, it is recognised thatthese sub-municipal structures will need to undergo revision to better reflect the shifting sizes of their constituencies,
as well as the increasing demand for new infrastructure as the newer ‘fringe’ urban development areas grow and are
given formal tenure arrangements. At a national level, the rapid increase in residents within the municipal area has also
led to Honiara’s three national electorates representing nearly double the number of constituents of their ruralcounterparts (SINSO 2011).

9

Figure 8: Relative population distribution by ward 1999 & 2009

The pull factors of jobs, education and access to the global economy has attracted a large number of young people
from the provinces to Honiara; in all, 58% of the city’s population is less than 25 years old, a third of the population
being less than 15 years of age. While the number of young people aged 15-25 is distributed relatively evenly acrosswards (with the exception of Cruz, which has only a third of its population within the youth age bracket), thedistribution of children is more distinct. As shown in Figure 9, young families are concentrated in the same growth areas
evident in Figure 7, namely Nggosi and Panatina.

Figure 9: Percentage of total enumeration area population less than 15 years old, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

This ‘youth bulge’ represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the city. Although the limited number of jobs
available has led to high levels of youth unemployment (with associated issues such as heightened occurrences of antisocial behaviour), the concentration of education institutions, youth groups and strong social networks provides astrong capacity for engagement with an active and creative section of the community. Training programs such as the10Rapid Employment Project (REP) provide pilot examples of how these sectors of the community can be involved
productively in the development of Honiara’s urban infrastructure, while at the same time providing jobs and training
opportunities (World Bank 2015a).

11

2.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKAs outlined in Section 1.1 of this Action Plan, Planning for Climate Change: A Strategic, Values-based Approach for
Urban Planners sets out a cyclical 4 module framework for assessing, prioritising, and acting on climate change
challenges within urban environments. Central to this approach is developing an understanding of the relationship of
the urban system to current and future climate impacts; determined through spatial, sectoral and social analysis of thecity and its components’ vulnerability to climate-related shocks and stresses.
Consistent with internationally recognised methodologies, vulnerability has been analysed through three component
parts; a product of (1) exposure and (2) sensitivity, which are counteracted by (3) adaptive capacity. This theoreticalframework is commonly expressed as an equation, as shown below:

Vulnerability = Exposure x Sensitivity
Adaptive Capacity

Examples of measures that were used to assess each of these components are highlighted in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Illustration of the vulnerability framework

‘Exposure’ refers to the extent, frequency, and severity of the climate-related shocks and stresses that the city
faces, such as the low lying areas likely to be inundated by sea level rise, or the chance of a category 5 cyclone
hitting the city in any given year.

‘Sensitivity’ is defined as the factors that determine how affected the city will be when such an event hits; forinstance, the young, sick and elderly are more at risk during a heatwave, while weaker buildings are more
likely to collapse during a severe storm event.

‘Adaptive capacity’ relates to the ability of the city, its institutions, and its citizens to respond to such an event,whether through formal disaster response arrangements (such as NDMO evacuation centres), or throughsocial, traditional or informal means (for example, relying on relatives and kinship for temporary housing andsupport following the April 2014 floods).
12

All three of these variables also change over time, with trends and projections for socio-economic factors (sensitivity) as
well as shifts in social, government and institutional characteristics (adaptive capacity) to be considered in parallel withprojected shifts in exposure to climate-related shocks and stresses driven both by climate change and more immediate(largely locally-driven) environmental modifications (such as upstream deforestation increasing riverine flood exposure).
2.3 EXPOSURE TO CLIMATE -RELATED HAZARDS
2.3.1 AVERAGE ANNUAL CLIMATE CONDITIONS
Honiara is located 9°25’59” south of the equator at a longitude of 159°56’59” East, and has a two-season tropicalmonsoon climate. Annual temperatures show little variation month to month, with minimum and maximum daily
temperatures ranging on average from 22.0°C to 23.5°C and 30.1°C to 30.7°C respectively (SIMS, BoM & CSIRO 2013). In
contrast, rainfall varies distinctly on an annual basis, with 70% of average annual rainfall falling within the NovemberApril wet season (known as Komburu), while rainfall during the dry season (or Ara) averages only 110mm per month(see Figure 11 below).

Figure 11: Honiara Monthly Average Rainfall and Temperature (data sourced from SIMS)

Despite these long-term averages showing distinct rainfall patterns and temperature stability, the location of theSolomon Islands at the juncture of the South Pacific Convergence Zone, the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, and theWest Pacific Monsoon leads to significant inter-annual variability, particularly in terms of total annual rainfall. Thisvariation is attributed to shifts in these regional systems, such as to the movement of hot and cold water across the
Pacific associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. The extent of this inter-annual variation is shown in Figure 12,with total annual rainfall in 1969 recorded as roughly three times that of the previous year (3300mm, followed by
1110mm in 1970).

13

Figure 12: Honiara Long-term rainfall variability and trends by season (data sourced from SIMS)

2.3.2 EXTREME WEATHER EVEN TS AND SPATIAL VARIA BILITY
As a product of the city’s tropical climate and the converging regional climate systems – as discussed in Section 2.3.1 –Honiara faces a range of extreme weather phenomena which have varying impact across the city.
Extreme rainfall events can lead to both localised flash flooding and severe riverine flooding as a product of the large
catchment areas that lie upstream of the city. The most extreme such event on record was the April 2014 Floods,rdcaused by peak daily rainfall of 318mm (3 of April 2014). This extreme event resulted in the deaths of 22 people andth
the estimated displacement of 10,000, with over 1,000 of those displaced still housed in evacuation centres by the 25
of June (OCHA 2014). Urban infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, were impacted and homes – many of theminformal – were also washed away. Access to clean drinking water was a major concern following the event for at least
half of the 50,000 estimated to have been affected by the flood.
Although long-term daily rainfall records are not available for the area, modelling-based analysis suggests that thisequates to more rainfall than expected in a 1-in-100 year event (Lal & Thurairajah 2011). Rainfall has also been
associated with the risk of landslips in the more rugged areas of the city, as well as riverbank erosion and the spread ofvector-borne diseases. Riverine flood risk areas for the April 2014 floods have been included in Figure 13, however
spatial information on flash flooding hotspots and riverine flood risk areas for more frequent return periods is notavailable. Areas of landslip risk also require further analysis, particularly in relation to the Honiara Local Planning
Scheme, which has placed regulatory restrictions and requirements on building sites located on gradients steeper than
45 degrees (MLHS & HCC 2015).
Most coastal areas along the northern edge of the city lack natural or artificial defences from storm surges and tropical
cyclones, with those areas of the city likely to be impacted by a five metre storm surge height shown in Figure 13.
Tropical cyclones are seasonally most likely to occur between November and April, with on average one cyclone passing
within 400km of Honiara each year. Tropical Cyclone occurrence varies significantly year-to-year, however, ranging
14

from five in 1971/72 to none in other years (SIMS, BoM & CSIRO 2013). Cyclones are twice as likely to pass in close
proximity to Honiara during El Niño conditions as they are during a La Niña event. Exposure to other impacts resulting
from tropical cyclone events such as extreme winds are also likely to impact the coastal areas of the city, as well as theridgeline and north-facing housing in the city’s interior. Housing located on southerly-facing slopes below the ridgelineis least likely to be impacted.
Although coastal erosion risk areas are also shown in Figure 13, a more extensive area was identified in community
consultations, with additional erosion evident at Kukum Fishing Village and Ontong Java Settlement. Such changes wereobserved to be driven by storm surge events and extreme wave action during tropical cyclones.

Figure 13: Identified Climate-related Hazard Areas (data sourced from MLHS, UN-Habitat and MECCDM)

Extreme heat events – particularly in the form of hot night-time temperatures – were noted by community members as
having some impact on particular communities, supported by SIMS data showing a strong increase in the number ofvery hot day-time and night-time temperatures over the last two decades. These extreme heat conditions areworsened in high-density areas, where a lack of through-flow prevents cooling through sea breezes and natural air
circulation.
Drought and coral bleaching events have historically had a secondary impact on the city by reducing the availability offood, livelihood products, and water, while also driving rural-to-urban migration. However, exposure to these events is
not spatially specific to the Honiara municipal area.
2.3.3 CLIMATE TRENDS AND PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE
Trends in annual rainfall and average temperatures in Honiara are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. The overall trend
in annual rainfall is not statistically significant; however, a clear warming trend is evident across mean, maximum andminimum air temperatures. Sea surface temperatures show a similar warming trend, increasing at a rate of 0.12°C per
decade since the 1970s (SIMS, BoM & CSIRO 2013).

15

Seasonal and daily rainfall trends are not clear, although the number of rainy days experienced in Honiara has
decreased slightly (3.75 less rainy days per decade). As noted in Section 2.3.2, extreme temperatures have shifted
significantly, with night-time extremes showing a strong increase in unusually hot minimum temperatures, and a similar
decrease in extremely cool night-time minimums.
Satellite observations of near-shore sea level rise around Guadalcanal shows an increase of more than double theglobal average, rising at an average rate of 8mm per year since 1993 (SIMS, BoM & CSIRO 2013 p.206).
Analysis of trends in tropical cyclone occurrence and intensity is not recommended at the country level in the Pacific.

Figure 14: Long-term rainfall trends in Honiara by ENSO Status (data sourced from PACCSAP 2014)

Figure 15: Long-term temperature trends, Honiara (data sourced from PACCSAP 2014)

Future climate projections are based on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which reflect different
warming scenarios dependent on the level of global emissions over time. These scenarios are then applied to Global
Climate Models (GCMs) resulting in a range of possible future climate projections. The agreement between these16models – as well as their consistency with the underlying science and observations – is reflected in the confidence
levels that are applied as determined by the Pacific-Australian Climate Change Science and Adaptation Planning
Program (comprising climate science experts from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth
Science and Industry Research Organisation). The bracketed range used in the figures below shows the range of thesemodelled outputs (excluding outliers beyond 5-95% agreement), with change relative to a 20-year period centredaround 1995.
There is very high confidence that both sea surface and air temperatures will continue to increase across the Solomon
Islands. However, as shown in Figure 16 the range of this change varies increasingly with the longer-range projections,particularly for higher emissions scenarios. By 2030 annual temperatures are projected to increase by approximately
0.7°C irrespective of the emissions trajectory over the next decade and a half, while by 2090 a ‘business as usual’ highemissions scenario could result in as much as a 4.0°C annual temperature increase (PACCSAP 2014).
Annual Mean Air Temperature Change

RCP 2.6 (very low emissions)

RCP 4.5 (low emissions)

RCP 6 (medium emissions)

RCP 8.5 (very high emissions)

2030

2050

2070

2090

+0.6°C+0.8°C+0.8°C+0.7°C(+0.4 to +0.9°C)(+0.6 to +1.2°C)(+0.4 to +1.2°C)(+0.4 to +1.2°C)+0.7°C+1.0°C+1.2°C+1.4°C(+0.4 to +1.0°C)(+0.7 to +1.4°C)(+0.9 to +1.8°C)(+1.0 to +2.1°C)+0.6°C+0.9°C+1.3°C+1.7°C+0.5 to +0.9°C)(+0.7 to +1.4°C)(+1.0 to +2.0°C)(1.3 to +2.6°C)+0.7°C+1.3°C+2.1°C+2.8°C(+0.5 to +1.0°C)(+1.0 to +1.9°C)(+1.5 to +3.0°C)(+2.0 to +4.0°C)

Figure 16: Projected Change to Annual Mean Temperatures in the Solomon Islands (PACCSAP 2014)

Extreme temperatures are projected to increase by a similar amount, while the frequency of extreme heat days is also
projected to increase, although there is low confidence in both the magnitude of the intensification and the frequency
with which such days will occur.
Projected changes to annual rainfall are largely within the existing range of rainfall variability, with only low confidence
that annual rainfall in the Solomon Islands will increase, due to the uncertainty around changes to regional climate
systems in the area and a wide variation between model outputs (see Figure 17). Extreme rainfall events, however, areexpected to increase in frequency and intensity, with a current 1-in-20 year daily rainfall event increasing by 9mm by
2030. This increases to and additional 43mm by 2090, under a worst-case, very high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). The
frequency of a current-day 1-in-20 year rainfall event – the equivalent of approximately 220mm of rainfall within a day– would increase to once every 4 years by 2090 under the same scenario (PACCSAP 2014).
Total Annual Rainfall Change

RCP 2.6 (very low emissions)

RCP 4.5 (low emissions)

RCP 6 (medium emissions)

2030

2050

2070

2090

+3%

+3%

+3%

+4%

(-1 to +8%)(-1 to +7%)(-3 to +8%)(-1 to +12%)

+3%

+3%

+4%

+3%

(-2 to +9%)(-4 to +9%)(-2 to +12%)(-4 to +10%)

+4%

+3%

+5%

+4%

(-1 to +9%)(-3 to +8%)(-3 to +14%)(-6 to +15%)

17

Total Annual Rainfall Change

RCP 8.5 (very high emissions)

2030

2050

2070

2090

+3%

+3%

+5%

+6%

(-1 to +7%)(-3 to +9%)(-3 to +14%)(-7 to +20%)

Figure 17: Projected Change to Annual Rainfall in the Solomon Islands (PACCSAP 2014)

There is very high confidence that ocean acidification will continue to increase, with moderate confidence that under
low to very high emissions scenarios, aragonite saturation will fall below 3.4Ωa around 2040 (a critical threshold forcoral health, below which reefs struggle to grow or rebuild). However, under a very low emissions scenario (RCP2.6)
viable health reef conditions are likely to continue. These effects will be coupled with an increasing risk of coralbleaching events, a product of increased sea-surface temperatures. Such events are projected to increase in frequency(bleaching events that occur more than once every five years in the same location can lead to a reef area dying
permanently).
Projected sea level rise is shown in Figure 18, with increases ranging significantly in the longer-term due to uncertainty
regarding the contribution and speed of melting of the Antarctic ice sheet (PACCSAP 2014 p275). Inter-annual
variability has historically ranged 31cm around the long-term average, and is projected to maintain a similar range as
the overall average sea level increases.
Projected Sea Level Rise

RCP 2.6 (very low emissions)

RCP 4.5 (low emissions)

RCP 6 (medium emissions)

RCP 8.5 (very high emissions)

2030

2050

2070

2090

+13cm

+22cm

+32cm

+42cm

(+8 to +18cm)(+14 to +31cm)(+19 to +45cm)(+24 to +60cm)

+12cm

+22cm

+35cm

+47cm

(+7 to +17cm)(+14 to +31cm)(+21 to +48cm)(+29 to +67cm)

+12cm

+22cm

+34cm

+49cm

(+7 to +17cm)(+14 to +30cm)(+21 to +47cm)(+30 to +69cm)

+13cm

+25cm

+42cm

+63cm

(+8 to +18cm)(+16 to +35cm)(+28 to +58cm)(+40 to +89cm)

Figure 18: Projected Mean Sea Level Rise in the Solomon Islands (PACCSAP 2014)

There is low confidence in the projected change to the frequency, duration and severity of droughts that the Solomon
Islands will face under climate change, although the proportion of time spent in drought is expected to remain thesame or decrease slightly, as is the frequency of drought events.
Climate models are not yet effective at modelling regional changes to tropical cyclones, due to their relatively small sizeand short lifespan within the global climate system. At a global scale, by 2100 tropical cyclones are projected todecrease in frequency (between -6 and -35%), but increase in maximum wind intensity (+2 to +11%), with an estimatedincrease in rainfall by an average of 20% within 100km of the cyclone’s eye (PACCSAP 2014 p.272). Within the SouthWest Pacific region, the change in the frequency of cyclone is similar to the global average, however with greater model
disagreement.
2.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SENSITIVITY & CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Socio-economic measurements can be used as proxies for the likely sensitivity of different households and urban areas
to certain climate impacts, with tenure, housing type, infrastructure access, health and demographics resulting indifferent levels of impact from climate-related hazards. For example, although the same areas may be impacted by atropical cyclone, areas with better housing quality might be less damaged by extreme winds. Similarly, communities
18

which are dependent on fishing for livelihoods or income will be most sensitive to coral bleaching events that result in a
depletion of fish stocks.
The initial analysis of climate sensitivity is contained in the Honiara Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (UNHabitat 2014a) but has been complemented by analysis and mapping of the 2009 National Census data at a sub-wardlevel across the city. Additionally, transect walks and community workshops in Kola’a, Ontong Java Settlement andKukum Fishing Village provided further local information on climate sensitivity at the household level.

Figure 19: Informal Settlement Zones as determined by MLHS & UN-Habitat Country Team (MLHS / UNH 2014)

As can be seen in Figure 19, Informal Settlement Zones (ISZs) comprise almost 15% of the city’s total land area, and2
contain an estimated 28% of the city’s population . In addition to these zones, informal housing structures can be foundthroughout the city on road reserves and other accessible un-populated areas, such as the national cemetery and the
botanical gardens (pers. comm., HCC December 2014).
Two examples of these untenured structures are shown in Figure 20. Both are limited in terms of their structural
integrity as well as being located in areas that were exposed to flooding in 2014.

2

This figure is derived from analysing 2009 census data household spatial reference points, estimating household size by respective Enumeration
Area averages. Point-specific data was not able to be accessed due to confidentiality concerns. It is noted that some areas of formal tenure may becontained within the shaded areas of Figure 19, which are intended to be illustrative only.

19

Figure 20: Informal housing structures outside of ITZs in Mataniko Ward (Photo Credit: Trundle)

Almost half of Panatina Ward’s total population (48.6%) is contained within ISZs, while Kola’a Ward comprises asimilarly large ISZ population (39.9% of its total ward constituency). 20-30% of Nggosi, Vavaea, Mataniko and Vura’s
populations also reside within these zones.
ISZs have a significantly higher population density than the rest of the city (52.7 residents per hectare compared with
26.8 city-wide), which increases sensitivity to extreme heat, and worsens health-related issues such as vector- andwater-borne disease. Other urban areas with notably high population density are Ontong Java settlement (also known
as Lord Howe Settlement) in Mataniko Ward (218 residents per hectare), and Fishing Village in Panatina Ward (112
residents per hectare), as shown in Figure 21. In both of these areas, the unplanned built form was noted to bepreventing on-shore breezes from penetrating the settlements, worsening issues associated with extreme heat days
that were being observed by community members (pers. comm., May 2015 consultation).

