It Happens More Often than you'd Think! Why backup desalination is critical in the South Pacific

60 minute read

Main Points

• Pacific nations have spent millions on emergency water due to disasters.
• International aid covers most costs, especially for smaller island states.
• Cyclones, droughts, and eruptions are the main triggers for water crises.
• Remote communities are hardest hit, with costly and delayed deliveries.
• On-site water generation is quickly cheaper than constant water carting.
• Private sector support is rising, from tech to logistics and donations.

Key Findings Summary

Over the past three years, Pacific Island nations have collectively spent tens of millions of dollars on emergency water provision in response to natural disasters and water crises. This total includes both domestic expenditure and international aid. For example, a single drought emergency in Kiribati in 2022 prompted over $10 million in relief funds (including an $8 million ADB grant and $2 million from Australia). Governments, foreign donors, NGOs, and private sector groups have all contributed to these efforts. Major funding sources include national emergency budgets (e.g. Fiji’s dedicated water supply programs), bilateral aid from countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Japan, and international organisations (ADB, UN agencies, Red Cross). Private companies and charities have also stepped in with donations (for instance, the Fiji Water Foundation’s FJ$125,000 contribution after Cyclone Yasa ).

There are clear trends in Pacific emergency water response. Cyclones and storms are frequent triggers, damaging water infrastructure and contaminating supplies with debris or saltwater. Droughts have become a recurring crisis for atoll nations, as prolonged La Niña conditions led to declared disasters in Kiribati and Marshall Islands in 2022 . Volcanic eruptions and tsunamis (notably the Tonga eruption in January 2022) have caused acute water contamination from ash and seawater, creating immediate clean water needs. Occasional earthquakes (such as a 2022 quake in PNG) and infrastructure failures (pipeline breaks or fuel contaminations) have also spurred emergency water interventions. A common challenge is the vast geography of the Pacific: affected communities are often remote islands, making timely water delivery difficult and costly. Logistical hurdles (e.g. ash closing airports, limited transport) frequently delay responses . Despite these challenges, Pacific nations and their partners are learning from each event – for example, investing in mobile desalination units and rainwater harvesting to reduce the need for costly water cartage in future emergencies. Overall, emergency water interventions are occurring with increasing frequency due to climate change and more extreme weather patterns, prompting a growing focus on resilience and preparedness.

Breakdown by Country

Fiji: Estimated Emergency Water Costs (2021–2023): FJ$1.5–2 million (≈US$0.7–0.9m) in government spending, plus additional international aid for cyclone responses. Fiji regularly faces cyclones and periodic dry spells requiring emergency water deliveries. In the 2020–21 fiscal year, the government spent over FJ$200,000 on water carting to drought-affected rural and maritime communities . This was boosted to FJ$300,000 in 2021/22 for the Emergency Water Supply program . Over a three-year span the Rural Development Ministry spent about FJ$1.2 million on emergency water provision (mainly shipping water to outer islands). Key disasters include Cyclone Yasa (Dec 2020) and Cyclone Ana (Jan 2021), which damaged infrastructure in Fiji. After Cyclone Yasa, Fiji received international support such as a $1 million (FJD 2 million) ADB grant for immediate relief, a US $100,000 relief grant from the U.S. government, and private donations (e.g. Fiji Water Foundation’s FJ$125k) to assist with water, food, and shelter needs . Government funds were used to deploy water trucks and naval vessels to deliver clean water to hard-hit areas (especially in Vanua Levu after Yasa). Recurring smaller-scale droughts in the western and northern divisions have also triggered water carting to villages, as seen in the Malolo island group in 2021 . Fiji’s primary funding for emergency water comes from its government budget, supplemented by aid from Australia, New Zealand, the EU and others (often through broader disaster relief packages). The Fijian government has also embraced innovative solutions – in 2020 it partnered with an NGO to acquire a mobile desalination plant (worth FJ$100k) to reduce the cost of shipping water to outer islands during drought.

