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