Figure 21: Population Density by Enumeration Area, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)20

A second aspect of sensitivity that cuts across multiple climate hazards is access to and quality of sanitation. This has
the potential to compound the immediate impacts of flooding with the spread of disease, and can lead to underlying
health conditions that also heighten sensitivity to extreme heat events. Furthermore, seepage into groundwater has
the potential to put the city’s water supply at risk, as well as affecting local water sources (see, for example, the natural
spring water source shown in Figure 23, which is used by the majority of the surrounding community). The distributionof households which lack sealed sewerage facilities, based on 2009 data, is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Households with unsealed or no sanitary/toilet facilities, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

Over a third of households in Vuhokesa and a similar percentage of Naha ward residents (31.5%) have either unsealed
or no toilet facilities. Hotspot areas in larger wards are offset by more established, connected locations, which generally
correspond to formal land tenure. City-wide, roughly 17% of households lack access to these basic sanitation services.
Approximately 30% of the city is connected to the Solomon Water sewerage network (UN-Habitat 2014a p.16).
In areas lacking sealed sewerage facilities, site visits identified a number of improvised sanitation approaches. In ISZs
unsealed pit toilets are commonplace, while the gravity-fed sewerage system for connected areas is noted to haveconsistent leakage issues, with 16 outfalls discharging directly into the ocean. Improvised facilities for washing are often
located near waterways or the ocean, such as the kitchen area and communal shower/washing site shown in Figure 23.
In coastal zones, community members were identified as washing in the ocean and were also observed washing kitchenitems and clothing in waterways.

21

Figure 23: (L) Informal secondary water connection (C) Kitchen Facilities in Kola’a (R) Natural Spring for Washing

One quarter of households across the city lack formal metered access to potable drinking water, although as shown
above, unauthorised secondary water connections are commonplace particularly within ISZs. Panatina and RoverLengakiki Wards have the lowest levels of potable water access (63.6% and 68.9% respectively), with the distribution ofmetered water access across the city shown in Figure 24. The city’s official water supply is sourced from a combinationof groundwater sources and freshwater springs, located within or adjacent to the city boundary, with the city’s main
water supply located upstream of Nggosi ward within the White River catchment (Kongulai Spring).

Figure 24: Households with Access to Metered Water, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

Access to the SIEA electricity grid follows a similar pattern across the city, shown in Figure 25, with the exception ofsignificantly lower access rates in Nggosi Ward (53.6%). Vuhokesa ward recorded the lowest rate of SIEA connections
22per household (48.0%), while Kola’a, Panatina and Vavaea all fell within the 55-65% electricity access range. It wasnoted during site analysis that housing constructed with traditional materials were not permitted to be connected to
the grid, limiting access to some customary sites along the Mataniko River, as well as a number of informal settlements.
In total roughly two-thirds of households in Honiara have electricity access, although a number of off-grid houses wereobserved to be using small solar panels to generate power for devices such as mobile phones.
The city’s power supply is heavily dependent on imported diesel, which, combined with transport fuel, accounts forroughly 30% of the country’s goods imports by cost, and 80% of SIEA’s expenditure (MMERE 2014). Based on 2013
figures Honiara’s power supply consumes an estimated 16.2 million litres of diesel annually. Port access and diesel
storage in Cruz, as well as the continuing operation of the city’s two power stations, is therefore critical following an
extreme weather event.
As noted in the Honiara Vulnerability Assessment, previous tropical cyclone events have brought down power lines,
resulting in power outages. A one-megawatt photovoltaic rooftop array supplements the diesel generators, with backup generators located at most government ministries and other key infrastructure facilities. A number of small-scalehydro stations are also currently being refurbished, and are due to return to operation in 2016.

Figure 25: Households with Access to Electricity, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

Makeshift and improvised roofing increases sensitivity to tropical cyclone, extreme wind and flood events, with poorly
constructed housing structures along the Mataniko River collapsing during the 2014 floods; resulting in large debris thatdamaged downstream infrastructure. Poor quality roofing can also lead to heightened risk in extreme heat, reducing
shading of walls and insulation of inside spaces. As can be seen in Figure 26 these houses are concentrated in ISZs,
where a lack of formal tenure was noted to prevent investment in stronger housing designs and materials.

23

Figure 26: Households with Makeshift, Improvised or Traditional Roofing by EA, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

2.4 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY: INSTITUTIONS, POLICY AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURES
Adaptive capacity is a measure of the resources, institutional and community structures, and knowledge networks andskills that are able to be used or activated in response to a shock or long-term stress. Adaptive capacity counteracts theheightened vulnerability resulting from exposure and sensitivity, and can be similarly considered in terms of spatial
variation within the city, as well as across the city as a whole. Adaptive capacity can be categorised as being:Autonomous, where there is no targeted response to climate stimuli, but gradual market, ecological andbehavioural shifts that occur spontaneously over time;
Collective, whereby households, groups and community organisations work with their own social structuresand kastom networks; andInstitutional, which refers to formal governance arrangements, policies and capacity.

A rapid assessment of city-wide adaptive capacity was conducted by a series of stakeholder groups in 2015, including
the Honiara City Council, Solomon Water, the National Disaster Management Office, as well as youth and NGO
representatives, and hotspot communities. The outcomes of this are shown in Figure 27, and supplement the outcomesof the 2012 city consultation workshop, which provided the baseline for assessing adaptive capacity in the Honiara
Vulnerability Assessment (UN-Habitat 2014a p.15).

24

Figure 27: Adaptive Capacity Assessment by Workshop Participants, May 2015

Access to finance is an issue at both community and household levels, as well as across national government agencies.
As noted in the PCRAFI Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance Country Note, disaster relief through the National DisasterCouncil has a limited national budgetary allocation (US$305,250 in 2013), which has a 77 percent chance of being
exceeded in a given year. This results in heavy dependency on international recovery funds and limits preparatory andpreventative actions (World Bank 2015b). At a household level, 32% of the population fall below the Basic Needs
Poverty Line (UN-Habitat 2014a p.15). These results are consistent with the 2012 workshop findings that access tofinance is both a critical limitation to city wide adaptive capacity, as well as resourcing community and household-level
resilience building measures.
Similarly, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to climate-related events – such as cross-city bridges, the National
Referral Hospital, and Honiara International Airport – was viewed as seriously limiting institutional responses following
a natural disaster event such as a tropical cyclone. The lack of effective back-up electricity generators for mobile phone
communications was also identified as an area of critical response infrastructure that would have a knock-on effect inreducing collective adaptive capacity.
Important components of city-wide adaptive capacity are related to the ability to communicate (both in terms of formal
institutional communication procedures, and collective social response measures), and stakeholder and community
awareness of climate-related natural hazards. Existing community leadership structures, particularly through kastom
networks and ward-level committees, were identified as being effective following historical disaster events, with anumber of the residents displaced due to the April 2014 floods being quickly re-housed through kinship networks,
families and church groups.
Although the number of existing strategies and plans was seen as being a city-wide strength, the implementation,effectiveness, and awareness of these documents in both key government agencies and the community as a whole wasnoted to be limiting. Other areas, such as the awareness of decision-makers of climate change and the adequacy ofcritical infrastructure, were inconsistently assessed by different stakeholder groups (as shown in grey in Figure 27),
suggesting that improved communication between agencies could directly enhance Honiara’s institutional adaptive
capacity across levels of government, stakeholders and non-government actors.

25

The impact of the 2014 floods also emphasised the need for effective Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) actions, not only interms of responses such as evacuation but also institutional and community preparedness (land use planning, hazard
zoning and enforcement, adequate drainage systems, communication of risks etc.). To assess its preparedness for
future disasters, HCC invited ICLEI and UNISDR to facilitate a workshop in March 2016 using the UNISDR’s Local
Government Self-Assessment process (LGSA) for Disaster Risk Reduction to assess preparedness and to articulate abasis on which to develop future disaster risk reduction plans (UNISDR/ICLEI 2016). Findings from the workshop
indicated that there were strong community connections that could be called upon and that DRR training is delivered insome communities by the NDMO, as well as NGOs. It was also felt that the new Local Planning Scheme could limit
inappropriate development in high risk areas and that the current review of the National Disaster Management Plan
provides a good opportunity for HCC to engage with the national level to develop their own plan. However, it was also
noted that there is a lack of a formal structure in HCC for DRR, and a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities within
HCC (and between agencies), and coordination and cooperation between agencies and with the community on DRR isperceived to be poor.
As with sensitivity and exposure, adaptive capacity varies significantly across the city. Informal settlements, as outlined
in Section 2.4, lack many of the institutional support structures available to households with tenure; however they havestrong community networks that contribute to collective adaptive capacity strength. Other factors, such ascommunications access, similarly correspond to access to utilities and other institutions. For instance mobile phone
access, shown in Figure 28, correlates closely to informal neighbourhoods and other sensitive locations.
In contrast, measures of access to luxury services, such as wired internet access, can demonstrate sections of thecommunity with a high level of adaptive capacity, both directly in terms of the ability to autonomously respond andself-finance, and indirectly through access to institutional response mechanisms such as government websites andinternational networks. Although internet connectivity across the city was generally very low at the last census,
localities with concentrations of higher income households can be seen in Figure 29, with the south-eastern hillside
areas of Nggosi, central Kola’a above Chinatown, and Cruz exhibiting these characteristics.

Figure 28: Household mobile phone ownership rates by Enumeration Area, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)26

Figure 29: Internet-connected Households by Enumeration Area, 2009 (Trundle & McEvoy 2015)

2.6 VULNERABILITY HOTSPO TS
In order to identify those communities and sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, a Vulnerability Hotspot Model
was developed integrating the features described in both the original Honiara Vulnerability Assessment and the
additional variables outlined in this HURCAP (Figure 30).

Figure 30: Vulnerability Hotspot – Model Structure & Inputs

27

Thresholds for enumeration-area classification were determined for seven of the 2009 census variables which wereseen as critical for socio-economic sensitivity to climate impacts. These seven variables were overlayed, and areas with
one or more thresholds passed were then highlighted. Localities that grew at a rate of 15% or above per annum overthe previous decade were taken into account, in addition to the overcrowding issues identified in high-density zones,
informal settlement zones, and critical infrastructure. The outputs of this integrated analysis are shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Vulnerability Hotspots across Honiara

2.6.1 COMMUNITY VULNERABILITY HOTSPOTS
As a consequence of the April 2014 floods the Honiara Vulnerability Assessment hotspot communities were reviewed,
with the previously identified sites subject to site visits and community consultation sessions. However, the destructionof the Koa Hill housing area meant that this community was omitted from the assessment. On the basis of thevulnerability hotspot model shown above, two additional areas were also identified, as can be seen in Figure 31; these
are recommended for follow-up site visits, profiling, and analysis.
Ontong Java Settlement (1), also referred to as Lord Howe Settlement, remains one of the highest priority hotspot
areas, being located at the mouth of the Mataniko River and 0.5 metres below the current high-water mark. The
community faces additional hazards such as heavily polluted internal drainage systems, overpopulated high density
housing, and a lack of basic sanitation and proximity to sewerage outfalls from the National Referral Hospital (which has
limited waste treatment capabilities). Saline water-logging was preventing planting of gardens within the community,
as well as the digging of pit-latrines. Extreme night-time temperatures were also identified as being an issue, with seabreezes prevented from penetrating into the settlement due to overcrowding.
Kukum Fishing Village (2), is located in Vura Ward adjacent to the Kukum highway along a thin strip of coastline thathas been heavily eroded in past cyclone events. The dependence on fisheries for livelihoods further heightens thecommunity’s vulnerability to the marine impacts of climate change, while the community experiences similar issues to
Ontong Java Settlement with a neighbouring sewerage outfall polluting the local environment. Health risks associatedwith water pollution and poor rubbish collection services were also noted by community members, which were
worsened by the high population density and overcrowding in the area.
28

The Aekafo Planning Area (3) in Kola’a Ward includes the two ISZs of Matariu and Jericho; hotspots highlighted in the
Honiara Vulnerability Assessment. This area has limited road access and no formal connection to utilities and services,
resulting in severe pollution along the riverine valley and significant risk from disease due to a lack of basic sanitation(see Figure 23 in Section 2.4, and Figure 32 below). A large portion of the area is also potentially at risk of landslip, withhouses built without formal approval or under TOLs, resulting in variable structural quality, and little to no government
regulation (see Figure 33).

Figure 32: Pollution in the riverbed Vara Creek, Aekafo Planning Area, December 2014 (Photo: Trundle)

Figure 33: Kola’a ISZ topography (L) & example of housing responses (R) (Photo: Trundle)

The two additional vulnerability hotspots identified through socio-economic analysis and hazard mapping are located in
rapid growth Informal Settlement Zones, adjacent to Honiara’s municipal boundaries. The White River (4) area along
Nggosi Ward’s western boundary grew rapidly in the decade preceding the 2009 census, and has limited electricity andsanitation access (although the proximity to a natural spring water source upstream of White River has resulted in29higher than average metered water connectivity). Limited mobile phone access and a significant presence of makeshift
or traditional housing types suggest that further investigation of this locality is warranted.
Similarly, the rapid cross-border population growth observed along Panatina Ward’s southern boundary suggests that
Mamulele & Kombito 2 & 3 (Hotspot 5) also meet the criteria of vulnerability hotspots, and require further on-theground analysis and engagement. These areas have very low metered water and electricity access, high levels of
makeshift or traditional housing materials, and a housing density above 75 persons per hectare. These housing areas
are also rapidly encroaching on the catchment areas around the Kombito water source, with the adjacent boreholes
and spring water site as shown in Figure 31.
2.6.2 CRITICAL INFRA STRUCTURE & SECTORSIn addition to housing and household-level issues, critical components of the city’s infrastructure are also heightening
Honiara’s vulnerability to current day climate-related events, many of which will be worsened by climate change. The
potential impact of critical infrastructure failure was highlighted during the April 2014 floods, where damage to thecity’s main through road and bridges across the Mataniko River severely reduced cross-city access. The locations of thecritical infrastructure assets most vulnerable to climate impacts are shown in Figure 31. Infrastructure ‘deficits’ werealso confirmed by the Honiara City Council Disaster Risk Reduction Self-Assessment workshop (UNISDR / ICLEI 2016),
which highlighted that critical infrastructure, schools, and health facilities are not designed to cope with extreme events,
and the maintenance of public infrastructure is poor. In addition, building codes do not necessarily integrate disaster
risk, and need to be better enforced.
Although not a spatial hotspot as such, the lack of sanitation across the city heightens the vulnerability of the city to
climate impacts, with flooding, health issues and the use of urban springs and water sources for washing, drinking andgarden irrigation interacting with effluent and other pollution. As shown in Figure 23 earlier in this Action Plan, theclose proximity of poorly-maintained sewer outfalls to settlements, waterways and the city’s heavily-used coastline
limit any reduction in these risks even in those areas where sanitation is prevalent. During fieldwork, effluent frompumped septic systems was observed being deposited into the city’s landfill site without treatment (see Figure 34).
Waterway pollution and debris throughout the city present a more general risk to downstream infrastructure andinhabitants.

Figure 34: Septic tank collection truck pumping effluent into the Honiara Landfill (Photo: Trundle)

30

The Ranadi Landfill Site is on the city’s eastern border with Guadalcanal Province, in an area prone to coastal erosion
and riverine flooding, and potentially exposed to severe storm surges. The existing site has limited protection and islikely to be leaching chemical products, hazardous waste, and septic effluent into the soil and waterways that surround
it. Healthcare waste is burned in an open pit at the site, as neither the National Hospital nor the Landfill has anincinerator. Although remediation of the Ranadi site is currently underway, an alternative site will also be needed in thenear future due to limited capacity to collect the estimated 29,000 tons of waste generated in Honiara annually, anestimated 40-50% of which is organic (ADB 2014). The 75% of waste that is not currently collected by HCC is largely
burnt or dumped in waterways, with incentive-based recycling schemes operating for aluminium cans and glass bottles.
The National Referral Hospital is critical to post-disaster response, but is heavily exposed to climate impacts due to its
low-lying coastal location. Emergency access is also heavily affected by road congestion along the Kukum
Highway/Mendana Avenue. The process of relocating the hospital is currently underway, with exposure to climate
hazards – both of the site and its access routes – being considered in the site selection process. The sewage outfall thatis adjacent to both the hospital and the Ontong Java Settlement exacerbates the hotspot’s impact on surrounding
settlements.
Inconsistent availability and a general lack of household access to the city’s electricity supply presents a vulnerability
both at a household level and within government departments during an emergency response, with back-up generators
at government departments dependent on the same diesel fuel supplies as the city’s two power stations. Failure to
stockpile sufficient diesel supplies, if coupled with disruptions to shipping or port access, could therefore havecatastrophic implications for the city’s economy, government services, and communications. Short-term power
disruptions have flow-on impacts to the city’s services sector, which provides the bulk of non-government employment
and wage-based income.
Honiara International Airport is located to the east of the municipal zone and acts as the key entry point for tourist
visitors (approximately 5,500 annually), around half of which are Australians (SINSO 2015). The industry is driven by
diving sites, particularly the World War II wrecks located offshore of Honiara in Ironbottom Sound. However, reef diving
and ecotourism is a growing sector that will itself be vulnerable to climate impacts. The airport is located alongside theflood zone of the Lunga River and is also potentially exposed to inundation and damage from severe storm surges (UNHabitat 2014a).
The location of the national Honiara Port Facilities within the central CBD, as well as the city’s main fuel depot (seeFigure 35), contributes additional congestion to the city’s main road, with much of Honiara’s imported goods requiringtransport to the Ranadi industrial area. Proposals to rehabilitate Point Cruz and provide public open space along theshoreline are contained within the Honiara Local Planning Scheme 2015 (a lack of open space and public access to thecoast were highlighted by workshop and forum participants).
Mendana Avenue/Kukum Highway is currently at capacity with average vehicle speeds reducing to below 10kmph past
the Honiara Central Market (JICA 2014), worsened by the four-lane arterial road reducing to two lanes across themouth of the Mataniko River. Projects are currently underway to duplicate the Mataniko River Bridge, withinvestigative studies looking at the possibility of a CBD bypass road further inland (MLHS & HCC 2015).
Schools and educational facilities across the city were employed as evacuation centres during the April 2014 floods,
however the role of schools as critical evacuation facilities during disaster response was viewed by many stakeholders
as having a negative impact – in terms of education disruption and facilities damage – rather than an asset. Deploymentof alternative forms of evacuation centre facilities is discussed in the planning component of this Action Plan.
Additional critical infrastructure components and sectors are set out in more detail in the 2014 Honiara Vulnerability
Assessment Report (UN-Habitat 2014a).