Kiribati: Estimated Emergency Water Costs: ~US$10–12 million in 2022–2023 (international aid-driven). Kiribati, a low-lying atoll nation, experienced a severe drought emergency in 2022. Freshwater reserves were depleted and groundwater turned brackish, leaving thousands without safe drinking water. The government declared a State of Disaster in June 2022. Major funding rapidly mobilised: the Asian Development Bank provided an $8 million grant to fund drought relief, and the Australian Government contributed a further A$2 million (~US$1.4m) for emergency water supply, including installation of a high-capacity desalination plant for the capital Tarawa. New Zealand co-funded parts of the desalination effort and supplied transportation support. UNICEF coordinated distribution of 27 tons of WASH supplies (water containers, purification tablets, test kits) . The U.S. and Japan also gave material support (such as portable water bladders and generators) . Notably, the U.S. Coast Guard delivered shipments of potable water to Kiritimati Island, working with UNICEF to reach remote communities . Kiribati’s government resources are very limited, so most funding came from international aid. Key triggers were prolonged drought and salinisation; Kiribati’s spending on other emergencies (e.g. minor storm surge flooding) is comparatively low next to the drought response. The crisis highlighted Kiribati’s reliance on external support – for instance, the Kiribati Drought Response Plan (2022) had a budget of ~US$2.17 million for immediate needs, but less than a quarter was funded domestically, with USAID and others bridging the gap . Longer-term, Kiribati is leveraging climate funds (e.g. a Green Climate Fund project of $18.6M, co-financed with $6M from its government) to improve drought resilience – though those investments are aimed at future-proofing rather than emergency outlays.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI): Estimated Emergency Water Costs: Several million USD (blend of domestic and aid funds) for drought response and resilience. The northern atolls of RMI were gripped by an extreme drought in 2022, with little rainfall from late 2021 onward. The government declared a state of emergency as water catchments ran dry. The national government allocated about $6 million for immediate drought relief efforts (tanker shipments, well drilling, etc.), and the Green Climate Fund approved a $18.6 million grant to bolster water security and drought resilience . During the crisis, RMI relied on its Compact of Free Association partners: the U.S. provided emergency shipments of water and reverse osmosis units (the U.S. Air Force and Coast Guard assisted in delivering water purification equipment to remote islands). UNICEF and the Red Cross distributed relief supplies like water containers and filtration tablets. According to OCHA’s financial tracking, at least US$2.2 million in international humanitarian funding was directed to RMI’s drought response in 2022-2023, including contributions from Australia, New Zealand and UNICEF. Key incidents prompting support were the drought emergencies on outer atolls (2013 and 2016 saw similar events), as well as king tide flooding that occasionally contaminates wells. RMI’s own government spending covers deploying vessels to deliver water to outer islands and operating emergency desalination plants in urban centers like Majuro and Ebeye. The country’s heavy dependence on rainwater makes drought a recurring threat, meaning it consistently seeks overseas aid for emergency water. The funding mix for RMI skews strongly to international aid (multilateral grants, U.S. federal assistance under the Compact, and NGOs), with the government contributing what it can from limited reserves.

Vanuatu: Estimated Emergency Water Costs: Several million USD (mostly donor-funded via disaster responses). Vanuatu has faced multiple disasters recently, most notably Tropical Cyclones Harold (Apr 2020) and Judy & Kevin (back-to-back in Mar 2023), plus ongoing volcanic activity. Cyclone Harold devastated large parts of Vanuatu, destroying water infrastructure; in its aftermath 90% of the population in the hardest-hit province lost homes and had no access to clean water . The U.N. Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) released $2.5 million for Vanuatu’s cyclone relief, with water and sanitation identified as a top priority . Australia, New Zealand and France (through the FRANZ partnership) provided water purification units, and relief teams installed tanks and distributed water containers. Subsequent responses in 2021–2023 included preemptive deployments of Red Cross WASH teams when volcanic eruptions or cyclones threatened water supplies. The Vanuatu government’s direct spending on emergency water is limited due to budget constraints; it relies on humanitarian appeals and regional partners for major events. For example, after the twin cyclones in 2023, Australia announced an assistance package (over A$10 million for overall relief) that included emergency water provision for affected communities. Key triggers: powerful cyclones (which cause flooding and saltwater intrusion of wells), and volcanic ashfall (e.g. Ambae’s eruption in 2017–18 forced mass evacuations and emergency water shipments). Vanuatu’s funding sources for water crises are predominantly international – its National Disaster Management Office coordinates incoming aid from donors and NGOs. The government does allocate some emergency funds (it reportedly set aside VT 54 million (~US$480k) for El Niño drought preparedness in 2019), but in practice foreign aid covers the bulk of acute response costs for water.

Tonga: Estimated Emergency Water Costs: $1–2 million (largely donor-funded) for the volcanic eruption and other events. The cataclysmic Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption (Jan 2022) and ensuing tsunami blanketed Tonga in ash and saltwater, poisoning water sources for tens of thousands . The United Nations labeled access to safe water the “biggest life-saving issue” in the eruption’s aftermath. International aid flowed in rapidly: New Zealand sent its naval ship HMNZS Aotearoa which delivered 250,000 litres of fresh water with its desalination plant capable of producing 70,000 liters per day. Australia and Japan also dispatched vessels and airlifted water tanks and purifiers (Australia’s HMAS Adelaide brought humanitarian supplies including water containers and purification tablets). The Red Cross launched an appeal and used pre-positioned supplies to assist about 18,000 people with WASH support, spending an estimated US$0.5 million on water and sanitation relief in the first weeks. Tonga’s government, dealing with extensive infrastructure damage, relied on this external support; it directed its limited emergency funds to repair water systems on main islands like Tongatapu and Ha’apai once ash was cleared. Aside from the volcano disaster, Tonga periodically faces cyclones (e.g. Cyclone Harold also hit parts of Tonga in 2020) and occasional drought spells in its northern islands. These incidents have smaller associated costs – often in the tens of thousands for distributing water drums and mobilizing the Tonga Defence Services – often covered by domestic funds or small donor grants. The primary sources of funding for Tonga’s big emergencies are international (multilateral aid, foreign militaries’ assistance, NGOs), with the government contributing in coordination and some matching funds. Notably, Tonga’s experience underscored the value of having desalination capacity and backup supplies on-hand to reduce the need for costly bulk water imports in future.

Other Pacific Nations: Several smaller Pacific countries also incurred emergency water expenses:

• Tuvalu – Faced drought conditions alongside Kiribati in 2022, prompting a formal request for UN assistance . Tuvalu’s government developed a drought response plan (~US$459k budget) and received aid (e.g. desalination units from Australia, support from UNICEF) to supply its outer islands . Annual cyclone seasons also threaten Tuvalu’s rainwater tanks; Taiwan and Japan have periodically financed new water storage to improve resilience.
• Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) – Experienced dry conditions in Yap and outer atolls under the same 2022 La Niña drought. While no major international appeal was launched, the FSM national government and U.S. (through USAID) delivered some emergency water shipments to outer islands. Total costs were relatively modest (estimated under $500k) and largely covered by U.S. federal assistance (FSM is also a Compact state like RMI).
• Palau – Did not experience a full crisis in the last three years, but came close to drought emergencies. (In 2016 Palau nearly ran out of water, receiving aid from Taiwan; in early 2024 it again entered drought warnings ). Palau has invested in backup wells and storage since, so recent emergency outlays have been minimal. Government spending focused on early mitigation (public water rationing, well drilling) rather than costly imports.
• Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands – These larger Melanesian countries often handle localised water emergencies internally. For instance, a 7.6 earthquake in PNG (Sept 2022) damaged water sources in highland communities , and the government, with PNG Red Cross, trucked in water to affected areas (costs in tens of thousands USD, absorbed in provincial disaster budgets). In Solomon Islands, occasional severe floods or storm waves contaminate water in coastal villages; the government and NGOs respond with small-scale water trucking and distributions of purification tablets. Such countries have more robust capacity, so they lean less on international funding specifically for emergency water (external aid usually comes as part of wider disaster relief or infrastructure projects).

Breakdown by Reason for Support

Cyclones and Storms: Tropical cyclones are a leading cause of emergency water needs in the Pacific. Strong cyclones (like Cyclone Harold in 2020, Cyclone Yasa in 2020, and more recently Cyclones Judy/Kevin in 2023) wreak havoc on water infrastructure – heavy winds and floods damage pipelines, storage tanks, and power for pumps, while storm surges can taint groundwater with salt. In Fiji, Cyclone Yasa’s destruction left tens of thousands without access to clean water, requiring large-scale distribution of water by the military and aid groups . Cyclone Harold’s impact on Vanuatu was similar: an estimated 70%+ of affected communities needed emergency water supply within days. Typical response measures for cyclones include dispatching water trucking convoys, installing temporary desalination units, and providing water purification tablets to households. Costs for these efforts can be high – for example, it cost Fiji’s government over FJ$1 million in total to continually ferry water to maritime areas in drought and post-cyclone conditions. Donor funding is often activated immediately after a big cyclone: Australia, NZ, US, France and others send aircraft or naval ships loaded with water and WASH kits. Trends: Climate change is intensifying cyclones, and they appear to be moving further east and impacting more islands. Many Pacific nations now face severe cyclones every few years, making emergency water provision a recurring necessity. A challenge is frequency – countries barely recover and rebuild water systems before the next storm hits, creating a cycle of response. Nonetheless, improvements are noted: early warning systems and pre-positioned supplies (by agencies like IFRC) have made responses faster and more cost-effective than a decade ago.

Droughts and Water Shortages: Slow-onset climate disasters like drought have caused some of the largest emergency water operations in the past three years. Atoll countries (Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu) are extremely vulnerable due to limited freshwater lenses and rain dependence. The 2021–2022 La Niña led to historically low rainfall – Kiribati’s wells turned brackish, and water rationing in South Tarawa dropped supply to just 2 hours every other day. Emergency actions for droughts include shipping in fresh water (via tankers or military vessels), installing desalination plants, and distributing storage containers so families can conserve and store what little water is available. These responses tend to be prolonged (over months) and expensive. Kiribati’s drought, for example, required an international air-bridge and seaborne operation: Australian and NZ aircraft flew in desalination units and kits, a Coast Guard cutter ferried thousands of gallons of water to Kiritimati , and agencies like UNICEF spent hundreds of thousands on local water trucking and community outreach on conservation. In the Marshall Islands, a persistent drought meant the government had to use ships to deliver water to remote atolls weekly for over half a year. Cost-wise, drought relief often surpasses rapid-onset disasters because of its duration – multi-million dollar expenditures are not uncommon by the end of a drought emergency. A recurring challenge is that droughts hit multiple islands simultaneously, stretching regional resources thin (e.g. Australia and NZ were responding to droughts in two countries while also dealing with domestic climate events). Trend: Drought frequency in the North Pacific has increased, and projections suggest more severe El Niño-induced droughts ahead. This is pushing a shift toward preparedness funding (e.g. building larger cisterns, as Tuvalu is doing, or solar stills as used in Kiribati) to reduce the need for crisis shipments.