31

Figure 35: View of the Point Cruz Port Facilities and Fuel Depot (Photo: Trundle)32

3. CITY-WIDE ADAPTATION & URBAN RESILIENCE OBJECTIVES
3.1 FROM ISSUES TO OBJECTIVES
Climate adaptation and urban resilience objectives were developed through a participatory workshop series conductedin May 2014, which engaged a broad cross-section of government stakeholders and committees, civil society
3
organisations, youth, and community members in each of the identified vulnerability hotspots . In total over 180
individual stakeholders were directly involved in objective-setting and planning activities, representing a broad crosssection of the community, government decision-makers, and non-government organisations. Project activities included
training of 15 NDMO personnel, the participation of 21 youth representatives, and engagement with five donororganizations, nine local NGOs, and four national government departments. Five councillors and ten local government
department heads also took part in the HCC workshop. Despite efforts to ensure equal gender representation, women
represented only 26% of the stakeholders engaged, but accounted for 35% of the hotspot community participants. It is
recommended that resilience activities engage explicitly with women’s groups in early phases of development to rectify
this imbalance.
Following a presentation on the climate change vulnerability of Honiara, as well as discussion regarding the local
vulnerabilities that the relevant stakeholders or community have experienced, workshops were split into break-outgroups that were directed to transform their key issues into high-level objectives. Actions that could assist in achieving
each of these objectives were then identified and prioritised. Examples of the breakout activities being conducted areshown in Figure 36 below.

Figure 36: Objective Identification Workshops: NDMO (L) & Kola’a ISZ (R) (Photo Credit: Trundle & McEvoy)

Discussions of said issues were heavily focused on waste and water management, as well as the underlying pressure of
rapid urbanisation and population growth (as outlined in Section 2.1). Although not all of these issues were directly
climate-related, it was noted that the impacts of the April 2014 floods had been significantly worsened by upstream
debris. Furthermore, plastic pollution in waterways exacerbated localised flooding by preventing the drainage systemfrom functioning properly. Similarly, a lack of land tenure prevented regulation of building quality and controls, leading
to heightened sensitivity to climate impacts and development in hazard-exposed zones, while population pressures inhigh density zones were suggested to worsen the potential for community violence. A visualisation of the maincommunity and stakeholder issues is shown in Figure 37.
Although not always cited as an ‘issue’, a lack of understanding of which issues were driven or amplified byanthropogenic climate change, and which issues were directly attributable to local human intervention (or,3

Due to the destruction of the Koa Hill informal settlement through the April 2014 Floods, only Kukum Fishing Village, Ontong Java/Lord Howe
Settlement and the Kola’a ISZ groups were able to participate in this activity.

33

alternatively, existing climate variability or geo-hazards) was acknowledged to be problematic. For instance, increasing
occurrence of localised flooding was attributed to climate change by some participants, despite no clear trend in rainfall
events being present (see Section 2.4). Correct attribution to more likely causes – drainage systems blocked by plastic
rubbish, the presence of informal settlements in at risk areas, and deforestation upstream – can empower the local
population by demonstrating that local actions to counter these causes are possible, in contrast to reducing global
emissions for which Honiara has minimal responsibility and limited capacity to influence. Other issues, such ascommunity violence, were not immediately attributed as being linked to climate change; this is not necessarily the case.
For instance, extreme heat conditions have been shown to result in increased levels of domestic violence in the UnitedStates (Doherty & Clayton 2011).

Figure 37: Issue Identification by Stakeholders by break-out group frequency & category

3.2 OBJECTIVE CATEGORIESObjectives were developed by each break-out group on the basis of the issues that they identified, and subsequently
grouped and categorised by the project team. Ten thematic areas emerged from the participatory approach:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Urban Planning & Land Development
Housing
Infrastructure
Water, Sanitation and Waste
Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes

6. Human Health and Well-being
7. Communication: Awareness and Education
8. Livelihoods and Behaviour Change
9. Disaster Preparedness and Response
10. Governance and Partnerships

These objective categories contain up to nine individual high-level objectives, which form the basis of the actions set
out in this Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan (Section 4). The proposed lead organisation(s) – as well as potential
implementation partners for the initiative – are listed in the tables below, as well as the strength of the link between

34

the objective and the city’s exposure to current climate variability and projected climate change (four ticks representing
the strongest link to both current and projected climate impacts).
3.2.1 URBAN PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Urban Planning and Land Development

ClimateRelated (1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

1.1 Adequate land supply and land release strategy

Land Board, HCC, MLHS, MID, MECCDM,
MHMS, Chiefs, Chinese Assn, WDCs, GPG

1.2 Reduction in informal settlements

MLHS, UN-Habitat, Chiefs, WDCs, CDCs,
Land Board

1.3 Effective land use planning schemeMLHS, Police Force, HCC, MID, SIEA,
SIWA

1.4 Zoning of landslide and flood-prone areas

HCC, MLHS, WB-REP, Chiefs, Elders, MID,
WHO

1.5 Protection of water easements and catchment areasSIWA, MLHS, HCC, MECCDM, Community
Leaders, MID

1.6 Relocation strategy for at-risk households

MLHS, Land Board, HCC, SIRC, MHA

1.7 Reduced water-logging

MID, MLHS, HCC, I/NGOs

Figure 38: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Urban Planning and Land Development

As noted in the updated Honiara Local Planning Scheme (2015), although a number of plans for the city have been set
out since the declaration of the current Honiara town boundary in 1981, implementation of these development
schemes has generally lagged behind population growth and lacked a strategic vision for the forward development of
the city. Correspondingly, a substantial share of stakeholder and community respondents believed that improving this
aspect of the city was the most critical objective in reducing Honiara’s climate vulnerability and improving its urban
resilience. Objectives at a city-scale were categorised in two broad ways: better planning for current and future climaterelated natural hazards (Objectives 1.4-1.7 in Figure 38), and a more anticipatory, fully-implemented strategic process
for managing the city’s rapid urban growth (Objectives 1.1-1.3). Many objectives correspond to the recently-endorsed
joint HCC-MLHS Local Planning Scheme, and will be able to be achieved through integration of these parallel agendas.

3.2.2 HOUSING
Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

2.1 Flood-proofed housing and buildingsMLHS, MID, HCC, SIWA, CDCs

2.2 Housing safe from cyclones (location & design)MLHS, MID, HCC, SIWA, CDCs, FTEs,
CCPB, MECCDM, Chiefs

2.3 Climate-resilient building standards and codes

MLHS, MID, MECCDM, HCC, Police,
International Donors

2.4 Households with land title/registration



MLHS, MID, HCC, UN-Habitat

2. Housing

35

MLHS, Fire Service, DP, NGOs, HCC,
SIEA, MPHS

2.5 Fire-resistant buildings

2.6 Access to essential services Donor/Funders

SIWA, SIEA, HCC, MID, MLHS,

Figure 39: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Housing

Within the urban setting, improvement of housing quality, and the ability of residential areas to cope with climate
impacts, was viewed as a critical area for reducing the city’s overall vulnerability, and protecting Honiara’s populationand their livelihoods in the event of a climate-related or natural disaster. With roughly half (46%) of the city’s housing
based on a single-storey, timber frame construction model, a number of opportunities exist to transfer climate-resilient
housing construction techniques from elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, by partnering with external expertise.
Although MLHS has been proposed as the implementation partner for many of the objectives set out in Figure 39, theneed for partnerships for expert input, as well as technical support by utilities such as SIWA and SIEA, was emphasisedin consultations.
3.2.3 INFRASTRUCTURE
Climate Related(1-4)

3. Infrastructure

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

3.1 Climate-resilient and functional public and criticalinfrastructureMID, HCC, SIWA, SIEA, Telekom,
MECCDM, NDMO,
Donors/Funders

3.2 Development of an efficient and well-maintained road
networkMID, HCC, Donors/Funders

3.3 Low-carbon transport options

MID, HCC, MECCDM, MMHS

3.4 Stormwater drainage infrastructure to manage river floodingMID, SIWA, HCC, MLHS,
Donors/Funders, MECCDM

3.5 Erosion protection of waterfront and river banksMID, MLHS, HCC MoFR

3.6 Cooler living spaces and walkways

HCC, MoFR, MLHS, MID

Figure 40: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Infrastructure

Beyond the residential sector, all stakeholders and community representatives recognised that there was a significant
infrastructure deficit across the city in terms of both a backlog of maintenance of existing infrastructure assets (some ofwhich were identified as being no longer functional), and additional assets required by the city’s rapidly growing
population. As identified in Figure 40, many of these initiatives will need to be led by the Ministry of Infrastructure andDevelopment, with the support of local authorities, external experts and critically ODA funding support. A number ofobjectives in the infrastructure also reflect community and stakeholder aspirations for the city, including low-carbon
transport (reflecting the high levels of congestion and pollution that characterise the city’s arterial road network), andenhanced public spaces, which are viewed as ‘win-win’ areas for the city with health, tourism, productivity andenvironmental benefits. ODA and other funding opportunities for supporting these large-scale initiatives are further
discussed in Section 6 of this plan.

36

3.2.4 WATER, SANITATION AND WASTE
4. Water, Sanitation and Waste

Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

4.1 Functional sanitation systems



SIWA, HCC, MID, Int. Partners,
MLHS, MHMS, MECCDM

4.2 Effective rubbish disposal and collection systems



HCC, Communities, MLHS

4.3 A climate hazard-safe, long-term, waste disposal siteHCC, MHMS, MALS, MECCDM

4.4 Clean drinking water access for all residents

SIWA, HCC, GPG, NHL

4.5 Effective and well-maintained drainage systems



SIWA, HCC, MID, World Bank,
Community leaders, CDCs

4.6 Development of a plastics recycling scheme

HCC, Plastic supply companies,
CDCs, JICA, SICC

4.7 Reduction in coastal/river pollutionCommunity Leaders, HCC,MECCDM, MHMS

4.8 Water catchment planning, including sustainable use ofgroundwater resources

MLHS, SIWA, HCC, GPG,
MECCDM, Community Leaders

4.9 Clarify water source/catchment land ownershipLand Board, MLHS, SIWA,
Community Leaders, GPG

Figure 41: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Water, Sanitation and Waste

As reflected in the issues diagram in Figure 37, water access, sanitation and waste were consistently viewed as thesectors that required the most urgent action in the face of climate-related shocks, rapid population growth, and a cycleof hygiene and health-related issues related to disease transmission. Although many of these objectives are not directly
driven by climate, they provide a wide range of existing hazards and risks that are severely worsened – or exacerbate
the impacts of – climate-related extreme events such as cyclones or extreme rainfall. A partnership between thecommunity, the municipal council, and the relevant utility was seen as critically important in achieving these objectives,with the prospect of setting up a joint working group specific to this area led by representatives from these threegroups. Investments in water, sanitation and waste infrastructure were also seen as being needed to be met ‘half-way’by the community that would benefit from them, with behaviour-based objectives (e.g. 4.7, Figure 41) underpinningthe function and ongoing maintenance of any improvements in infrastructure. As noted in the SIWA workshop,
however, limitations in resourcing and legislative jurisdiction would require external financial support and/or novelcommunity-level partnerships if implementation was to be rolled out at scale.

37

3.2.5 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND COASTAL PROCESSES
Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

5.1 Understanding and enhancing local ecosystem services



MECCDM, SPREP, UN-Habitat
MoFR, HCC, CDCs, DSE

5.2 Revegetation & protection of existing urban forest,
vegetation and ecosystem assets

HCC, MoFR, MECCDM, MID, DSE,
Community Leaders

5.3 Enhanced agricultural production and reduced imported fooddependency



MoAL, MoF, HCC, GPG, DSE

5.4 Preparedness for coral bleaching and marine change



MECCDM, Tourism operators,
Fishermen, HCC, MEHRD

5.5 Coastal settlements safe from sea level rise impacts

MLHS, HCC, Community leaders,MID, Donors

5.6 Coastal settlement protection from tsunamisMID, NDMO, MLHS, HCC,
Community Leaders

5.7 Management of coastal erosion hotspots

MID, MLHS, HCC, MECCDM

5. Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes

Figure 42: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Ecosystem Services and Coastal Processes

As noted in Section 2.6 of this plan, marine and land-based ecosystem services make up a significant share of household
livelihoods in Honiara, and compensate for shortfalls in infrastructure and utilities (for instance, the natural springs
shown in Figure 23). Protection and enhancement of these services is therefore a core objective of this plan, andextends across government institutions (though particularly within MECCDM). Potential linkages with other ecosystem
based adaptation agendas are discussed in Section 6, while hybrid models that integrate hard infrastructure (such assea walls and breakers) will require engagement and partnership with MID, key international donors and the private
sector.
3.2.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
Climate Related(1-4)

6. Human Health and Well-being

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

6.1 Clean, healthy and safe environmentHCC, MHMS, Community
leaders, CDCs, MID

6.2 Strategies for managing exposure to extreme heat

HCC, MHMS, MLHS, MoFR,
Community leaders

6.3 Effective health policies and accessible facilities

MHMS, MID, HCC, GPG

6.4 Improve climate-related health awareness campaigns

MHMS, MEHRD, HCC, DSE

6.5 Reduced risk of loss of life in event of a tsunami

NDMO, Community Leaders,
MECCDM, MID

6.6 Reduced incidence of diseaseMHMS, HCC, DSE , CDCs

6.7 Reduced environmentally-driven health issues

MHMS, HCC, CDCs, DSE

Figure 43: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Human Health and Well-being

38

The health and well-being of Honiara’s residents is a wide-reaching goal within the HURCAP, and relates to both theunderlying vulnerability of the city’s population to climate impacts (where at-risk citizens such as the sickly and disabledoften have a higher sensitivity), as well as direct, climate-related health issues (for instance Objective 6.2 in Figure 43).
Objectives relate to education, environmental conditions, facilities, and high-level well-being goals, and will
predominantly need implementation leadership from within MHMS. Existing health education programs can also beleveraged to spread a wider awareness of climate-related health impacts, building on existing engagement of MHMS
staff in the HURCAP design phase, as well as HCC health staff.
3.2.7 COMMUNICATION: AWARENESS AND EDUCAT ION
Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

7.1 Education on environmental risksDSE, SIDT, MECCDM, HCC,
MHMS, MLHS, SINU, MEHRD

7.2 Promotion of non-written climate communications to reachall members of the community Habitat, CDCs, Churches

7.3 Improved community understanding and awareness of local
climate change impacts

HCC, CDCs, DSE, Churches,
MEHRD, MECCDM

7.4 Well-resourced disaster risk reduction, response andmanagement awareness programs, and community engagement



NDMO, MECCDM, Donors/
Funders, HCC

7.5 Monitoring / surveillance systems for diseaseMHMS, HCC, CDCs

7. Communication: Awareness and Education

MECCDM, RMIT, DSE, VBM, UN-

Figure 44: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Communication: Awareness & Education

The need to build a wider level of community ‘climate literacy’ was both evident in responses, and in the initialintroductory component of the workshops themselves. In particular, the lack of easily-understandable non-writtenmodes of climate communications, including posters, drama, radio-shows and dance, was noted by all hotspot
communities, and during the NGO and youth workshops. As a result, RMIT University has already initiated some pilot
work in this area in partnership with DSE and VBM. However, in order to access all communities across the city,
capacity will need to be built in these areas within HCC, as well as the NGO community as a whole (via umbrella bodies
such as DSE, as shown in Figure 44).

39

3.2.8 LIVELIHOODS AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

8.1 Sustainable rates of urban population growthMHMS, Churches, DSE, HCC,
CDCs, MWCY, MEHRD

8.2 Manage urban migration

Provincial Governments, GPG,
HCC, MEHRD, MID

8.3 Reduce traffic congestion and car dependency

MLHS, MPWS, MID, HCC

8.4 Create jobs that enhance climate resilience

MEHRC, MECCDM, HCC, MWCY,
MoF, SINU

8.5 Reduce community violence

RSIP, Community leaders, HCC,
MWCY

8. Livelihoods and Behaviour Change

Figure 45: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Behaviour Change

Objectives relating to behaviour change are arguably some of the hardest to achieve in any setting, however reducing
rapid rates of population growth in the Solomon Islands in particular is central to national stability and development,
while rural-to-urban migration can be seen to be one of the underlying challenges from which the shortfalls in urban
infrastructure, land tenure and housing quality arise. Novel and sustained strategies will be needed to achieve theobjectives set out above (Figure 45), with cross-sector partnerships and an emphasis on community groups and leaders
in areas such as church groups, education programmes, and also wider reach strategies such as decentralisation ofservices and establishment of ‘pull’ factors in townships other than Honiara. Within the city, government agencies willneed to facilitate shifts to more sustainable transport options, as well as provide the policies and incentives thatencourage climate-resilience related job opportunities.
3.2.9 DISASTER PREPAREDNES S AND RESPONSE
9. Disaster Preparedness and Response

Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

9.1 Regularly updated disaster action plan

9.2 Early warning systems and communication to all communities Community Leaders, DSE

9.3 Provision of emergency shelters leaders, CDCs, UN-Habitat

NDMO, HCC, MECCDM
NDMO, HCC, MID, MECCDM

MID, NDMO, Community

Figure 46: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Disaster Preparedness and Response

Preparedness for, management of and response to extreme weather events is strongly integrated with existing Disaster
Risk Management processes, which fall largely within the jurisdiction of the NDMO, as well as the HCC disastermanagement team. Although the focus of this plan is broadly on climate-related impacts, the strengthening of these
existing institutions through mutually-beneficial objectives and the integration of planning processes and resources wasstrongly supported by both government-level stakeholders and the communities on the ground that require effective
assistance in a post-disaster context, regardless of the strength of the link to climate change. Opportunities for
integration with DRM work, such as the ICLEI/UNISDR Disaster Resilience Scorecard process, are detailed further in
Section 6 of this plan, with existing links to hotspot communities built through the HURCAP process potential avenues
40

for implementation of mutually beneficial actions (such as development of emergency shelters as proposed in Figure46).
3.2.10 GOVERNANCE AND PARTNERSHIPS
Climate Related(1-4)

Stakeholder-proposed
Implementation Partners

10.1 Enhanced government, utility and business linkages throughCommunity Development Committees

CDCs, HCC, SIWA, SIEA, MLHS,
SICC, MECCDM

10.2 Intra-Ministry task force to mainstream urban climate
resilience planning OPMC, All SIG Ministries

10.3 Enhanced partnership working between Ministries, HCC and
Ward Development Councils

 WDCs

10.4 Strengthen governance capacity WDCs

10.5 Establish community committees for land use planningHCC, MLHS, Land Board, WDCs,
CDCs

10.6 Integrate water catchment plan with community structures

MLHS, SIWA, Community
Leaders, MECCDM, CDCs, HCC

10.7 Empowerment of women, youth and other disadvantaged
groups HCC, MYWC, DSE

10. Governance and Partnerships

HCC, MECCDM, MLHS, MID,

HCC, MECCDM, MLHS, MID,

Figure 47: City-wide HURCAP Objectives – Governance and Partnerships

Governance processes and partnerships sit across the other nine objective areas, and, although not explicitly a
response to climate change, the strengthening of government capacity will address a key weakness in the city’s overall
adaptive capacity (as set out in Figure 27). In particular, opportunities were noted for building cross-government
coordination of climate-related activities (both within and outside of Honiara), with models such as Vanuatu’s National
Advisory Board for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction available to be learnt from within the region.
Beyond national government engagement, strengthening the hierarchy of governance all the way down to thecommunity level would better allow existing community networks and resources to be mobilized, which would greatly
benefit other objective areas (for instance, achievement of Objective 10.6 in Figure 47 would significantly strengthen
the ability to meet objectives set out in areas such as Water, Sanitation and Waste, and Ecosystem Services & Coastal
Processes).
A combined partnership in this area from HCC, OPMC and community leaders is seen as critical to ensuring that the
HURCAP actions are mainstreamed effectively and spread across the different community groups and stakeholders
within the city.