Volcanic Eruptions: Volcanic disasters are less frequent but can create acute water crises. The prime example is the Tonga Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption (2022). The eruption’s ashfall and tsunami waves contaminated nearly all drinking water sources in Tonga overnight . This prompted an immediate international WASH response: emergency shipments of bottled water, installation of mobile filtration units, and extensive water testing operations. The cost of the water response in Tonga was significant – emergency funding from New Zealand and Australia for water and sanitation in Tonga exceeded NZ$1 million in the first month (covering desalination units, vessel deployment costs, and WASH kits). Other volcanic scenarios include ashfall in Vanuatu (from Yasur or Ambae volcanoes) which has in the past forced communities to evacuate when rainwater tanks were poisoned by ash – requiring government tankers to supply those villages until the ash could be cleaned. While eruptions are unpredictable, Pacific nations must prepare for them: Tonga’s experience showed that having regional partners ready to send naval ships with desalination capability can be lifesaving. An ongoing challenge is that volcanic ash can ground planes and halt airport operations (as in Tonga where relief was delayed five days), so sea-based aid and local coping mechanisms (e.g. boiling rainwater, using coconut water in extremis) become critical. Trend: As part of disaster planning, more attention is now given to volcanic risk – e.g. Fiji and NZ are pre-stocking ash masks and water filters in Tonga and Vanuatu. The cost of responses will vary by eruption size, but even a moderate eruption can demand hundreds of thousands of dollars in water supply efforts due to contamination.

Earthquakes and Tsunamis: Undersea earthquakes and resultant tsunamis can disrupt water systems, though in the last three years the Pacific’s major tsunami event was tied to the Tongan volcano. Pure seismic tsunamis (like the 2009 Samoa tsunami or 2015 Solomon Islands tsunami) can destroy coastal infrastructure, including water pipes and wells, necessitating emergency water provision for displaced populations. There were no catastrophic standalone tsunamis in 2021–2023 affecting Pacific Island countries. However, earthquakes have caused localised crises: a magnitude 7.3 quake in Solomon Islands (Nov 2022) caused power outages and stirred up sediment, prompting a boil-water advisory for Honiara due to turbidity in the supply . Similarly, the 7.6 quake in PNG (Sept 2022) damaged village water supplies and cut off mountain springs, leading PNG’s National Disaster Centre to spend emergency funds on helicoptering water into isolated areas. These kinds of responses are typically smaller scale and shorter term (days to weeks) compared to cyclones or droughts. A nation’s own government often covers most costs, sometimes with quick grants from neighbours (e.g. Australia provided PNG and Solomon Islands small emergency grants for their 2022 quakes, used partly for water and hygiene kits). Infrastructure failures and contamination incidents also fall in this category: for example, a major fuel leak in 2021 contaminated the U.S. Navy’s water system in Hawaii, requiring months of emergency water distribution to affected families – while not a Pacific Island nation’s crisis, it highlights how technical failures (oil/chemical spills into water) can necessitate significant emergency water operations. In Pacific countries, known incidents include periodic breakdowns of urban water treatment plants (Suva, Port Moresby, etc.) after floods or power cuts, which force authorities to truck water to residents. These are usually managed internally with costs in the tens of thousands, not drawing international aid.

Infrastructure Failures & Contamination: Though often overshadowed by natural disasters, failures like old piping systems bursting, desalination plants breaking down, or contamination events (e.g. algal blooms or bacterial outbreaks) can create emergency water needs. A notable example: in mid-2022 parts of Majuro, Marshall Islands faced a contamination scare when the aging sewer system overflowed, risking drinking water safety – the government issued an alert and mobilised tankers to deliver chlorinated water to communities, at a cost of about $100,000 (with support from local NGOs). In Fiji and Samoa, occasional chemical spills into rivers have forced temporary shutdowns of municipal water; governments activated emergency boreholes and distributed bottled water until systems were flushed. While these incidents are usually contained relatively quickly, they highlight the importance of resilient infrastructure. Many Pacific states have old water networks that are prone to failure during heavy rains or drought stress. Thus, part of emergency outlays in the past few years has gone to urgent repairs and interim supplies – essentially reacting to infrastructure breakdown. Funding for these tends to be domestic (maintenance budgets or emergency contingency funds), unless the incident is large enough to declare a disaster. In summary, whether due to nature or infrastructure, Pacific nations have confronted a range of crises jeopardising clean water access, each demanding tailored responses and significant expenditure.

Government vs. International Aid Spending

Pacific countries vary in how much they fund emergency water response from their own budgets versus relying on international aid. Generally, smaller island states rely more heavily on international relief, while larger or wealthier nations mobilize more domestic funds (though even they seek external help for big disasters):

• High Reliance on International Aid: Atoll nations like Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, and Tokelau have very limited financial resources and logistical capacity, so they depend on foreign aid for the bulk of emergency water support. In Kiribati’s 2022 drought, well over 90% of the funding and in-kind support came from international partners (ADB, Australia, NZ, UNICEF, USA). The government’s role was primarily coordination; its direct spending was minimal relative to the contributions in grants and supplies received. The Marshall Islands similarly leaned on U.S. support (as part of the Compact agreement) and international grants for drought aid. These countries often invoke regional mechanisms like the FRANZ Agreement (France, Australia, NZ coordination) or request UN flash appeals to secure aid. Their governments may allocate some emergency money (Kiribati reportedly spent a few hundred thousand on preliminary drought measures), but local budgets alone could never meet the large-scale needs, especially when desalination units costing millions are needed. Tuvalu and Nauru also fit here – Tuvalu asked the UN for help in 2022’s drought , showing it could not cope alone; Nauru’s dependency on its single desal plant means if it fails, aid (from Australia or Taiwan) is sought immediately.
• Mixed Model (Government + Aid): Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga fall into a middle category. These nations allocate government funds for emergency response each year, but still rely on substantial international aid for major disasters. Fiji for instance has a dedicated Emergency Water Supply program funded through its budget (hundreds of thousands of FJD annually) and the government covered immediate needs after events like Cyclone Ana. However, for large disasters like Yasa, Fiji welcomed foreign aid – the ADB, EU, Australia, and others poured millions into Fiji’s overall cyclone recovery, covering needs including water and sanitation. Fiji’s government might spend its own money on internal logistics (fuel for water trucks, deployment of RFMF soldiers to deliver water), but big-ticket items (new water treatment units, large-scale relief supplies) often come from aid. Vanuatu consistently plans some domestic spending (it has a small emergency fund), but events like cyclones usually see Australia and others picking up much of the tab, especially for WASH needs. Tonga’s volcano response was almost entirely funded by international donors given the country’s stretched finances. That said, these governments do show leadership: e.g., the Fijian government pre-financed the water cartage to outer islands and then sought reimbursement or support from donors later. Samoa has had fewer recent crises, but during past cyclones it too used a combination of its Disaster Management Office funds and aid from Australia/NZ.
• Primarily Government-Funded Responses: Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a special case – as a larger developing country, it often tries to shoulder disaster response costs itself (with some exceptions for huge events). PNG’s government spending on emergency water (for example in the 2015 drought or 2018 earthquake) was significant, running into the millions, with relatively less direct international humanitarian aid (donors instead support through development projects or budget support). In the last three years, PNG didn’t require major international water aid, so its smaller responses (like the 2022 quake water delivery) were locally financed. French territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia) are outside the scope of independent nations but worth noting – they receive support from France for any emergency and are not reliant on external humanitarian aid.

In terms of which countries rely more on international efforts, the clear examples are Kiribati, RMI, Tuvalu, and to an extent Vanuatu and Tonga (for large disasters). Countries like Fiji and Samoa have somewhat more internal capacity but still heavily supplement with aid when needed. Government allocation of emergency funds is most notable in Fiji and PNG. Fiji earmarks money each year for emergency water and rural water projects (FJ$300k in 2021/22 for water carting ), demonstrating proactive budgeting. Vanuatu and Solomon Islands budget for general disaster response but those funds must cover all sectors (not just water), often making water just one of many competing needs.

Key donor nations and organisations for emergency water in the Pacific include:

• Australia and New Zealand: They are usually first responders in Pacific crises. Australia’s aid programs have funded drought relief (e.g. solar distillers in Kiribati, water tanks in RMI) and cyclone response (sending purification kits to Fiji, Vanuatu). New Zealand often provides technical expertise and equipment (e.g. sending military engineers to repair water systems, deploying desalination gear as to Tonga). Both contribute via cash grants and in-kind support through their defence forces and aid agencies (DFAT and MFAT).
• Asian Development Bank (ADB): Through its Pacific Disaster Resilience Program, ADB offers quick-disbursing grants or loans after disasters. It gave Fiji about $1 million for Cyclone Yasa recovery and $8 million to Kiribati for drought relief, covering immediate government costs for water and sanitation needs.
• UN Agencies: UNICEF, being focused on WASH, has led many water emergency projects (often funded by donors like USAID). It was key in Kiribati and Tuvalu drought response , and in convening coordination through the Pacific Humanitarian Team. OCHA manages CERF funds like the $2.5M for Vanuatu . WHO sometimes supports water quality testing after emergencies to prevent disease.
• International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) and Red Cross Societies: They have local presence in each country and often release DREF (Disaster Relief Emergency Fund) money immediately when a crisis (like a cyclone or drought) occurs, to fund water distribution, hygiene kits, etc. For example, IFRC provided emergency funds to the Tonga Red Cross after the eruption to distribute water kits.
• NGOs and others: Organisations like World Vision, Oxfam, Save the Children, Caritas and the Pacific WASH Cluster members have contributed via appeals, implementing water trucking, installing temporary toilets and so on, often funded by government aid grants. Also, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and World Bank, while focused on long-term projects, in some cases (like RMI) address root causes of emergency water shortages by financing resilient infrastructure.

In summary, international aid far outweighs local government spending for most Pacific nations during major water emergencies. However, where governments can, they allocate funds to kick-start responses and co-finance solutions. A positive development is that some aid is now coming as pre-arranged disaster insurance payouts or contingent credit (e.g., Pacific Catastrophe Risk Insurance funds) which governments can directly use for emergency response. This gives local authorities more direct spending power immediately after a disaster, rather than waiting for donor processes. Still, the partnership between Pacific governments and international donors remains crucial – neither can fully address these crises alone.

Private Sector Support: The FIJI Water Foundation donated over FJ$125,000 to Fiji’s relief fund after Cyclone Yasa, exemplifying how corporate contributions bolster emergency response . Private donations from companies and foundations supplement government and international aid in Pacific disasters. This support often targets immediate needs like water, shelter, and food for affected communities, and can be mobilised quickly through charitable channels.