41

4. URBAN RESILIENCE & ADAPTATION ACTION PLANNING
This chapter showcases a portfolio of specific actions that were identified through local stakeholder engagement
processes. These include a high-level workshop involving the Honiara City Council, which was held to scope out
interventions at the city-wide scale, as well as a series of community workshops, which were used to identify the mostimportant local actions as nominated by the inhabitants of vulnerability hotspot areas. The potential actions aregrouped according to the objective categories set out in the previous section, and linked to specific objectives where
relevant. Actions relating to urban planning, water, waste and sanitation, and governance processes emerged as themost prevalent at the city-scale. Each of the vulnerability hotspots highlighted actions specific to their location, as wellas addressing more common issues relating to development and informal settlements across the city.
Proposed actions for city-wide actions were subject to further scrutiny at an expert workshop held in Honiara in July
2016. This workshop involved many of the named lead partners, allowing for potential actions to be debated andconfirmed, implementation leaders to be suggested (and revised from original stakeholder suggestions in someinstances), and any additional actions put forward for inclusion in the action plan. The following tables highlight theidentified actions, including consideration of timing, priority, cost and lead implementation organisations.
Organisational abbreviations used in the tables are as follows:
CDC – Community Development
Committee
MWCY – Ministry of Women,Children and YouthDSE – Development Services
Exchange (CSO)
NDMO – National Disaster
Management Office
HCC – Honiara City Council
OPMC – Office of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet
G Prov – Guadalcanal Province
RSIP – Royal Solomon Islands
Police ForceJICA – Japan International
Cooperation Agency
SICC – Solomon Islands Chamberof Commerce

MECCDM – Ministry for theEnvironment, Climate Change andDisaster Management
SIEA – Solomon Islands Electricity
Authority
MEHRD – Ministry of Education &Human Resources Development
SIMS – Solomon Islands
Meteorological Service
MFR – Ministry of Forestry andResearch
SIWA – Solomon Islands Water
Authority
MFT – Ministry of Finance andTreasury
SINSO – Solomon Islands National
Statistics Office
MHA – Ministry of Home Affairs

SPC – Secretariat of the PacificCommunity
MHMS – Ministry of Health andMedical Services
SPREP – Secretariat of the PacificRegional Environment Program
MID – Ministry of Infrastructure
and Development
TCPB – Town and Country
Planning Board
MLHS – Ministry of Lands,
Housing and Survey
UNH – United Nations Human
Settlement Programme
MMERE – Ministry of Mines,
Energy and Rural Electrification
WB – World Bank

4.1 HONIARA CITY-WIDE ACTIONS
4.1.1 URBAN PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Urban growth continues to be fast, at current growth rates it is expected that the population within the boundaries will
increase from an estimated 87,000 in 2015 to 120,000 by 2030. Climate change impacts on rural and fishingcommunities are likely to add to the push factors with economic development in Honiara adding to pull factors, likely
accelerating urban growth. Peri-urban growth along the outside boundary of Honiara (in Guadalcanal Province) has
recently been much faster than within the city, further accelerating the growth of greater Honiara. These drivers will
likely contribute to the growth of settlements in hazard-prone areas. Further, the population pressure, if not properly
managed, will increase climate sensitivities, through further environmental degradation (deforestation, coastal andriverine ecosystems), increasing the likelihoods of floods. Actions include the mapping of hazards, and the designation42

of no-build zones in hazard prone areas. Climate change considerations also need to be mainstreamed into all levels ofpolicy.
1. City-wide Urban Planning & Land
Development Actions

Objective(s)HCA1.1 Integrate climate change into Informal
Settlements Upgrading strategies, plans andactions and ensure that all TOL to FTE
conversions are in areas outside of highclimate/natural hazard risk zones, as well as
utility access, recreational and public use
zones.

Resilience Area(s)Implementation Factors

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)1.2, 1.4Medium
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS

HCA1.2 Develop a city-wide map of hazard
zones which informs TOL to FTE conversions aswell as municipal, utility andgrowth/development plans.

1.4, 1.5,
4.8, 5.2,
5.5, 5.6,
10.6







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS

HCA1.3 Ensure that the Honiara Local Planning
Scheme 2015/the emerging Planning andDevelopment Act (replacing the Town andCountry Planning Act) fully recognize therecommendations and actions of this plan.

1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 1.5

On-going

Med

$$$$

MLHS

HCA1.4 Conduct a whole-of-govt. review to
identify areas for mainstreaming of climatechange considerations across urban policy.

1.3, 10.2







Short
Term

Low

$$$$

MECCDM

HCA1.5 Strengthen community engagement at
sub-ward and ward levels in local resilienceplanning and LPS implementation.

1.3







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS

HCA1.6 Develop an urban heat reduction
approach, including low-cost design options,
open/green space and urban forest
enhancements for the city.

1.3, 2.3,
3.1, 3.6,
5.1, 5.2,
6.2

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
MLHS

HCA1.7 Assess the feasibility of converting allor part of the National Referral Hospital site toa climate-sensitive public reserve, including
restoration of the coastal zone, drainage
enhancements and reforestation.

1.4, 1.5,
3.4, 4.5,
4.7, 5.2,
5.7, 6.2



Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MHMS/
HCC

HCA1.8 Develop, implement and publicly
communicate water catchment management
plans for the city’s water supply source areas.

1.5, 4.8

  

Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS/
MECCDM

HCA1.9 Develop a relocation policy/strategy
for at-risk households based on intensive
community and stakeholder consultations.

1.6







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS /MECCDM

HCA1.10 Integrate ecosystem strategies (ridge
to reef) into all planning initiatives, anddevelop a coastal zone management plan, as
well as a water catchment protection plan.

1.5; 4.8







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC /
MECCDM

43



HCA1.11 Review the urban drainage networkand develop a climate-sensitive andcommunity-led integrated drainage,
distributed water capture and re-use masterplan and explore regional funding
models/opportunities for upgrades.

1.7, 4.4,
4.8 10.6







Long
Term

Med

$$$$

MID/
SIWA

4.1.2 HOUSING
The quality of much of the building stock in Honiara is poor and many of the informal settlements are located in highrisk areas. The upgrading of informal settlements, land use zoning, and improving access to services, are central to thistheme. It would also be beneficial to carry out further community profiles and vulnerability assessments to better
inform future resilience actions.

2. City-side Housing Actions

Objective(s)Resilience Area(s)Implementation Factors

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)HCA2.1 Expand the Informal Settlement
Upgrading programme, prioritising avoidanceof climate-vulnerable, hazard-exposed areas.

1.2, 2.1,
2.4, 2.6,
10.1







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS/
UNH

HCA2.2 Conduct a representative survey oncompliance of existing housing stock withbylaws and codes.

2.1, 2.2.,
2.3, 10.4







Short
Term

Low

$$$$

HCC

HCA2.3 Establish a Building Audit Programme
for enforcing codes, improving existing building
stock and defending high-risk exclusion zones,
and ensure enforcement of building ordinance.

2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 2.5,
8.4, 10.4

Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC

HCA2.4 Integrate a climate hazard component
into the TOL/FTE upgrading process.

2.1, 2.3,
2.4, 2.5







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MLHS/
UNH / SPC

HCA2.5 Review utility connection rules for
traditional housing and explore low-cost, offgrid options for energy, water and sanitation.

2.5, 2.6Medium
Term

Low

$$$$

G Prov/
Utilities

HCA2.6 Conduct additional vulnerability
assessments for ‘hotspot’ zones (e.g. Nggosi
and South-east Panatina).

1.6, 2.1,
2.2, 7.1







Short
Term

High

$$$$

UNH

44

4.1.3 INFRASTRUCTURE
Discussions for the infrastructure theme focussed on water, transport and energy. The location of the Point Cruz port
facility, and associated fuel storage, was also noted as problematic due to exposure to natural hazards and limitations
to urban growth.

3. City-wide Infrastructure Actions

Objective(s)Resilience Area(s)Implementation Factors

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MLHS/
MID/
MMERE



Medium
Term

Low

$$$$

HCC/
MLHS/
Port Auth.

High

$$$$

SIWA/
MECCDM/ MMERE

High

$$$$

MMERE /
SIWA/

$$$$

MLHS/
HCC/
Lands
Board

HCA3.1 Conduct a feasibility assessment for
the relocation of Point Cruz heavy industry andassociated port facilities and fuel storage,
taking into account natural hazards and urban
growth.

1.3, 3.1,
3.5, 5.1,
5.5, 5.7,
8.3

HCA3.2 Explore design options for climatesensitive public open space and commercial
opportunities around the Point Cruz site.

3.1, 3.5,
5.2

HCA3.3 Assess the total capacity of existing
potable water assets relative to ‘worst case’
rapid population growth scenarios.

3.1, 3.4







Short
Term

HCA3.4 Enhance community-integrated water
efficiency and maintenance regimes for water
infrastructure.

3.1, 3.4

MediumTerm

HCA3.5 ‘Future proof’ North-South accessroutes to inland growth areas allowing for
grade-duplication on key arterial routes.

1.3, 3.1,
3.2, 8.3,



Short
Term

HCA3.6 Develop a detailed assessment of acity-bypass as set out in the LPS, accounting fornatural hazards, climate impacts and pop.
growth.

1.3, 3.1,
3.2, 8.3

Medium
Term

High

$$$$

MID/
MLHS/
HCC /
G Prov

HCA3.7 Implement an active citytransportation strategy, including better public
transportation, pavement enhancements,
shading through green infrastructure and pilot
programmes to encourage bicycle use.

3.1, 3.3,
3.6, 6.6,
8.3, 8.4

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/ MID

HCA3.8 Incentivise and engage small
businesses in the importation of small-scalesolar to diversify energy sources, allow
decentralised use of low-energy appliancessuch as mobile phones, and promote bicycles.

3.1, 6.4,
6.5, 7.2,
8.4, 9.2,
10.1



Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MECCDM/MID /MMERE /MFT

HCA3.9 Establish a street tree planting
programme along major access routes forurban cooling and beautification, and protect
the urban forest protection throughcommunity engagement and law enforcement.

3.6, 5.2

Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
MECCDM
/ MFT















  45

High

HCA3.10 Identify, support and stimulate local
businesses in low-cost household water
capture and storage alternatives.

3.1, 3.4,
3.5, 4.4,
4.5, 4.8





Short
Term



High

$$$$

MID/
MECCDM

4.1.4 WATER, SANITATION AND WASTE
These are perhaps the most critical issues in the short to medium term for residents of Honiara, and there are also key
links to initiatives in action sections 1 and 2 (in terms of water use and catchment issues). A city-wide review ofsanitation would provide a useful baseline.
4. City-wide Water, Sanitation & Waste
Actions

Objective(s)HCA4.1 Conduct comprehensive review ofHoniara’s stormwater drainage network andoutfalls, accounting for sea level risk andrainfall change.

Implementation Factors

Resilience Area(s)Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)4.1, 4.2,
4.5, 4.7,
4.8, 5.5,
5.7







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MID/ HCC

HCA4.2 Enhancement of drainage systems,
including improved links to communitydriven drainage programmes.

4.1, 4.5,
4.7, 4.8,
5.5, 5.7Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

MID/ HCC

HCA4.3 Explore the feasibility of a reticulated
sewerage system.

4.1, 4.5,
4.7, 4.8,
5.5, 5.7



 

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

SIWA

HCA4.4 Review household sanitation systems
across the city’s riparian zones and water
catchment areas.

4.1, 4.7,
4.8, 6.1







Short
Term

High

$$$$

HCC /
MECCDM

HCA4.5 Roll-out low-cost sealed sanitation
options in hotpots areas identified in HCA4.3.

2.6, 4.1,
4.7, 4.8,
6.1, 6.3,
6.6, 6.7







Short
Term

High

$$$$

HCC /
MHMS /WASH
NGOs

HCA4.6 Explore feasibility of and interest incommunity-level investment in shared septictank systems, co-funded by government.

4.1, 4.7,
4.8, 6.1,
10.3







Short toMedium
Term

Med

$$$$

SIWA

HCA4.7 Review compliance of commercial
developments with sanitation-related
legislation and identify options for policy
improvement within Building Ordinance.

4.1, 4.7,
4.8, 6.1,
10.1







Short toMedium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
SIWA

HCA4.8 Develop and implement a city-wide
integrated solid waste management strategy
in consultation with CDCs and international
experts.

2.6, 4.2,
4.6, 4.7,
10.1, 10.3

  

Short
Term

High

$$$$

MECCDM/ HCC

HCA4.9 Pilot organic waste composting andgarden re-use initiatives applied rurally
across SI in key waste hotspots across thecity through CDC/HCC/NGO partnerships.

2.6, 4.2,
4.7, 5.1,
5.3, 10.1,
10.7

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

4

There is potential to integrate pilot projects by Gurafesu on organic waste composting / gardening. Ref:
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42662/solid-waste-management-solomon-islands.pdf

46

HCC /
DSE/
4

MLHS

HCA4.10 Develop an organic waste collection
program for the Central Market (public –private partnership).

4.2, 4.7,
10.1

HCA4.11 Carry out a feasibility study into
options for reducing the use of plastic bags.

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC / JICA
/ privatesector

4.2, 4.6,
10.1,

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC / JICA
/ SICCI /MECCDM

HCA4.12 Approach key international
suppliers of plastics with possible partnership
options for a plastics recycling scheme.

4.2, 4.6,
10.1, 10.3

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC /
MECCDM/ SICCI

HCA4.13 Identify and reserve a climate andnatural hazard secure future site forrelocating the municipal landfill, taking into
account urban growth patterns andprojections.

1.3, 2.6,
3.1, 4.3,
4.7, 10.3

Medium
Term

High

$$$$

HCC /
MLHS /MECCDM

HCA4.14 Ensure that climate change impacts
and potential natural disaster risks are being
considered in the remediation works of theRenadi Landfill site and map out future
upgrade schedules as required.

1.3, 2.6,
3.1, 4.3,
4.7







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC /
JICA/
MECCDM

HCA4.15 Build in the potential for methane
recovery at a new municipal waste landfill
site.

3,1, 4.2,
10.4

  Medium
Term

Low

$$$$

HCA4.16 Review the filtration technologies
used at reservoir tanks and extraction
sources to provide better quality water aspart of ongoing improvements in water
quality.

2.6, 4.4

  

Short
Term

Low

$$$$

SIWA /MHMS

HCA4.17 Install public water taps in key
public spaces within water-poorcommunities and the city centre (CSO fund).

2.6, 4.4

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC /
SIWA

HCA4.18 Establish a community-led,government supported ‘Water Care’ body forcleaning up and revegetating riverine areas,waterways and coastal zones.

1.7, 4.7,
8.4, 10.3,
10.4, 10.7

  Medium
Term

$$$$

HCC /
SIWA /DSE /MECCDM

47

HCC /

Med

MECCDM/ SIEA

4.1.5 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND RIVER AND COASTAL PROCESSES
It was recognised in the expert workshop that the riparian environment was equally important as the coastal zone
therefore the theme heading was altered to account for this. Important legislation was noted as the Rivers and Waters
Act, Protected Areas Act, Botanist Act, SIWA Act and the Forest Act; and there are also links to a new SPREP Ecosystem
Services project as well as a SPC GEF5 ‘ridge to reef’ project. There are also important connections with tourism but
currently there is no integrated management plan for the coast.
5. City-wide Actions: Ecosystem Services,
Riparian & Coastal Processes

Objective(s)Resilience Area(s)ClimateHCA5.1 Assess natural resources across thecity, their use by communities, and develop
resource management plans.

5.1, 10.4

HCA5.2 Integrate ecosystem services andEcosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) actions into
Water Catchment Management Plans.

1.5, 4.4,
4.8, 5.1

HCA5.3 Map the city’s urban vegetation using
satellite imagery/LANDSAT, identifying priority
areas and opportunities for urban forest
enhancement/plantings.

1.7, 3.6,
5.2, 6.2,
8.4, 10.6



HCA5.4 Assess historical changes to the city’s
coastal morphology, including recent infill andprotection impacts on surrounding residential
zones, in partnership with coastal
communities. Future threats also need to beconsidered.

1.3, 1.5,
1.7, 5.1,
5.4, 5.5,
5.7, 7.3



DRR

Urban

Implementation Factors
TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)$$$$SPREP/MECCDM/ NGOs /
HCC /
TCPB



Short
Term





Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

MECCDM/
HCC /SIWA /
SPREP





Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MECCDM/
HCC /
MFR

Short
Term

High

$$$$

MECCDM/
MLHS
/HCC



  Med

HCA5.5 Conduct community engagement
around coastal and river bank protection
options.

5.1, 5.5,
5.7, 7.3







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MECCDM/
MLHS/
HCC/
NGOs /WB

HCA5.6 Building on HCA 5.4, 5.5, Develop andimplement a Coastal Management Plan,
applying hybrid EbA and engineered protection
measures. Also consider potential to link to
Honiara Beautification scheme.

1.7, 3.5,
4.8, 5.1,
5.2







Mediumto Long
Term

High

$$$$

MECCDM/
HCC /MID/ SPREP

HCA5.7 Create regulatory provisions that take
into account and compensate for changes tocoastal erosion processes beyond coastal
development sites.

1.3, 2.1,
2.3, 3.5,
5.2, 5.4,
5.5, 5.7







Short
Term

Low

$$$$

HCC/
MLHS /
TCPB



Short
Term

$$$$

MECCDM/
CDCs/HCC /SPREP

HCA5.8 Pilot community-led tree-planting
programmes within urban coastal and riverine
areas with ongoing monitoring of changes(links to urban agriculture and food security).

3.5, 5.7



48



Med

4.1.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Concerns were raised about the impact of climate change on human health (heat and vector-borne disease), but amajor focus was the consideration of new site assessments for the national referral hospital relocation and newincinerators for hospital waste. All actions were adjusted to short term during the expert workshop.
6. City-wide Human Health & Well-being
Actions

Objective(s)HCA6.1 Conduct a scoping study into extreme
heat impacts on
hospitalisation/morbidity/mortality, as well as
presentations to health clinics across Honiara(to help with planning of referral pathways).