Opportunities for Future Support

While significant aid has flowed to emergency water relief, funding gaps and needs remain. One major gap is in preparedness and resilience funding. Many regions in the Pacific are frequently impacted by water crises but still lack adequate infrastructure to mitigate them:

• Drought-prone atolls (Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Tokelau) need investment in large-scale rainwater harvesting, storage facilities, and solar-powered desalination to reduce reliance on emergency shipments. For example, over 70% of Pacific small island states are at risk of water shortages, yet their water infrastructure remains under-developed. Donors could increase funding for projects that ensure basic supply (e.g., community water tanks, groundwater recharge schemes), which would be far more cost-effective in the long run than repeated emergency airlifts of water.
• Remote outer islands within countries often miss out on development projects. These are the places that end up needing emergency water trucking each dry season. There is an opportunity for future support to target these remote communities with resilient systems. For instance, installing emergency desalination capacity on strategic islands: Fiji’s adoption of a mobile desal plant for outer islands provides a model. Expanding such initiatives (perhaps a regional stockpile of mobile desal units that can be deployed to any country in need) could fill a critical gap.
• Regions recently hammered by disasters, like southern Vanuatu or parts of Fiji’s outer islands, could benefit from reconstruction that “builds back better” – replacing destroyed water systems with cyclone-resilient designs. However, current aid for rebuilding often falls short. This is a funding gap where additional support (grants or private investment) is needed to ensure communities are not just restored to pre-disaster vulnerability.

There is also scope for greater private sector involvement in innovative ways:

• Emergency desalination and purification technology: Private companies could partner with governments to provide cutting-edge solutions such as portable solar desalination units, high-volume water purification trailers, or atmospheric water generators. These could be sponsored or sold at subsidised rates for humanitarian use. During the Marshall Islands drought, private suppliers of reverse osmosis systems played a role but more could be done to have such tech readily available before crisis hits.
• Logistics and transportation support: Given the Pacific’s geography, having boats and planes to deliver aid is vital. Airlines, shipping companies, and even tech giants (with drones) could collaborate to improve the speed and reach of water deliveries. For example, a partnership with shipping companies might enable pre-positioned containers of emergency water or bulk transport at lower cost when crises occur.
• Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for water resilience: Companies in the Pacific (like bottled water companies, breweries, etc., which have water expertise) can partner on community water projects. They might invest in local water infrastructure as part of corporate social responsibility, which in turn reduces the need for emergency relief. The private sector can also help fund maintenance of existing systems – a common failure point that leads to emergencies is lack of maintenance funds.
• Innovation in water storage and distribution: There’s an opportunity to introduce new products, such as inexpensive household water treatment kits, collapsible water tanks that can be easily deployed, or satellite monitoring of island water resources to predict shortages. Donors and investors can support Pacific governments in piloting these innovations. Some NGOs (e.g. Field Ready) have had success manufacturing simple water devices (like rainwater collection buckets) locally ; scaling these efforts with private investment could boost community self-reliance.

Importantly, additional funding is needed in regions that currently receive less attention. For instance, Papua New Guinea’s highlands and outer islands see periodic drought and quake-related water issues but often fall through the cracks of international appeals because they are internal crises in a larger country. Targeted support through development banks or climate adaptation funds for those areas (like gravity-fed spring systems or quake-resistant storage tanks) could preempt emergencies. Similarly, Solomon Islands and FSM could use more support for extending safe water access to rural areas – this would make those communities less vulnerable when disaster strikes.

From a strategic viewpoint, investing in regional response capacity is a key opportunity. The Pacific has mechanisms like the Pacific Islands Emergency Management Alliance; bolstering these with dedicated resources (e.g. a regional “water relief unit” equipped with desalination plants, water tankers, etc.) would improve response times and reduce costs through economies of scale. International donors and Pacific governments could jointly fund such a regional asset.

In summary, future support should focus on shifting from reactive to proactive: more funding for building resilient water infrastructure now, which will reduce the massive outlays on emergency provision later. There is also room to engage the private sector’s ingenuity and resources in this mission – through public-private partnerships, innovation challenges, or corporate responsibility programs aimed at water security. Addressing these gaps and opportunities will be crucial as climate change continues to intensify water-related disasters in the Pacific.

Case Study Highlights

To illustrate the dynamics of emergency water response, here are a few in-depth case studies from recent operations:

Case Study 1: Kiribati 2022 Drought Response – Effectiveness through Multi-Partner Coordination

In mid-2022, Kiribati’s worst drought in decades presented a test of emergency response strategies. With over 119,000 people affected across dozens of atolls , the response had to cover vast distances. The approach combined immediate relief with efforts to bolster longer-term water generation:

• Initial Emergency Actions: Upon the state of disaster declaration, the Kiribati government, though cash-strapped, activated its National Disaster Management Office to coordinate aid. Australia quickly provided 100 solar distillation units to outer island communities (for converting brackish well water into drinkable water). This low-tech solution was relatively cost-efficient and sustainable – it utilised sunlight and required no fuel, helping meet basic needs without continuous outside supply. However, its scale was limited (suitable for small communities, not dense urban areas).
• Major Water Provision: Realising South Tarawa (the capital) needed large volumes of water, Kiribati’s leaders worked with development partners to bring in desalination capacity. In a joint effort, Australia and New Zealand delivered and installed a modular desalination plant for Tarawa, backed by technical support. This plant, coupled with generator power, produced thousands of litres per day, proving more cost-effective over a few months than flying in bottled water repeatedly. The ADB’s $8M grant helped finance fuel, operations, and distribution costs for this and other response measures. Cost-efficiency: While desalination plants have high upfront cost, in this case it substantially reduced the expense of continually shipping water from abroad. By producing water locally, Kiribati saved on maritime transport costs that previously ran in the hundreds of thousands.
• International Logistics Support: The U.S. Coast Guard’s deployment (Operation ‘Clean Water Drop’) to Kiritimati Island is a highlight of international civil-military cooperation. Over two days, the USCG Cutter Oliver Berry offloaded 36,000 liters (about 8,000 gallons) of potable water to the island . This operation was tightly coordinated with UNICEF and Kiribati authorities to ensure safe distribution under COVID-19 protocols. Effectiveness: This direct delivery was a stop-gap that prevented a health catastrophe on Kiritimati until rains returned. While the cost of sending a Coast Guard cutter is high (fuel, crew time – covered by the US as aid), it was arguably the only timely option given the island’s isolation. It demonstrated the value of having military assets ready to assist in humanitarian roles.
• Outcomes and Lessons: The multi-pronged response (solar stills, desalination, shipped water, community education on conservation) managed to avert a major outbreak of waterborne disease – no cholera or dysentery outbreaks were reported, which is a sign of success in a drought emergency. However, the operation encountered challenges: the desal plant required skilled operators and maintenance, highlighting human resource needs; some outer islands still struggled due to delayed delivery of equipment. In cost-efficiency terms, donors later analysed that investing in permanent rainwater tanks on each island might have been cheaper than the emergency measures deployed. This has informed new projects to build resilience. Kiribati’s case underlines that a combination of innovative technology and international support, when well-coordinated, can effectively mitigate a severe water crisis, but also that proactive investment (e.g., storage capacity) would reduce the need for such large-scale emergency mobilisation.

The U.S. Coast Guard delivered safe drinking water to drought-hit Kiritimati Island in Kiribati in July 2022 as part of the international relief efforts . Deployments like this fill critical gaps during severe water crises in remote Pacific communities. In this operation, a tanker truck on the pier received water pumped from the Coast Guard cutter’s tanks, which was then distributed to local residents.

Case Study 2: Tonga 2022 Volcanic Eruption – “Water, Water Everywhere but Not a Drop to Drink”

The Tonga Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption and tsunami provides a stark example of an acute water emergency and the strategies used to address it:

• Scope of Crisis: Within hours, ash fall and saltwater intrusion left an estimated 50,000 Tongans without safe drinking water. All surface rainwater catchments were contaminated. The Tongan government and international community identified water as the top priority, even before food or shelter, given the risk of dehydration and disease.
• Response Strategy: Tonga was largely cut off (communications were down and ash closed the airport), so the first wave of help arrived by sea. The New Zealand Navy’s rapid deployment of HMNZS Aotearoa with massive water supply capability was a game-changer. The ship’s desalination system, capable of producing 70,000 litres/day, allowed responders to generate clean water on-site and distribute it to islands using smaller boats. This avoided the need to ship in thousands of plastic water bottles, thus more efficient and environmentally friendly. Concurrently, Australian military flights (once the runway was cleared) dropped off WASH kits: these included water purification tablets, portable water filters, and collapsible jerrycans for families, as noted by humanitarian reports .
• Community-Level Action: Local authorities and Red Cross volunteers set up water distribution points. For example, on Tongatapu, fire trucks were repurposed to haul and deliver desalinated water to neighbourhoods. Households were instructed to strain ash from water and then boil it if possible. These measures illustrate an effective use of local structures (fire services, village committees) to complement international aid.
• Effectiveness and Cost-efficiency: The desalination-by-ship method proved highly effective – within a week, basic water needs were being met for the majority of the population, and the feared outbreaks (like cholera) did not occur. In terms of cost, operating a naval vessel is expensive, but both New Zealand and Australia covered those costs as part of aid. Compared to the alternative of airlifting bottled water (which would have been enormously costly and slow), the naval desalination approach was more cost-efficient for the volume delivered. One challenge was the “contactless” delivery protocols due to COVID-19 concerns, which slightly complicated distribution but Tonga and partners managed by offloading supplies without direct contact.
• Longer-Term Outcomes: In the aftermath, Tonga received additional donor support to rebuild rainwater systems with ash filters and to procure reserve desalination units for outer islands. This case demonstrated the importance of flexibility in response: having a variety of tools (ships, planes, local tanks) and being able to deploy whichever is most feasible given constraints (like an ash-covered runway) is crucial. It also highlighted that investing in dual-use assets (like a naval ship that can do disaster relief) pays off. Tonga’s experience is now often cited in Pacific discussions as a model for multi-country coordination, where one nation’s asset (NZ’s ship) served another’s urgent needs rapidly, saving lives.