Resilience Area(s)Implementation Factors

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead

6.2







Short
Term

Low

$$$$

MHMS/
MECCDM/
HCC

HCA6.2 Host a ‘Climate & Health Expo’ for the
public, with a focus on climate-related healthrisks and communicable/vector-borne diseases(this was noted as ongoing).

6.1, 6.3,
6.4, 7.1,
7.3, 10.7







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
MHMS/
MECCDM

HCA6.3 Conduct a climate and natural hazard
risk assessment of the new National Referral
Hospital site, incorporating potential risktreatments and consideration of access routes
during a disaster event (ongoing – relocation
task force).

2.6, 3.1,
6.1, 6.3,
6.5, 6.6







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MHMS

HCA6.4 Secure funding and ongoing budget
allocation for incinerators for healthcare waste(new sites are being subject to feasibility
assessments).

1.5, 4.2,
6.1, 6.7,
10.4







Short
Term

High

$$$$

HCC /
MHMS

HCA6.5 Review National Referral Hospital andmedical facilities/clinic waste disposal
procedures.

6.1, 6.7







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MHMS /HCC

HCA6.6 Improve and maintain a spatial/GIS
database of vector-borne disease
presentations in and around the city, andcommunicate to community members through
CDCs (ongoing, possible collaboration with the
Met Office).

6.3, 7.5,
10.3







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MHMS/
HCC

49

4.1.7 COMMUNICATION, AWARENESS AND EDUCAT ION
Communication and awareness raising were continuously flagged as critical to enhancing community resilience, withparticular attention paid to empowering women and youth. The important role of NGOs, local civil society organisations
and the church was also emphasised during workshop processes. Two new actions were also added during the expert
workshop – mainstreaming climate change into the school curriculum and providing training for church leaders.
7. City-wide Communication,
Awareness & Education Actions

Objective(s)HCA7.1 Pilot best-practice participatory city
government community engagement withhotspot communities in climate action
planning.

6.3, 6.4,
7.1, 7.3,
7.4, 10.3,
10.7

Resilience Area(s)Climate

DRRImplementation Factors

Urban

Timing



Short
Term

Priority

Med

Cost

Lead

$$$$

HCC/
ICLEI/UNH /NGOs

HCA7.2 Use existing networks to identify andtransfer best practice community
engagement and communication strategies.

6.3, 7.1,
7.4, 10.3,
10.4, 10.7







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

DSE /
NGOs
(local)ICLEI /
UNH
(international)

HCA7.3 Engage with Vois Blong Mere todevelop a women-focused climate
communications programme, throughtheatre, radio and newsletters.

7.1, 7.2,
7.3, 8.4,
10.1, 10.7







Short
Term

High

$$$$

HCC/
MYWC

HCA7.4 Engage the HCC Youth Council toproduce youth-focused climate change
communication initiatives, including social
media, mobile platforms, and theatre/dance.

7.1, 7.2,
7.3, 8.4,
10.1, 10.7







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
MYWC /NGOs

HCA7.5 Review city-wide disaster response
communications technologies andprocedures, including training drills, andidentify warning/response black-spots foreach hazard. Link to community level early
warning system.

7.4, 9.1,
9.2, 10.4







Short
Term

High

$$$$

NDMO/
HCC

HCA7.6 Identify and transfer civil society
WASH communications initiatives to citydwellers, with a focus on areas with poor
sanitation/drinking water access.

4.8, 5.1,
6.1, 6.4,
6.6, 7.1,
7.3, 10.6







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MHMS /NGOs

HCA7.7 Mainstream climate change into thenational school curriculum.

-  Medium
Term

High

$$$$

MECCDM/ MoE

HCA7.8 Climate training for church leaders.

-  

Short
Term

High

$$$$

Council ofChurches50

4.1.8 LIVELIHOODS AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Discussions on this theme centred on strengthening the regions to encourage devolved urban growth (and reduce
migration into Honiara), to improve pedestrian access/safety, promote Rapid Employment Program activities across thecity, and to integrate climate change considerations into vocational training.
Resilience Area(s)8. City-wide Actions: Livelihoods &Behaviour Change

Objective(s)HCA8.1 Create an inter-ministry taskforce,
including the provinces, for examining
migration drivers and identifying
decentralisation approaches to encourage
urban growth in provincial centres andsecondary towns.

1.1, 1.2,
2.6, 3.1,
8.2, 10.2



HCA8.2 Review projected urban growth rates
based on MLHS data and post-census SINSO
survey information.

1.1, 8.1,
8.2, 10.4

HCA8.3 Review vehicle import standards andexamine a vehicle import tax to fund roadupgrades and maintenance, with incentives
for lower emission vehicles.

3.2, 6.1,
8.3, 10.4

HCA8.4 Assess pedestrian infrastructure in
key walking routes around the city centre
and invest in upgrades for congested sites,
unsurfaced routes and high safety risk areas(also make provisions for elderly anddisabled).

3.2, 6.1,
8.3

HCA8.5 Expand the Rapid Employment
Program to target community resilience
actions in other HURCAP hotspots, lowincome and informal community areas.

3.1, 6.1,
8.4



HCA8.6 Build climate impacts modules into
vocational training and education
programmes focusing on climate resilienceskills shortage areas.

7.3, 7.4,
8.4, 8.5,
10.4, 10.7

ClimateUrban

TimingMedium
Term













51

DRR

Implementation Factors
Cost

Lead(s)

High

$$$$

OPMC/
MLHS/
Provinces
/ HCC

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MLHS/
SINSO/UNH



Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

MID/
Customs /SICCMedium
Term

High

$$$$

MID/
CDCs/
MLHS/
HCC





Short
Term

Med

$$$$

World
Bank/
MID/ HCC

Medium
Term

High

$$$$

MoE/
MECCDM/
RMIT

Priority4.1.9 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Resilience to natural disasters is a key concern for Honiara. A UNISDR self-assessment exercise for disaster risk
reduction is currently being conducted with HCC by ICLEI and will identify the main institutional strengths andweaknesses, and ultimately lead to key recommendations for actions. Awareness raising in schools and a Honiara mockdisaster response day were added as additional actions.
9. City-wide Disaster Risk Reduction &Management Actions

Objective(s)HCA9.1 Update the HCC Disaster Operation
Plan based on the outcomes of the UNISDR
Resilience Toolkit and ICLEI capacity building
programme.

9.1, 10.3,
10.4

Resilience Area(s)Implementation Factors

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)Medium
Term

High

$$$$

HCC/
ICLEI/NDMO

HCA9.2 Develop the digitization of hazard
maps for the city for landslide, flood,tsunami, coastal erosion and storm surge
risks, and collate in one accessible location.

1.4, 1.6,
7.1, 9.1







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

MECCDM/
MLHS/HCC /NDMO /SOPA

HCA9.3 Create an at-risk household rapid
response taskforce for assisting hazard-prone
communities located in the areas identified
in HCA8.2, linked to CDCs and WDCs.

7.4, 9.2,
10.3, 10.4,
10.7







Medium
Term

High

$$$$

NDMO/
HCC

HCA9.4 Assess the coverage of emergency
shelters across the Greater Honiara area andidentify additional shelter sites required tocover 100% of the city’s residents.

7.1, 9.3,
10.4







Short
Term

High

$$$$

MLHS/
NDMO/
HCC / MID

HCA9.5 Integrate HCA8.3’s taskforce withearly warning systems, built in all at-risk
communities for relevant hazards (with acoordinator for each ward).

9.2, 10.2,
10.3, 10.4







Medium
Term

High

$$$$

NDMO/
HCC/
CDCs /
Police andFireservices /NGOs

HCA9.6 Embed DRR personnel within all
major ministries at a national level, contact
points across departments within HCC, andconduct NDMO-led training with WDCs.

9.1, 10.2,
10.4







Medium
Term

High

$$$$

OPMC/
NDMO/
HCC

HCA9.7 Initiate a DRR awareness programmein schools.

7.7, 9.1,
9.2

$$$$

HCC /
Police andFire
BrigadeHCA9.8 Set aside a day for Honiara-wide
disaster response exercises.

9.3, 9.5,
9.6, 7.2

$$$$

HCC /
Police andFire
Brigade  MediumTerm  Medium
Term

52

High

High

4.1.10 GOVERNANCE AND PARTNERSHIPS
Climate change does not respect boundaries and requires multi-sectoral actions, therefore horizontal and vertical
integration of policies and actions is critical. A governance structure that ensures planning, implementation andmonitoring of the implementation of this action plan will be critically important.
10. City-wide Actions: Governance &Partnerships

Objective(s)Resilience Area(s)Climate

DRR

Urban

Implementation Factors
TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)

HCA10.1 Constitute a multi-stakeholder
steering group for implementation of the
HURCAP, including core members from
HCC, MLHS, MECDM and Guadalcanalprovince as well as implementing partners
and other key stakeholders. To also involve
regular public – private discussions ofopportunities.

1.3, 10.2,
10.4







Short
term

High

$$$$

OPMC/
HCC/
MECCDM/
MLHS/
GProv.

HCA10.2 Ensure vertical governancethrough engagement with Ward Advisory
Groups and Ward Councillors as well as
sub-ward structures such as Community
Development Councils.

1.3, 10.1

Medium
Term

Low

$$$$

SINSO/
MLHS/
UNH/ HCC

HCA10.3 Develop a formal mechanism for
managing cross-boundary urban resilienceissues between Guadalcanal province andHCC.

1.1, 1.3, 8.1,
10.3, 10.4







Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
GProv /MLHS

HCA10.4 Develop transparent information
systems for HURCAP funding andimplementation, as well as M&E andengage Transparency Solomon Islands(TSI).

7.1, 7.5,
10.4, 10.7







Medium
Term

High

$$$$

OPMC/
TSI

HCA10.5 Develop a climate change
resilience upskilling programme for ward
councillors, community leaders andengaged stakeholders.

8.4, 10.3,
10.4







Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCA10.6 Develop climate change training
and knowledge exchange programmes
between HCC staff and urban
municipalities.

10.1, 10.2,
10.4

  Medium
Term

Low

$$$$

HCA10.7 Scope donor country options forfunding support and volunteer positions in
DRR and Urban Climate Resilience related
portfolios within HCC departments.

10.1, 10.2,
10.4

  

Short
Term

Med

$$$$

HCA10.8 Create a formal procedure
engaging non-government actors andrepresentatives in all HURCAP actions,
including civil society, women, youth,
churches and disability organisations.

10.1,
10.2,10.4,
10.7

  

Short
Term

53

High

$$$$

HCC/ DSE/
Churches/
Youth/WomenHCA10.9 Develop a professional training
programme for planners and other urban
and related professionals in support of thisaction plan.

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCA10.10 Develop a training programme
for climate change programmemanagement including M&E for mid-level
management in partnering institutions.

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

SINU
MLHS

HCA10.11 Develop city-to-city partnerships
in particular within the Capital Cities
partnership.

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/
other
Melanesian Capitals,
Australianand NZ
cities

HCA10.12 Mainstream Climate Change into
all Honiara legislation, plans, policies andprogrammes in particular the corporate
plan and relevant bi-laws.

  Medium
Term

Med

$$$$

HCC/

54

4.2 WARD LEVEL ADAPT ATION PROFILES & ACTIONS

Figure 48: Ward divisions across Honiara City

As noted earlier in this Action Plan, the 12 Honiara City Wards provide a critical structure for implementing adaptation
actions both internally within HCC, and externally as the key mechanism for engaging with established community-levelcommittees and social groupings. In particular, continued efforts to enhance Ward Development Committees will
provide a valuable bridge between local government departments and community-level stakeholders.
This section of the HURCAP is intended to provide both an overview of each of the 12 wards, and also to illustrate wardspecific actions that can be undertaken in partnership with WDCs. This includes workshopped ward-level outputs fromthe Honiara Urban Resilience and Adaptation Forum, which were completed for six wards (Kukum, Mataniko,
Mbumburu, Panatina, Vavaea and Vura) by ward councillors, community representatives and government and civilsociety experts (as shown in Figure 49). Possible actions are also listed for the remaining wards though additional
adaptation planning workshops with community, business, and expert stakeholders are needed to elicit the input thatis needed to develop informed locally-owned action plans.

Figure 49: Honiara Urban Resilience and Adaptation Forum Ward Break-out Activities (August 2015)55

4.2.1 NGGOSI WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

NggossiComparative HCC Statistic

Total Land Area

3.8 km2

23.5 km2

Population (2009)

9690

62960

Population Density

2586 persons / km2

2677 persons / km2

5.7% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

25.4%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

17.5%

14.4%

Average population density of ISZs

3753 persons / km2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

43.0%

38.2%

Housing with traditional or makeshift roofing

23.6%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

56.7%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

33.1%

32.1%

Households with metered water

82.2%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

78.6%

82.7%

Households with electricity

53.6%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

72.2%

76.9%

Households with internet access

6.7%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

71.8%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

47.7%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

14.7%

8.2%

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009
Informality, Housing & Tenure

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 50: Nggosi Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Nggosi Ward covers one-sixth of Honiara by land area, bordering Guadalcanal province on the city’s western boundary
and traversing the entire North-South extent of HCC, rising from the Ironbottom Sound coastline into the Guadalcanalfoothills. Around 15% of the city’s population resided in the ward in 2009, however the ward is growing rapidly; overthe decade preceding 2009 it grew annually in population by approximately 5.7%, more than twice the city’s rate as awhole (as can be seen in Figure 50). The ward also houses a similar proportion of the city’s informal population – anestimated 2510 people, who live in the valleys in the western half of the ward area. These ISZs are, however, lessdensely populated than elsewhere in Honiara.
The presence of large areas of housing in the ward’s east, largely occupied by ex-pat and foreign tenants, creates a wide
range of conditions in the ward area, with contrasting rates of utility and services access not reflected in the whole-ofward statistics shown in Figure 50. Only half of the households in the ward have access to electricity (below Honiara’s
average rate of closer to two-thirds), while internet access rates are higher (in large part due to the eastern ex-pat
housing zone). Rates of fishing and food production are also higher than average, though in the ward’s western
informally settled zones.
56

Nggosi Ward-specific Actions
Nggosi ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Adaptation
Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert input, as well
as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading. The first action recommended
for this ward area is to complete the ward-level activity, in partnership with the Ward Development Committee, HCC
and UN-Habitat. Further ward-level actions are proposed below, and are spatially referenced in the map in Figure 51.
W1.1 Develop a tsunami and tropical cyclone warning system and evacuation programme in partnership with coastal
communities and the NDMO.
As shown in Figure 50 a large number of coastal residents inhabit a high risk zone for inundation. A specificplan for this hazard exposure hotspot needs to be developed to ensure the safe evacuation of these citizens in
the event of a storm surge or tsunami wave.

W1.2 Establish a working group to manage cross-border population growth into Guadalcanal province, as well as
dependency on local springs and bore holes for water.


The dependence of the water supply for the local ISZs’ drinking and washing water is extremely high in thewestern section of this ward, and SIWA identified these bore holes as being at critical risk from encroachment,
particularly due to the lack of sealed sanitation in these encroaching settlements.

W1.3 Conduct a study of households and housing structures living within the river floodplain.
More data is required to determine the high risk flood zones in the White River riparian area.

W1.4 Establish an upgrading programme for the White River Informal Settlement Zones


As part of ongoing PSUP work the formalisation of those ISZ structures outside of service access routes andhazard zones will allow connection of utilities and better construction standards, reducing climate sensitivity.

Figure 51: Nggosi Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile57

4.2.2 ROVE-LENGAKIKI WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION A CTIONS
Ward Profile

Rove-Lengakiki

Total Land Area

1.0 kmPopulation (2009)

2336

Population Density

2388.4 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

0.7% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.0%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

0.0%

14.4%

Average population density of ISZs

N/A

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

27.5%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

6.6%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

53.5%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

30.0%

32.1%

Households with metered water

68.9%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

98.2%

82.7%

Households with electricity

90.1%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

79.0%

76.9%

Households with internet access

6.6%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

85.0%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

43.7%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

15.9%

8.2%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 52: Rove-Lengakiki Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Housing 2336 residents and covering approximately one square kilometre, Rove-Lengakiki is one of the city’s moststable wards with no informal settlement zones and a population growth rate well below the Honiara average at 0.7%
per annum (see Figure 52). It has a low rate of home ownership, but almost all households have sealed sanitation
facilities and electricity. Internet access and mobile phone ownerships are above the city average, however connectivity
to metered water is lower than elsewhere in Honiara.
Almost double the percentage of residents living within Rove-Lengakiki participate in fishing relative to the rest of
Honiara, however 85% of the ward’s households depend on wage-based income, reflecting extensive areas ofgovernment housing and ex-pat rental stock.
Rove-Lengakiki Ward-specific Actions
Rove-Lengakiki ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate
Adaptation Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert
input, as well as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading.
58

The first action recommended for this ward area is to complete the ward level activity, in partnership with the Ward
Development Committee, HCC and UN-Habitat. Additional recommended ward-level actions are as follows:
W2.1 Rehabilitate and/or relocate the sewer outfall as part of a city-wide outfall upgrade programme.


As identified elsewhere in this Action Plan the outfalls into Ironbottom Sound are in a state of disrepair andallow raw sewerage to enter the ocean at the coastline.

W2.2 Investigate at-risk housing located on sloped and unstable areas, taking into account the nearby water source
and the new Land Use Planning Scheme regulations for construction on areas steeper than 45 degrees.


Although sparsely populated, a significant area of the ward was identified in earlier analysis to be at high riskof landslides. These areas, and others with a significant gradient, should be mapped out using a digital
elevation model for further investigation and housing in these zones assessed by engineers.

W2.3 Develop a tsunami and tropical cyclone warning system and evacuation programme in partnership with coastal
businesses and the NDMO.


Non-residential areas along the coastline include recreational facilities and hotels, which require different
approaches in the development of tsunami and storm surge evacuation plans and warning systems.

W2.4 Investigate the potential for creating public open and green space with waterfront access as part ofrehabilitation of government building sites.
In all stakeholder consultations the lack of publicly accessible waterfront and open space was seen as a key
limit to the city, and would benefit local residents, boost tourism opportunities, and provide a natural bufferfrom climate risks through ecosystem-based adaptation and climate-sensitive design.

Figure 53: Rove-Lengakiki Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile59

4.2.3 MBUMBURU WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Mbumburu

Total Land Area

1.2 kmPopulation (2009)

3581

Population Density

2940.3 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

5.0% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.9%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

0.5%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

6127.7 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

32.0%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

17.2%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

55.0%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

30.%

32.1%

Households with metered water

78.0%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

80.1%

82.7%

Households with electricity

68.4%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

86.5%

76.9%

Households with internet access

5.6%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

80.1%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

47.0%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

5.1%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 54: Mbumburu Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Mbumburu is an inland ward which houses around 6% of Honiara’s total population, but is one of the city’s fastest
growing areas due to significant unoccupied areas of developable land on the ward’s south-eastern boundary. The
ward’s inhabitants have slightly higher than average levels of utilities and services access, higher rates of household
gardening, but lower rates of fishing commensurate with their inland location.
The ward contains very small areas of officially classified Informal Settlement Zones, encompassing less than half apercent of Mbumburu’s land area. However, settlement issues are understood to exist around the local water sourceand bore hole area. Mbumburu also contains an area of high landslide risk on which a number of houses are located.