Case Study 3: Fiji’s Maritime Droughts – Cost Comparison of Water Carting vs. Desalination

Fiji regularly contends with dry spells in its outer islands, and traditionally the solution was “water carting” – loading fresh water onto barges and delivering to affected communities. This case study examines how Fiji managed recent dry spells and why it is now shifting strategies:

• Traditional Response – Water Carting: In late 2020 and again in mid-2021, extended dry weather hit the Yasawa and Lau island groups. The Fijian government deployed the Navy and chartered vessels to transport water from the main islands (Viti Levu or Vanua Levu) out to these remote islands. Over three years, this Emergency Water Supply program spent FJ$1.2 million on such operations. While effective in the immediate term (ensuring thousands of villagers had drinking water), this approach has drawbacks: high fuel and personnel costs, delays due to rough seas, and water delivered in bulk still required distribution on the islands. The cost per liter of water delivered by barge can be quite high when factoring in fuel, ship time, and labor.
• Innovative Shift – Mobile Desalination Unit: Learning from the costs, Fiji explored alternatives. In 2020, through a partnership with Sea Mercy (an NGO), Fiji obtained a mobile desalination plant on a trailer, with a generator, capable of producing 5,000 litres per day. In a pilot deployment, this unit was sent to drought-hit Kadavu island. Analysis: The capital cost was around FJ$100,000 (covered by the donor). Operating costs are fuel and maintenance, but it can serve multiple nearby communities when moved around. If used extensively, it can offset many barge trips. Fiji’s Minister noted that this desal unit “will substantially reduce the cost of carting fresh water to maritime islands”. Indeed, a rough cost analysis showed that producing water on-site was about 25–50% cheaper than shipping it in, not to mention faster and less weather-dependent.
• Outcome: In 2021–2022, Fiji allocated an additional FJ$500k to expand such projects (e.g. installing Ecological Purification Systems in villages) , showing a move toward proactive investment. The mobile desal plant has been hailed as a success – during the 2021 dry season it managed to continuously supply several islands and was credited with preventing the need for at least three barge missions, saving an estimated FJ$200k. This case illustrates cost-efficiency gained through innovation: although desalination can be energy-intensive, in this context of dispersed islands it outperformed the logistics of transport. It also had co-benefits: the water produced was high quality, improving health outcomes (previously, shipped water might get re-contaminated during handling).
• Challenges: The desal unit requires trained operators and regular maintenance – if it breaks, the community could be worse off unless backup options are ready. Fiji mitigated this by training local rural water technicians to run the plant. Another challenge was fuel supply on remote islands (to power the generator), which had to be included in planning.
• Scalability: Fiji’s experience is now being watched by other countries like Tuvalu and Tonga. It shows that for the price of what is spent in one bad drought, a country can acquire assets that pay dividends over multiple events. The case study demonstrates an evolution in emergency response strategy – from repeated expensive relief efforts toward investing in on-site solutions that reduce long-term costs and dependency.

Case Study 4: Multi-country Cyclone Response – Cyclone Harold (2020) – Regional Cooperation and Efficiency

(Although just over three years ago, Cyclone Harold’s response set important precedents for the 2021–2023 period.) Cyclone Harold struck Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, and Tonga. The broad impact zone required a regional approach:

• Regional Fund Mobilisation: The UN’s CERF released $2.5M for Vanuatu immediately , which was complemented by bilateral aid. By coordinating through the Pacific Humanitarian Team, duplication was avoided and resources were shared. For example, French military aircraft that delivered aid to Vanuatu on the return carried Fijian government supplies to Lau island (Fiji) which was also hit – a smart use of available transport.
• Water and WASH Coordination: In Vanuatu, NGOs took specific islands to support – one NGO focused on Santo and another on Pentecost, each setting up water purification units and latrines. This division of labor improved effectiveness. A notable strategy was the use of pre-positioned emergency WASH hubs: Australian aid had earlier funded containers stocked with water tanks, pumps, and purification gear in Vanuatu. When Harold hit, those containers were opened immediately by local authorities to start distribution, even before international teams arrived. This greatly increased speed and reduced initial costs (since the supplies were paid for ahead of time at bulk rates).
• Outcome and Cost-efficiency: By sharing assets regionally (Australia and NZ dividing which country to support most heavily, given both were stretched with COVID-19 at the time), the Pacific partners maximised coverage. The overall spend for water relief across four countries was hard to quantify, but consider that Australia alone provided over AU$5 million in emergency WASH support spread across Vanuatu, Fiji, and Solomon Islands in Harold’s aftermath (according to DFAT reports). The coordinated approach likely saved money by avoiding redundant shipments. One metric of success: within 3 weeks, emergency water needs were largely met in all affected islands, a relatively quick turnaround for such a large disaster footprint. This case reinforced the value of regional systems like the Pacific Incident Management Team and the FRANZ agreement in enabling cost-effective, well-targeted deployment of scarce resources (for instance, rather than each donor sending a water team to the same island, they split areas).

These case studies underscore that while Pacific emergency water responses are often costly and complex, there are clear avenues to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Key takeaways include the importance of investing in local capacity (like Fiji’s desalination unit or Vanuatu’s pre-stocked supplies) to reduce later costs, the benefit of multi-agency coordination to cover gaps (Kiribati’s blend of military, NGO, and development bank support), and the potential of innovative solutions to improve cost-efficiency (naval desalination in Tonga, solar distillers in Kiribati). Companies or organisations looking to support emergency water initiatives in the Pacific should focus on these areas – bolstering infrastructure before disasters strike, enabling rapid response logistics, and funding innovative tech – to make the greatest impact on both humanitarian outcomes and cost reduction.