Mbumburu Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Mbumburu Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,60

community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
W3.1 Conduct community consultations on use of the local water source and create a protective zone determining
appropriate use within its catchment area.
Given the ward’s above average population growth, the long-term protection of one of the city’s key water
sources is critical, and requires local community engagement and ownership.

W3.2 Investigate at-risk housing located on sloped and unstable areas, taking into account the nearby water source
and the new Land Use Planning Scheme regulations for construction on areas steeper than 45 degrees.
Landslide studies are out of date and can be improved in terms of detail and relevance to the new clauses
present in the Land Use Planning Scheme through application of existing data (Honiara Digital Elevation
Model).

W3.3 Profile cross-border growth into Guadalcanal province, and manage customary leasing arrangements with local
communities.
Given the previous social tensions and unrest resulting from encroachment of city residents into customaryland areas, managing the relationships beyond the formal city boundary in partnership with Guadalcanal
Province and the National Solomon Islands Government is critical to ensure stability and security in Honiara.

Figure 55: Mbumburu Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile61

4.2.4 CRUZ WARD: PRO FILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Cruz

Total Land Area

0.3 kmPopulation (2009)98

Population Density

Comparative HCC Statistic
2416.8 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-200923.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2-6.3% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.0%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

0.0%

14.4%

Average population density of ISZs

N/A

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

5.9%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

5.9%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

34.9%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

17.7%

32.1%

Households with metered water

100.0%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

100.0%

82.7%

Households with electricity

100.0%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

76.5%

76.9%

Households with internet access

17.6%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

76.5%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

70.6%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

17.6%

8.2%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 56: Cruz Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison
2

A summary of the profile of Cruz ward is shown above in Figure 56. At only 0.3 km Cruz is the second smallest ward
even though it comprises the city’s central business district, it contained only 98 permanent residents in the 2009
census, 170 less than in 1999.
There are no informal settlements within Cruz ward, and the area has full access to utilities and the highest rate ofhousehold internet access in the city. Home ownership, however, is extremely low (5.9% of households), with lower
than average youth and child population levels.
Other notable features of the ward include a portion of the port area and recreational berths, a number of the city’smajor hotels, the central bank, ministries and the police headquarters.

62

Cruz Ward-specific Actions
Cruz ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Adaptation
Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert input, as well
as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading.
The first action recommended for this ward area is to complete the ward level activity, in partnership with the Ward
Development Committee, HCC and UN-Habitat. Other ward-level actions identified through stakeholder workshops andexpert consultations include:
W4.1 Identify areas for street tree planting to beautify the main street through the CBD, with the aim of shadingpedestrian areas and improving stormwater absorption.


A number of participants recalled earlier streetscapes along the Kukum Highway that provided shade andpoints of interest for visitors to the city. These also have the potential to reduce rainfall run-off in heavy rain
events, and reduce air pollutants from traffic.

W4.2 Explore the potential for public access open space creation through Port rehabilitation works as part ofbuffering from storm surge damage. Include rehabilitation works for the sewer outfall.
Modifications have been proposed for much of the port area to integrate a level of public waterfrontage in the
CBD – in the short term, this access could be provided on the western edge of Point Cruz with minimal
disruption to the Port Authority. This could also improve inundation risk through incorporation of ecosystembased adaptation options such as mangroves and floodable areas.

W4.3 Analyse drainage issues and localised flooding on streets in the CBD area, both in terms of traffic disruption
and pedestrian access.


No mapping has been undertaken of localised flooding issues in the city. This would allow targeted drainage
improvement works and project funding submissions to donors.

W4.4 Extend street planting, drainage remediation works and improved pedestrian access to secondary roads in the
CBD area.
Beyond the Kukum highway, key pedestrian routes could be enhanced by covering open drains with footpaths,
improving safety and disability access, while also encouraging alternative low-emissions forms of commuting.

63

Figure 57: Cruz Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile64

4.2.5 VAVAEA WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

VavaeaTotal Land Area

1.5 kmPopulation (2009)

6767

Population Density

4434.5 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

0.1% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

29.7%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

17.8%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

7419.7 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

31.3%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

18.8%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

54.9%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

30.6%

32.1%

Households with metered water

79.6%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

95.8%

82.7%

Households with electricity

64.8%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

77.6%

76.9%

Households with internet access

4.0%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

79.0%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

25.9%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

6.4%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 58: Vavaea Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Vavaea is a diverse ward, including the industrial port area, stevedoring and fuel depot zones, the Honiara central
market, and an extensive residential area extending southward to the Guadalcanal border. It is also one of the city’s2
most densely populated wards, housing over 10% of Honiara’s population in only 1.5km . This large area is, however,relatively stable in terms of population change, growing at an average of only 0.1% per year between 1999 and 2009.
Almost a third of Vavaea’s population lives in ISZs, much of which were destroyed in the April 2014 floods (the ward
includes the Koa Hill area on the western bank of the Mataniko River). These areas are extremely densely populated,
and are growing across the border into Guadalcanal Province on the ward’s south-western boundary. Access to utilities
and services are broadly consistent with the rest of Honiara, with the exception of high rates of improved sanitation.
The absence of surveyed household points in the Koa Hill area in the 2009 census, however, suggests that ISZ
inhabitants may not be sufficiently represented in this data (see Figure 61).

65

Vavaea Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Vavaea Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,
community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
W5.1 Develop a medium-term plan for relocating fuel tanks away from the CBD, including site remediation andcreation of a public recreational space.
This site has the potential to be transformed into a key community asset with rehabilitation works, and atpresent may be a key risk during a tropical cyclone event.

W5.2 Create a long-term plan for flood-sensitive use of the Koa Hill area destroyed in the April 2014 floods, such as
sports fields or community gardens.


Informal settlements are already encroaching on the floodplain area. Without an appropriate use, developedin partnerships with the community, the same risk to housing a lives is likely to repeat during the next severe
storm event.

W5.3 Develop a community engagement programme with informal settlements adjacent to the floodplain tocommunicate flood risk and prevent further settlement in at-risk areas.


Linked to W5.2, an ongoing engagement strategy with adjacent households is critical, employing tools such as
FTE and the UN-Habitat Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme (PSUP).

W5.4 Profile the cross-border informal settlement and manage customary leasing arrangements with local
communities and Guadalcanal Province.
Engagement in partnership between Guadalcanal Province, HCC and community leaders.

W5.5 Conduct a localised climate risk assessment of the Honiara Central market, and consult with traders on interestin decentralised market options across the city.
The market provides a critical source of food, income and employment for residents of the city.

66Figure 59: Vavaea Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile67

4.2.6 VUHOKESA WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION AC TIONS
Ward Profile

Vuhokesa

Total Land Area

0.3 kmPopulation (2009)1104

Population Density

3888.3 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

0.3% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.7%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

1.8%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

1466.8 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

33.1%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

17.6%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

57.0%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

32.0%

32.1%

Households with metered water

95.3%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

64.2%

82.7%

Households with electricity

48.0%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

66.9%

76.9%

Households with internet access

2.7%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

67.6%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

31.0%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

24.3%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 60: Vuhokesa Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Vuhokesa ward is one of Honiara’s smallest in terms of land area, however unlike Cruz ward includes a substantial
permanent population numbering over 1100 people. Although only a small area of the ward is classified as an ISZ, thewestern bank of the Mataniko river also contains a growing area of informal housing in an area that is highly vulnerable
to coastal erosion and inundation, as well as upstream and coastal water pollution.
Only two-thirds of the ward’s households have access to sealed sanitation, and less than half have electricity wired tothe premises. Internet and mobile access are also well below averages elsewhere in the city. Almost a quarter of
Vuhokesa households fish, while a lower than average number of households grow their own food. Further ward-levelstatistics are provided in Figure 60.
The ward contains a number of significant churches and the city cathedral, the Honiara City Council chambers, the main
bus pick-up area and interchange, and the Solomon Water headquarters and depot. Both major bridges across the
Mataniko River, which dissects the city, are located on the ward’s eastern boundary, with flood plains lying in between.

68

Vuhokesa Ward-specific Actions
Vuhokesa ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate
Adaptation Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert
input, as well as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading.
The first action recommended for this ward area is to complete the ward level activity, in partnership with the Ward
Development Committee, HCC and UN-Habitat. Additional actions, based on expert input and workshops, include:
W6.1 Engage the waterfront informal settlement in a consultative process similar to other hotspot zones, identifying
community priorities and key vulnerabilities.


To be conducted in partnership with UN-Habitat, MLHS and the landowners, building on the experiences of thelocal community and their established social structures. Discuss potential for a relocation programme.

W6.2 Formalise protection of the floodplain area on the west bank of the Mataniko in partnership with the PhysicalPlanning Division of MLHS and HCC.


Including examination of the impact of bank modification on the waterfront housing of Chinatown, anddownstream settlements at the river mouth.

W6.3 Integrate debris modelling and improved pedestrian access to the ongoing upgrading of the bridge as a criticalcross-city alternative during flood events.
With this bridge to provide a critical secondary cross-city river crossing, consideration of the high amount ofpedestrian traffic dependent on the cross should be integrated into planning for its duplication.

W6.4 Conduct Water Quality Monitoring on an ongoing basis.


To ensure the safety of settlement dwellers downstream at the river mouth.

Figure 61: Vuhokesa Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile69

4.2.7 MATANIKO WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Mataniko

Total Land Area

0.8 kmPopulation (2009)

4192

Population Density

5111.7 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

4.5% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

19.5%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

11.0%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

9044.6 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

43.7%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

21.0%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

55.5%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

33.4%

32.1%

Households with metered water

75.3%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

73.8%

82.7%

Households with electricity

67.2%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

77.5%

76.9%

Households with internet access

2.2%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

75.8%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

33.8%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

6.8%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 62: Mataniko Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Mataniko ward traverses the eastern bank of the Mataniko River from the southern Honiara boundary with
Guadalcanal province to the northern coastline along Ironbottom Sound. Housing around 7% of the city’s population,
Mataniko is also one of the most densely populated wards; at 5112 inhabitants per kilometre squared it has a2
population density twice the rest of the city. Almost 10% of land is classified as informal: 9045 persons/km .
At the river mouth, Ontong Java Settlement extends from the Kukum Highway to the boundary of the National Referral
Hospital, facing pressures from coastal erosion and riverine flooding. Chinatown, which provides commercial and lightindustrial services for the city and houses a number of civil society organisations, is limited in terms of space but has
severe exposure to flood damage, as demonstrated in the April 2014 floods.
Informal settlements in the centre of the ward lack road access and sit on the juncture of the river and easterntributaries that carry waste and effluent downstream from informal settlements in neighbouring Kola’a. Sewer outfalls
into the river on the ward’s western edge are other key infrastructure features, with a water source on the southernboundary with Guadalcanal province.
70

Mataniko Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Mataniko Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,
community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
Additional input has been provided based on critical infrastructure analysis and hazard exposure data, with further
actions developed by expert stakeholders and the UN-Habitat team.
W7.1 Examine structural risks to Chinatown trader buildings along the eastern bank of the Mataniko River for future
flood events.


Extensive damage to riverbank structures in Chinatown remains evident following the April 2014 floods. A
review of the current regulations for this waterfront zone, as well as a structural assessment of existing
properties, should be conducted given the critical role of the downstream bridge.

W7.2 Integrate consideration of climate risks (heat, flooding and landslide) into Slum Upgrading Programme
initiatives in the ISZ.
A focus on granting ToL and FTE outside of high risk hazard zones, in addition to utility and road access.

W7.3 Conduct a study of the sewerage outfalls and explore options to treat or pipe downstream.
With extensive housing along the river downstream, these outfalls are no longer appropriately located.

W7.4 Develop a protection plan for the local water source from encroaching urban growth, including an engagement
plan with local informal communities.


Potential to follow models such as the Tagabe Watch Catchment Management Committee in Port Vila. Explore
opportunities to move the sourcing of water further upstream.

Figure 63: Mataniko Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile71

4.2.8 KOLA’A WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATI ON ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Kola’aTotal Land Area

4.9 kmPopulation (2009)

9857

Population Density

2001.5 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

3.5% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

39.9%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

16.5%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

4828.7 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

47.7%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

22.3%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

56.9%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

32.2%

32.1%

Households with metered water

75.7%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

84.4%

82.7%

Households with electricity

61.4%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

75.7%

76.9%

Households with internet access

4.4%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

80.5%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

38.8%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

4.1%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 64: Kola’a Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Kola’a ward contains one-fifth of Honiara’s land area and 16% of its population, including some of its most climatevulnerable households (the Aekafo Planning area, for example, as shown in Figure 65). A relatively low overall ward
density due to large areas of unoccupied land in the ward’s south masks an east-west band of ISZs which are severely
deficient in infrastructure, prone to flooding and landslides, and are expanding rapidly. A number of new subdivisions
are located along Kola’a’s eastern boundary.
Levels of utilities access and livelihood sources closely match the city overall, with the exception of fishing rates which
are below average. Key infrastructure in Kola’a ward includes the soon to be relocated National Referral Hospital, theLawson Tama Stadium, and a series of springs which provide washing and drinking water to the ISZ communties.
Kola’a Ward-specific Actions
Kola’a ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Adaptation
Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert input, as well
as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading.
72

The first action recommended for this ward area is to complete the ward level activity, in partnership with the Ward
Development Committee, HCC and UN-Habitat. A number of hotspot-specific actions are not included here, as they are
discussed in subsequent sections of the HURCAP. Expert identified ward-level actions are as follows:
W8.1 Hospital site development options to include waterfront access for public open space, green infrastructure.
Including sewerage outfall upgrading and explore the opportunities for potential waterfront mangrove (orother suitable trees) planting.

W8.2 Analyse existing landslip risk, and develop maps of yet-to-be-developed areas with gradients >45°.
Extensive informal housing is at risk in the Aekafo Planning Area, particularly in areas that are newly settled(post-April 2014). For yet-to-be-developed zones there is the potential to make prospective settlers
understand that they won’t be granted ToL in these areas in advance of housing establishment.

W8.3 Investigate funding and institutional resourcing for a health clinic for the area.


Residents have identified a critical health services gap through workshops and the forum, with discussions tofollow the National Referral Hospital relocation process.

W8.4 Re-establish an access road, including some housing relocation.


The re-establishment of a road in the valley will allow waste removal, easier community access andintroduction of utilities infrastructure such as electricity and piped water.

W8.5 Pilot low-cost sealed sanitation options and community-based river clean-up programme.
With sewerage currently entering the water table and river, improved sanitation is critical for human healthand well-being, both of the local population and those downstream in Mataniko Ward. Plastics pollution also
creates a secondary environmental risk and is reducing water flow, leading to stagnation and vector-based
disease exposure.

Figure 65: Kola’a Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile73

4.2.9 KUKUM WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATI ON ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Kukum

Total Land Area

0.3 kmPopulation (2009)

1705

Population Density

5189.1 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2-1.3% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.0%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

0.0%

14.4%

Average population density of ISZs

N/A

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

28.8%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

2.1%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

54.2%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

30.4%

32.1%

Households with metered water

87.6%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

98.3%

82.7%

Households with electricity

91.4%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

83.3%

76.9%

Households with internet access

2.6%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

82.0%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

29.6%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

8.6%

8.2%

Informality, Housing & Tenure%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 66: Kukum Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison
2

At only 0.3km Kukum ward is one of the smallest in Honiara, but also one of the highest in terms of population density.
With no formally classified ISZs, the number of households with traditional or makeshift roofing is extremely low, andnone of the enumeration areas in the ward cross any of the vulnerability thresholds (as shown in Figure 67).
Electrification, metered water access, and sealed sanitation rates are all well above the Honiara average (see Figure 66).
In addition to a limited number of households, a number of businesses are located within the ‘at risk’ coastal zone.
Sewer outfalls are also located at either end of the ward’s coastline.
Rates of home ownership in the area are lower than elsewhere in the city (less than 30% of households), and the ward
is currently reducing in overall population, reducing at an average of 1.3% per year between 1999 and 2009. Backyard
food production rates are also below the overall Honiara averages.

74

Kukum Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Kukum Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,
community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
Additional input has been provided based on critical infrastructure analysis and hazard exposure data, with further
actions developed by expert stakeholders and the UN-Habitat team.
W9.1 Develop a commercial and business climate awareness and risk planning roundtable in partnership with SICCI.
Private sector engagement stands to mutually benefit both the city and country as a whole through economic
productivity, as well as the financial returns of the business community.

W9.2 Sewer outfall upgrades and pipe maintenance.


As noted in other ward profiles the degradation of outfalls and piping is leading to septic intrusion across thecity. These outfalls are less critical than others due to reduced proximity to residential areas dependent on theocean for washing, bathing and recreation.

W9.3 Ongoing maintenance of the sea wall, with consideration of external erosion impacts.
Potential to include hybrid ecosystem-based adaptation options and mangrove plantings.

W9.4 Sports field upgraded drainage, tree plantings and rubbish collection.
Potential to provide rubbish collection point and recycling services for the wider community at these facilities.

Figure 67: Kukum Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile75

4.2.10 NAHA WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATI ON ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Naha

Total Land Area

0.1 kmPopulation (2009)

348

Population Density

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960

4535.6 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

22677 persons / km2-6.0% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

0.0%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

0.0%

14.4%

Average population density of ISZs

N/A

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

9.3%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

13.0%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

57.9%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

36.5%

32.1%

Households with metered water

98.1%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

68.5%

82.7%

Households with electricity

81.5%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

74.1%

76.9%

Households with internet access

0.0%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

79.7%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

5.6%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

5.6%

8.2%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 68: Naha Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison
2

Naha is the smallest of Honiara’s 12 wards by area, measuring only 0.1km . Its population of 348 residents in 2009 isalso a reduction from the 1999 census of around 6% per year, as shown in Figure 68. There are no recorded informal
settlements in Naha, however home ownership rates are very low (9.3%) relative to elsewhere in the city.
Access to utilities is varied, with electrification above average but sealed sanitation only being available to two-thirds ofresidents. Rates of household backyard food production are also much lower than the overall city average.
A number of malls and businesses occupy the coastal zone of the ward north of the Kukum Highway, with shopfronts
occupying the southern side of the highway in the ward’s east. Although the coastline is heavily modified due to sea
walls, these areas are likely to be at risk in the event of a severe storm surge or tsunami.

76

Naha Ward-specific Actions
Naha ward was unable to complete the ward-level exercise at the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Adaptation
Forum in August 2015. As such, the actions listed here relate to specific critical infrastructure and expert input, as well
as more general observations relating to key hazards and informal settlement upgrading.
The first action recommended for this ward area is to complete the ward level activity, in partnership with the Ward
Development Committee, HCC and UN-Habitat.
W10.1 Street tree planting programme and drainage/permeability upgrade.


Expanded use of street trees has the potential to create shade, reduce air pollutants and maximise stormwater
uptake through permeable surfaces, thereby reducing stormwater runoff.

W10.2 Conduct detailed survey analysis of coastal inundation potential.
The lack of a sea wall at this site creates the potential for deeper inundation in the event of a storm surge

Figure 69: Naha Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile77

4.2.11 VURA WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Vura

Total Land Area

2.2 kmPopulation (2009)

9240

Population Density

Comparative HCC Statistic
24084.5 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-200923.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

1.5% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

20.1%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

12.3%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

6673.8 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

34.1%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

9.7%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

56.4%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

31.5%

32.1%

Households with metered water

77.7%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

88.6%

82.7%

Households with electricity

77.0%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

83.2%

76.9%

Households with internet access

2.3%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

80.3%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

32.2%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

7.2%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 70: Vura Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Covering almost 10% of Honiara, Vura ward contains around 15% of the city’s population with around one-fifth living in
informal settlements (as shown in Figure 70 above). These ISZs border some of the city’s most quickly growing
Enumeration Areas (EAs growing by 15% per annum between 1999 and 2009 are shown below in Figure 70).
Problematically, these areas are both expanding into customary land in Guadalcanal province, and also encroaching on
two of the city’s critical bore holes, which supply a large area with drinking water.
The ward’s eastern border is made up of a critical north-south road that provides access to the city for many of theward’s residents, as well as those from neighbouring Panatina. One of the city’s sewer outfalls is located at the ward’s
narrow coastal strip.
Vura Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Vura Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,78

community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
Additional input has been provided based on critical infrastructure analysis and hazard exposure data, with further
actions developed by expert stakeholders and the UN-Habitat team. A collation of these actions is provided below:
W11.1 Develop a land release strategy for the ward with a fixed timeline for implementation.


Targeted at rapid growth areas, Vura has the potential to model community-funded affordable housing
schemes, which could potentially follow similar low-cost, climate resilient building approaches and financing
models used in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific.

W11.2 Use the major north-south arterial road to build a new major drain for the ward.
This would address a number of issues identified by participants in terms of localised flooding without majorly
disrupting or relocating large areas of housing. Other services could also be ‘piggy-backed’ onto the works
programme.

W11.3 Re-establish ToL to FTE conversion programme in new settlement areas.
To be conducted in partnership with MLHS and UN-Habitat’s PSUP process.

W11.4 Sewer outfall upgrades and pipe maintenance.


As noted in other ward profiles, the degradation of outfalls and piping is leading to septic intrusion across thecity.

Figure 71: Vura Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile79

4.2.12 PANATINA WARD: PROFILE AND ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Ward Profile

Panatina

Total Land Area

7.0 kmPopulation (2009)

13269

Population Density

1970.2 persons / km

Annual Average Pop. Change 1999-2009

Comparative HCC Statistic2

23.5 km2
62960
22677 persons / km2

4.7% per year

2.7% per year

Share of population living in ISZs

48.6%

28.4%

Share of land informally settled

17.9%

Informality, Housing & Tenure

Average population density of ISZs

5341.3 persons / km

14.4%
2

5275 persons / km2

Rates of home ownership

37.7%

38.2%

Housing with Traditional or Makeshift Roofing

20.3%

18.3%

Population classified as youth (0-25)

57.7%

56.3%

Population classified as children (0-15)

33.3%

32.1%

Households with metered water

63.6%

75.4%

Households with sealed sanitation

75.0%

82.7%

Households with electricity

57.2%

64.4%

Households with one or more mobile phone

73.9%

76.9%

Households with internet access

3.0%

4.1%

Households dependent on wage-based income

76.8%

77.8%

Households growing their own food

51.1%

40.5%

Households fishing on a regular basis

6.8%

8.2%

Demographics

Access to Utilities/Services

Livelihoods

Figure 72: Panatina Ward – Key Statistics and City Comparison

Panatina contains 30% of Honiara’s land area, and over a fifth of the city’s population, as shown in Figure 72 above.
Almost half of these inhabitants live informally, in particular in ISZs along the ward’s south-western edge (see Figure 73),
however the population density of the ward remains low due to areas of land that can be developed in the ward’s
south-east. Large cross-border settlements are encroaching into Guadalcanal, as well as the two bore holes discussed inreference to Vura Ward. The high share of ISZs is reflected in lower than average utilities access and a higher
dependency on backyard food production.
In addition to these large residential zones, the north-east of Panatina consists of a mixed industrial zone, docking
facilities, a large shopping district and the city’s golf course. Extensive additional sports and recreational facilities areco-located on the southern side of the Kukum Highway, along with the Solomon Islands National University and theKing George VI National High School.
The city’s only landfill site is located at the north-eastern edge of Panatina, with this site and much of the coastal lightindustry exposed to potential risk from coastal inundation in the event of a tropical cyclone.
80

Panatina Ward-specific Actions
Proposed adaptation and resilience-building actions for Panatina Ward were developed as part of the Honiara Urban
Resilience and Climate Adaptation Forum held in Honiara in August 2015. Participants included the ward councillor,
community representatives and stakeholders from a range of civil society organisations, government departments anddonor groups.
Additional input has been provided based on critical infrastructure analysis and hazard exposure data, with further
actions developed by expert stakeholders and the UN-Habitat team. Panatina ward also includes the Fishing Village
Hotspot, which is addressed separately in Section 4.3.
W12.1 Community consultation and profiling of cross-border growth into Guadalcanal Province.
As discussed in earlier ward profiles, the tensions relating to customary land rights require a high level ofsensitivity and need to be managed to ensure that the capacity of the city to manage climate impacts is notcompromised.

W12.2 Develop a protection plan for the local water source from encroaching urban growth, including an
engagement plan with local informal communities.


Potential to follow models such as the Tagabe Watch Catchment Management Committee in Port Vila. Explore
opportunities to move the sourcing of water further upstream.

W12.3 Integrate sewer outfall upgrading with an industrial coastal pollution monitoring and awareness programme.
Intended to provide a basis for overall improvement in coastal management practices.

W12.4 Rehabilitate leaching waste from the landfill site and identify a less hazard-prone medium term alternative,
along with appropriate management processes and other associated facilities (including sewerage).


The city as a whole has a need for long-term waste management (and recycling) options, as well as green
waste reduction.

Figure 73: Panatina Ward-specific Actions and Vulnerability Profile81

4.3 HOTSPOT COMMUNITY ACTIONS
Three community workshops were held in areas that are considered the most vulnerable in Honiara (though many of
the findings from this activity may also be relevant to other areas of the city). Workshop activities were structured toenable group discussions that first led to the identification and agreement of the main issues and objectives, and thenthe prioritisation of associated actions that would contribute to increased resilience in their communities. The
objectives are categorised under the thematic areas for consistency, followed by a prioritised list of local actions(indicated in cases when priority had been assigned). It is important to note that these actions may cut across thematic
categories e.g. actions for overcrowding could either involve alternative land for relocation (urban planning and landdevelopment) or proper planning and design of houses (housing).
ONTONG JAVA HOTSPOT COMMUNITY-LEVEL ACTIONS:The Ontong Java community is located on the coast at the mouth of the Mataniko River. The majority of issues thatwere raised relate to either being on the coast, flooding and need for improved drainage, or alternatively to generaldevelopment deficits which are worsened by their location. As a consequence, availability of alternative land forresettlement was considered a primary action across multiple issues / objectives.
Ontong Java Settlement – Community
Proposed Actions by Local Objective
Area

LinkedCity-wide
Objective
Areas

Implementation Factors

Key Area Addressed:
Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)i) Improved flood risk management and drainage
OJH1.1 Build proper drainage

1, 2, 4







M.T.

Med

$$$$

SIWA

OJH1.2 Reinforce the seawall

1, 3, 5







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MID

OJH1.3 Re-route main drain

1, 3, 4







M.T.

Med

$$$$

SIWA

OJH1.4 Local rubbish mgmt. scheme

1, 4, 8







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC



ii) Reduce water logging



OJH2.1 Improve drainage

3, 4, 9







S.T.

Med

$$$$

SIWA

OJH2.2 Water tanks for all houses

2, 3, 4







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MID

OJH2.3 Improved sanitation

3, 4, 5







M.T.

Low

$$$$

SIWA

OJH2.4 Infilling of settlement area

1, 2, 3







L.T.

Low

$$$$

HCC

iii) Provide access to additional land/provision in an inland location to compensate for overcrowding
OJH3.1 Alternative land for relocation

1, 2, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

OJH3.2 Funding mechanism/source for land

1, 2, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

OPMC

OJH3.3 Community engagement todiscourage in-migration from Ontong Java1, 8, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

OJH3.4 Family planning education campaign

7, 6, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MYWS

OJH3.5 Proper planning/design of housing

1, 2







M.T.

Low

$$$$

MLHS

OJH3.6 Enable cross-cultural inter-marriage
to enable access to alternative land

2, 7, 8







L.T.

Low

$$$$

GPG

82

iv) Manage coastal erosion and protection measures at waterfront and river bank
OJH4.1 Hybrid coastal defence approaches(e.g wave-breakers, mangrove plantings,
infill)3, 4, 5







L.T.

High

$$$$

MID

7, 9, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MECCDMv) Increase preparedness for coral bleaching
OJH5.1 Education & awareness raisingvi) Reduce external and internal water pollution (coastal and riverine)
OJH6.1 Prohibit riverine dumping of waste

4, 7, 8







M.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

OJH6.2 Mataniko river clean-up project

4, 5, 8







S.T

High

$$$$

HCC

OJH6.3 HCC sewage treatment plant

1, 3, 4







L.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

OJH6.4 Proper hospital waste treatment

3, 4, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

MHMS

OJH7.1 HCC rubbish collection scheme

1, 4, 10







M.T.

Med

$$$$

HCC

OJH7.2 Education & awareness raising

7, 8, 10







S.T

Med

$$$$

CDC

OJH8.1 Plant more trees

5, 7, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

OJH8.2 Allow for airflow

1, 2, 6







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MLHS

OJH8.3 Raise houses

2, 8, 9







L.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

OJH8.4 Build cool rest houses

2, 9, 10







S.T.

Low

$$$$

MLHS

OJH8.5 Monitor elderly and young people

6, 7, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

OJH9.1 Conduct a local health expo
(including the likely impact of climate change
on vector-borne disease)7, 8, 10







S.T

High

$$$$

MHMS

OJH9.2 Health awareness campaign

6, 7, 8







M.T.

Low

$$$$

MHMS

OJH9.3 Promote healthier living/diet

6, 7, 8







M.T

Low

$$$$

MHMS

vii) Facilitate better rubbish disposalviii) Manage exposure to extreme heatix) Reduce environmentally-driven health issues

83

AEKAFO PLANNING ZONE, KOLA’A HOTSPOT COMMUNITY-LEVEL ACTIONS:
Kola’a is situated in steep, hilly terrain upstream from Ontong Java and as a consequence many of the issues that wereidentified by local community members were linked to flood and landslide risks, accessibility, infrastructure deficits, aswell as limited rubbish disposal and poor sanitation (the overwhelming majority of actions were linked to water,
sanitation and waste).
Aekafo Planning Zone, Kola’a –Community Proposed Actions by Local
Objective Area

Links toCity-wide
Objective
Areas

Implementation Factors

Key Area Addressed:
Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)i) Prohibit housing in flood risk/landslide prone areas
APH1.1 Enforce planning scheme compliancethrough community structures

1, 8, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

APH1.2 Effective town planning by HCC

1, 7, 8







S.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

APH1.3 Community education andawareness raising around climate hazards

7, 8







S.T.

High

$$$$

MECCDM

APH1.4 Remove housing in at risk areas

1, 2, 9







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH1.5 Develop and advocate local actions
based on the HURCAP & VAA

1, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

APH1.6 Impose penalty fees for breaches ofbuilding location code

1, 2, 8







M.T.

Med

$$$$

HCC



ii) Develop better quality housing

APH2.1 Identify low-cost housing options

2







M.T

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH2.2 Community-level housing plans

2, 10







M.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

APH2.3 Identify financial support options

2, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MLHS

APH2.4 Develop community by-laws

2, 8, 10







M.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

iii) Increase number of households with land titles/registration
APH3.1 Land use & housing assessment

1, 2







S.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH3.2 Deploy FTE across the community

1, 2, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH3.3 Legal enforcement of building code

2, 8







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH3.4 Awareness raising of the issues

2, 7







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MLHS

APH4.1 Infrastructure plan for roads

1, 3







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

APH4.2 Technical support from SIG

3, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MID

iv) Improve road system

84v) Improve sanitation & drainage
APH5.1 Community education andawareness raising

4, 6, 7







M.T.

High

$$$$

SIWA

APH5.2 Enforce compliance throughcommunity support

4, 7, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

APH5.3 Local sanitation and drainage plan

1, 4, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

SIWA

APH5.4 Seek financial support

4, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

APH5.5 Technical support from HCC, SIWA,
SIG, UN, donors & civil society

4, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

SIG

APH5.6 Build septic tanks

3, 4, 6







L.T.

High

$$$$

MID

APH5.7 Build improved/resilient drop-pit
toilets

3, 4, 6







S.T.

High

$$$$

MID

vi) Improve rubbish disposal & waste management
APH6.1 HCC rubbish collection

4, 10







S.T.

Med

$$$$

HCC

APH6.2 Community awareness program

4, 7, 8







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MECCDM

APH6.3 Proper bins with road access

1, 4, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

APH6.4 Waste legislation

1, 8, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

APH6.5 Cleaning rules for poultry houses

1, 2, 4







S.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

APH6.6 Proper fencing for livestock

3, 4, 6







M.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

APH6.7 Consult authorities on healthfocused awareness raising options

4, 6, 7







S.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

APH7.1 Roll-out water tanks

2, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

MID

APH7.2 Installation of pipes by SIWA

3, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

SIWA

APH7.3 Advocate for dam construction

1, 3, 10







L.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

APH8.1 Education on healthy lifestyles

6, 7







S.T.

High

$$$$

MHMS

APH8.2 Construct satellite health centres

3, 6, 10







M.T

Med

$$$$

MHMS

APH8.3 Public clean-up programme

4, 6, 10







S.T.

Low

$$$$

MECCDM

APH9.1 Community awareness raising

7, 9, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

MECCDM

APH9.2 Enforce compliance throughcommunity support

1, 8, 10







S.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

8, 10







S.T

Med

$$$$

RSIP

vii) Provide clean drinking waterviii) Increase public healthix) Provide education on environmental risksx) Encourage a zero violence community
APH10.1 Stop home-brew production85

APH10.2 Develop police reporting
procedures

1, 8, 10







M.T.

Low

$$$$

RSIP

APH10.3 Create a partnership program
between community leaders and police

1, 8, 10







S.T.

Low

$$$$

RSIP

KUKUM FISHING VILLAGE HOTSPOT COMMUNITY-LEVEL ACTIONS:
Fishing Village is again most concerned about coastal issues, though, due to its location, there is less focus on riverine
issues than is the case with Ontong Java (though relocation was also cited as an option). There is also more noticeableattention paid to disaster risk reduction. Again, as with the other two hotspots, many of the critical issues relate to
deficits in development.
Links toCity-wide
Objective
Areas

Climate

DRR

Urban

TimingPriority

Cost

Lead(s)FVH1.1 Develop a relocation strategy

1, 2, 10







L.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

FVH1.2 Identify funding for new land

1, 2, 10







M.T

High

$$$$

MLHS

FVH1.3 Reduce overcrowding in villages

1, 2, 10







L.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

FVH1.4 Plan a structure for maintaining
coastal access for relocated fishermen

1, 5, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

Fishing Village Community Proposed
Actions by Local Objective Area

Implementation Factors

Key Area Addressed:i) Relocation

ii) Dealing with over-population



FVH2.1 MLHS land/population assessments

1, 2, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

MLHS

FVH2.2 City-wide land release programme

1, 2, 6







M.T.

High

$$$$

Land Brd

FVH2.3 Reclamation of coastal land

1, 2, 5







L.T.

Med

$$$$

MLHS

FVH2.4 Family planning education

6, 7, 8







M.T.

Low

$$$$

MWCY

FVH2.5 Build low-cost, high-density housing

1, 2







M.T.

Low

$$$$

MLHS

3, 6, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

MHMS

FVH3.1 Installation of proper drainage

1, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

FVH3.2 Early warning systems for flood

3, 4, 9







S.T

Med

$$$$

FVH3.3 Raise buildings

1, 2, 3







L.T.

Med

$$$$

CDC

FVH3.4 Retreat from high-risk flood zones

1, 3, 9







M.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

FVH4.1 Develop local cyclone research

1, 7, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

FVH4.2 Education on safety procedures

5, 7, 8







S.T.

Med

$$$$

FVH5.1 Funding for improved sanitation

3, 4, 10







M.T.

High

$$$$

MID

FVH5.2 SIG to support SIWA roll-out

3, 4, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

OPMC

FVH2.6 Health clinic in villageiii) Manage flood riskiv) Provide safety from cyclonesv) Provide proper sanitation

86

FVH5.3 Hygiene education program

4, 6, 7







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MHMS

FVH5.4 Awareness raising on health risks

4, 6, 7







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MHMS

FVH5.5 More public toilets

1, 3, 6







M.T.

Low

$$$$

HCC

FVH6.1 Installation of public water taps

1, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

SIWA

FVH6.2 Installation of piping

1, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

SIWA

FVH6.3 Provision of water tanks

2, 3, 4







M.T.

Med

$$$$

MID

FVH7.1 Proper landfill site

1, 3, 4







M.T

Low

$$$$

HCC

FVH7.2 HCC rubbish collection

1, 4, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

FVH7.3 Remove upstream river pollution

4, 5, 6







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MECCDMvi) Provide access to drinking watervii) Ensure proper rubbish disposalviii) Build protection from sea level rise & coastal erosion
FVH8.1 Build seawall

1, 3, 5







M.T.

High

$$$$

MID

FVH8.2 Sea breakers

1, 3, 5







M.T.

Low

$$$$

MID

FVH9.1 HCC wastewater treatment plant

1, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

HCC

FVH9.2 Clean up beach pollution

4, 5, 10







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

FVH9.3 Divert sewerage line

1, 3, 4







M.T.

High

$$$$

SIWA

FVH10.1 Buy generator/sea water pump3, 4, 5







S.T.

High

$$$$

CDC

FVH10.2 HCC fire service infrastructure

1, 3, 9







M.T.

Med

$$$$

HCC

FVH11.1 NDMO warning system/siren

3, 7, 9







S.T.

High

$$$$

NDMO

FVH11.2 Community awareness program

7, 9, 10







S.T.

Low

$$$$

NDMO

FVH12.1 Plant mangroves

5, 9







S.T.

Med

$$$$

MECCDM

FVH12.1 Develop cyclone warning system

3, 7, 9







S.T.

Med

$$$$

NDMO

FVH12.3 Link community to NDMO

9, 10







M.T.

Low

$$$$

CDC

ix) Reduce coastal pollutionx) Reduce risk of firexi) Protect from tsunamixii) Protect from cyclone87

5. COMMUNICATION: AWARENESS RAISING AND EDUCATION
Being aware of current day vulnerabilities to shocks and stresses, and possible climate-related risks in the future, arevital first steps in formulating adaptation responses and implementing actions that will enhance community resilience(i.e. what are we adapting to?). The development of this urban resilience and climate adaptation action plan for
Honiara was therefore deliberately designed to be stakeholder-led, ensuring that traditional knowledge and local
experience not only informed the identification of key vulnerabilities but also contributed to an overarching resilience
framework and the compilation of local and city-wide actions (how are we going to adapt, and who will be responsible
for leadership?).
It was intended that this bottom-up approach would encourage local ownership of the action plan, as well as
contributing to the goals of the National Climate Change Policy on Education, Awareness and Capacity Building (8.7), in
particular the need to ‘strengthen the capacity and partnerships of national and provincial government agencies,
national institutions, NGOs, churches and all Solomon Island communities to undertake vulnerability and adaptationand disaster risk reduction assessments for different sectors and geographic areas’.
Integrating the local knowledge base with the latest science was an important component in the development of the
Honiara action plan; this was founded on an understanding that looking solely to the past when planning for the future
is no longer an option given the significant new challenges that will be posed by a combination of urbanisation trends
and the impacts of global environmental change. Indeed, whilst local knowledge was valuable in informing community
discussions about recent weather events and current day development needs, scientific knowledge and data needed to
be introduced when considering future risks. This required, for example, the translation of complex – and uncertain
climate scenarios into formats that could be easily understood by a wide range of stakeholders. This integration of DRR,
immediate development needs, and CCA knowledge was a complicated process, though a necessary one to bring
together the consideration of multiple shocks and stresses within a comprehensive urban resilience framework ofaction for the city.
Good facilitation was critical to support this assessment and planning process, to ensure that relevant information was
introduced and understood, and to provide a transparent platform for dialogue and knowledge sharing that was open
to a multitude of different voices. This recognises that planning for resilience is as much about creating spaces forlearning and the sharing of experiences as it is about the actual implementation of physical measures.
One important finding from the engagement process was the need to clearly differentiate between impacts which wereclimate-driven (and hence could amplify over time due to the effects of climate change), those which were climateinfluenced, and those which were predominantly human-driven. Three different examples, drawn from the community
engagement process, highlight the importance of communicating the underlying drivers of impacts in order to raisecommunity awareness and to plan the interventions that will be most effective in the local context.
The first of these relates to the 2014 flood event that impacted the Mataniko River area most severely. Although there
was a significant rainfall event the severity of impacts were not a result of climate change per se, rather it can bereasonably argued that a combination of human influences were the root cause of the disaster; including deforestationin the upper reaches of the catchment allowing rapid run-off, large amounts of plastic waste blocking the drainage
channels, and the presence of informal settlers in the lower flood risk areas. Targeting action towards these humanfactors will contribute to the reduction of risk to future heavy rain events.
The second example, showcasing climate influence, is that of excess heat at night. Whilst heat is a climate-related
hazard that is being influenced by climate change, this ‘urban’ problem is also being exaggerated by densification of
settlements and the blocking of breezes that have provided natural ventilation in the past. Recreating wind corridors
for affected settlements is therefore one possible remedial action.

88

The final example relates to ocean warming and increasing acidification. This is directly related to a warming world andthere is little that can be done to avoid the impacts on coral reefs that will become increasingly evident in the short-tomedium term. Given the likely significant impacts on the marine environment once critical thresholds are passed,
resilience building responses will therefore need to consider livelihood diversification options for those most affected.
Bearing these three examples in mind, it is important that communication strategies ensure that clear messages aboutclimate change, and other drivers, are produced and disseminated to inform appropriate responses.
Whilst this resilience framework for action has been developed for Honiara using local knowledge; ongoing education,awareness raising activities, and communication of climate (and non-climate) risks that impact on the resilience of thecity, continue to be needed. Communication is particularly important when engaging with those groups not normally
involved with decision-making processes or with those who are the most vulnerable to shocks in society e.g. informal
settlers, women, and youth. In such cases, key messages from this Action Plan – and other scientific sources - will need
to be distilled and disseminated using other more accessible formats in order for the findings to resonate more strongly
with local communities. It is not only a case of translating evidence from a scientific document to put messages acrossin simpler English, resources will also need to be made available in the local Pidgin dialect to ensure that disseminationof knowledge is widespread and accessible by all sections of Honiara’s communities.
Given local literacy rates there is also value in investigating modes of non-written communication to disseminate
information e.g. the use of radio shows to empower vulnerable groups, to embed climate risks and resilience into
theatre plays that travel between communities, and to educate school children about key resilience challenges (e.g.
integration of climate change into school curricula), are all innovative communication methods and tools that havebeen used successfully in the Solomon Islands and the broader Pacific region in other contexts. In this regard, youth
groups offer great potential for training and introducing creative new ways of raising awareness across society in
Honiara.
Ultimately, effective communication is vital to raising the awareness of risks with individuals and communities, andsubsequently informing actions that strengthen city and community resilience. As noted, this can be in the context oftranslating scientific information into formats suitable for local resilience planning, however improvements incommunication across departments of Government and between different levels of Government will also be of benefit
to the urban resilience agenda in Honiara.
Ward Councils - due to their closeness to day to day community life – are likely to have an important knowledge
brokerage role to play in communicating climate risks and supporting the implementation of adaptation measures atthe local scale. Building the capacity to act in this important awareness raising role will be needed, but local levelgovernance structures that connect most closely with local communities are important actors in progressing towards amore resilient Honiara. As outlined in the National Climate Change Policy, ‘climate change will impact all sectors andlevels of society and (…) it is everyone’s business and shall be addressed in an integrated and holistic manner’.
Efforts at improving the communication of climate risks and support for public awareness raising campaigns need to bea central component of the urban resilience and climate adaptation action plan. Building capacity to respond to shocks
and stresses, across all of Honiara society, is vital if actions are to be equitable and sustainable over time.

89

6. RESOURCING: OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES
Whilst knowledge about potential shocks and stresses is needed to inform resilience strengthening actions, in many
(though not all) instances the ability to act – particularly in relation to infrastructure interventions (e.g. the transport
network) - will be dependent on being able to access the necessary financial resources. Given its status as a Small Island
Developing State, accessing international funds will be one of the primary avenues for accessing finance for resiliencemeasures in Honiara and the Solomon Islands. Many national and international donor agencies and financing
organisations have a strong presence in the region, and offer opportunities for grants and loans for projects that
promote social, economic, and environmental well-being. These include national donors with an interest in the region,such as USAID, Australian DFAT, NZAID and JICA, as well as regional and international funding bodies such as the AsianDevelopment Bank and the World Bank. It is therefore important that the SI Government continues to strengthen its
coordination with these donor and funding partners, to ensure that international bi-lateral funds can be mobilised insupport of the urban resilience agenda.
International multi-lateral funds for climate change programmes are also available through high-level mechanisms. One
example is the Adaptation Fund, set up as a result of the Kyoto Protocol and financed through contributions to the
Clean Development Mechanism. UN-Habitat is accredited as an implementing agency for this scheme. Indeed, theSolomon Islands was a former recipient of such funds in 2011 for a climate adaptation programme focusing on the
agricultural sector, in a multi-lateral relationship with UNDP.
More recently, a new Green Climate Fund (GCF) - under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change - has been introduced to support adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing countries. This became
operational in May 2015, shortly before the Conference of the Parties in Paris (COP21).The GCF is intended to ‘promote
the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support todeveloping countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change,
taking into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climatechange. National ownership is intended to be central to the GCF approach’.
In November 2015, the GCF approved USD 169 million for the first eight projects, which included two private sector andtwo mitigation projects, and six public sector projects focusing on adaptation or crosscutting mitigation andadaptation. Fiji was awarded one of these initial projects, with a focus on urban water supply and wastewater
management. Once the substantive funding pledges by the developed countries are met, it is expected that the GCF will
become the main multilateral financing mechanism for poorer countries to support their climate actions. According totheir mandate, ‘all developing country Parties to the Convention are eligible to receive resources from the GCF. The
GCF gives recipient countries access to funding through accredited national, sub-national and regional implementing
entities and intermediaries (including NGOs, government ministries, national development banks, and other domesticor regional organizations that can meet the Fund’s standards). Countries can also access funding through accredited
international and regional entities (such as multilateral and regional development banks and UN agencies) underinternational access. Private sector entities can also be accredited as implementing entities’.
The Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) was awarded the status of regional accredited
entity for the GCF in 2015, and will play an important intermediary role for the Solomon Islands and the wider Pacificregion in accessing these new funds in the short term.
Adaptation measures needed to reduce vulnerability and enhance community resilience in Honiara, as identified by
local communities themselves, have been used to populate this urban resilience and climate action plan. As such, the
HURCAP provides a valuable and up-to-date evidence-base in support of applications that aim to access international
funds through both bi-lateral and multi-lateral financial mechanisms.

90

Although international finance will obviously be of enormous benefit to progressing the urban resilience agenda in
Honiara, it is also important to recognise that there are many other resilience strengthening opportunities available
that can be acted upon, at least to some degree, without outside assistance. Indeed, many of the actions that havebeen identified – urban planning, informal settlements, water, sanitation and waste – fall under the remit of urban
development and have already been earmarked for action as part of the Honiara City Council Five-Year Strategic Plan.
In other instances, mainstreaming of climate change considerations may be needed e.g. ensuring climate resilient
development in respect of new infrastructure and housing. Again, such actions are relevant to the National Climate
Change Policy and can form the basis of cross-cutting policies.
Finally, there are numerous opportunities that can be considered ‘low-lying fruit’ and could be the subject of earlyattention, particularly in relation to adaptation as a ‘process’. Low-cost initiatives could include a range of capacity
building measures (particularly targeting vulnerable groups, harnessing the potential of youth, etc.), as well as efforts toimprove local governance arrangements and partnerships for a more resilient Honiara.
In terms of capacity building, there would also be value in exploring the role of local universities to support capacity
building initiatives; including the potential for new teaching, learning and research partnerships with other universities
in the region. Taking advantage of such ‘bottom-up’ opportunities have already been recognised in the National Climate
Change Policy which highlights the need to ‘promote and implement community based programmes and actions withina cooperative framework to strengthen social capital, skills and resilience as an adaptation strategy’.
The Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan for Honiara has not only collated a portfolio of actions for the city it also
provides a useful overarching framework which can act as a coordinating mechanism for multiple, previously discrete,
projects in Honiara. Each individual project can potentially add value to Honiara’s goal of increased resilience (at little
or no cost to HCC or government departments), and can be mapped and integrated with the HURCAP where possible
and relevant.
For instance, given the city’s continuing development needs, WASH programmes and projects implemented by NGOs
can be referred to in the context of ‘water, sanitation and waste’ theme. Ongoing work by UN-Habitat as part of theParticipatory Slum Upgrade Program (PSUP) seeks to strengthen community, city, and national key stakeholders’capacities in participatory slum upgrading, and can make valuable contributions to the ‘urban planning and landdevelopment’ theme. A new five-year programme ‘Pacific Ecosystem-based Adaptation to Climate Change’,
implemented by SPREP, will also get underway in 2016 with Honiara as a case study, and can contribute to resilience
responses under the ‘Ecosystem Services’ theme.
Furthermore, longer term engagement (as is the case with both the existing UN-Habitat and SPREP projects) can help tobuild the capacity of local communities to plan and implement vulnerability assessments and locally-specific actionplans. Clearly, there are a multitude of opportunities to promote urban resilience actions and messages without theneed for substantive new funds. However, effective coordination of these different activities will be crucial to ensure
maximum impact on the ground.
Finally, being part of regional and international networks can enable Honiara to benefit from shared experiences in theplanning and implementing of resilience measures at low cost, and even in some cases with a level of financial andadministrative support. As well as being part of the UN-Habitat Cities and Climate Change Initiative, HCC is also
represented on the ICLEI regional network for Oceania, and submitted a joint application with Port Vila (Vanuatu) at theend of 2015 to become one of the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities (though was unfortunately unsuccessful). Being
involved in international urban networks such as these can foster new opportunities for improved resilience planning,action, and local capacity building.

91

7. MONITORING & EVALUATION
Resilience needs to be understood as a dynamic characteristic of a city; one that will continue to change as aconsequence of urbanization processes and local and global environmental change. Hence, monitoring and evaluation
will be needed to measure the progress of HURCAP actions, to look for opportunities to improve processes andimplementation, and also to ensure that the action plan keeps pace with rapid change in the urban environment.
It is recommended that monitoring activity accounts not only for the implementation – and effectiveness – of actions,but also the processes involved. This will contribute to transparency of the HURCAP, as well as providing a regularassessment of how well issues of equity are being addressed e.g. gender balance, involvement of local communities indecision-making etc. To this end, it would be useful to develop and maintain an urban resilience database that is able todocument activity, store disaggregated data, monitor processes, and evaluate the success of implemented actions.
Ownership of the HURCAP is led by a high-level collaboration between HCC, MLHS and MECCDM, evidenced by a crossgovernment strategic management team responsible for providing leadership of the urban resilience agenda. However,given that there are many opportunities for resilience strengthening at the local level it is also important that effective
communication and feedback mechanisms are established between the HURCAP management team and a range ofdifferent local actors, from ward councillors through to civil society groups. As with the National Climate Change Policy,
a similar requirement for all Government agencies, NGOs, churches, private sector organizations and communities thatare involved with implementing programmes and projects, to register and provide annual reports should be considered
as a mechanism for coordinating and monitoring the progress of resilience actions.
Promoting an effective urban resilience strategy for Honiara will require a regular assessment of related activity. It istherefore also recommended that an annual monitoring report on processes and outcomes is produced anddisseminated to all partners and interested parties, with opportunities for feedback and suggestions for improvements.
As is common practice, an evaluation of the implementation of HURCAP after a five year period will also be needed togauge effectiveness and efficiency against the objectives and actions that have been set out in this first urban resilienceand climate adaptation action plan for the city.

928. REFERENCES
ADB (2014) Solid Waste Management in the Pacific: Solomon Islands Country Snapshot
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42662/solid-waste-management-solomon-islands.pdf
CLGF (2012) CLGF in the Pacifichttp://www.clgfpacific.org/userfiles/1/files/Solomon%20Islands%20local%20government%20profile%202011-12.pdf
Doherty, T. J. & S. D. Clayton (2011) The psychological impacts of global climate change, American Psychologist, 66, 265-276.
JICA (2014) Preparatory survey for Kukum Highway Upgrade project in the Solomon Islands
http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12184222_01.pdf
Lal, P. N., & Thurairajah, V. (2011) Making informed adaptation choices: A case study of climate proofing road infrastructure in the
Solomon Islands. Retrieved from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/67fb2472-ae17-4b88-adb662a0c0859940/files/iucn-infrastructure-solomon-islands-case-study.pdf
Ministry of Environment Climate Change Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) (2012) Solomon Islands National Climate
Change Policy 2012-2017. Retrieved from http://www.gcca.eu/sites/default/files/catherine.paul/si_climate_change_policy.pdf
Ministry of Lands Housing & Survey (MLHS), & Honiara City Council (HCC) (2015) Honiara Local Planning Scheme 2015. Honiara,
Solomon Islands. Retrieved from http://www.honiaracitycouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Honiara-Local-PlanningScheme-2015.pdf
Ministry of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification (MMERE) (2014) Solomon Islands National Energy Policy
http://prdrse4all.spc.int/production/system/files/volume1_solomon_islands_national_energy_policy.pdf
OCHA (2014) Solomon Islands: Flash Floods - Humanitarian Snapshot (as of 25 June 2014). Retrieved from:http://reliefweb.int/report/solomon-islands/solomon-islands-flash-floods-humanitarian-snapshot-25-june-2014
PACCSAP (2014) Climate Variability, Extremes and Change in the Western Tropical Pacific: New Science and Updated Country Reports
2014, Solomon Islands. http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/PACCSAP_CountryReports2014_Ch13SolomonIs_WEB_140710.pdf
SIMS, BoM & CSIRO (2013) Current and future climate of the Solomon Islands http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/13_PCCSP_Solomon_Islands_8pp.pdf
SINSO (2011) 2009 Census data by wards.
http://www.statistics.gov.sb/component/advlisting/?view=download&format=raw&fileId=413
SINSO (2015) Prism http://www.spc.int/prism/solomons/index.php/sinso-documents?view=download&fileId=114
SPC and SPREP (2015) Strategy for Climate and Disaster Resilient Development in the Pacific. SPC, Fiji. Retrieved from:http://www.pacificdisaster.net/dox/SRDP_Executive_summary.pdf
Trundle & McEvoy (2015) Honiara socio-economic Atlas, unpublished dataset.
UN-Habitat (2014a) Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements
Programme.
UN-Habitat (2014b) Planning for Climate Change: A Strategic, Values-based Approach for Urban Planners - Guidance Document. (B.
Barth, M. A. Cea, L. Fee, K. Koch, L. Nesbitt, & V. Quinlan, Eds.) (1st ed.). Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
World Bank (2015a) Solomon Islands Rapid Employment Project Implementation Status and Results Report: Sequence 7.
World Bank (2015b) Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance - Country Note, Solomon Islands.

93

The Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan is theculmination of a comprehensive and participatory process involving
national and local government, NGOs, informal settlement
communities, women’s and youth groups, academia and the private
sector. The plan sets out a portfolio of actions that can be
implemented by the City of Honiara and the Government of
Solomon Islands to directly contribute to urban resilience in thenational capital.
This document complements the Honiara Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment, and addresses the complex situation
confronting climate change and urban resilience in Honiara. In
addition to actions that build resilience vis-à-vis climate variability
and other natural hazards the action plan incorporates current
vulnerabilities. Addressing immediate needs is therefore strongly
reflected in the Honiara Urban Resilience and Climate Action Plan.
UN-Habitat’s Cities and Climate Change Initiative promotes
enhanced climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing
country cities. This document is an output of the Cities and ClimatemaChange Initiative activities in support of the government and peopleof Honiara, Solomon Islands.

94