Almost Seven in Ten (69.02%) Are Aware of Fiji’s Rising Sea Level Crisis

For the last four years, a special government task force in Fiji has been trying to work out how to move the country. Due to Fiji’s geographical location and vulnerability to extreme weather, the Fijian society is constantly at risk from rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and climate change.

The document about Fiji’s plan to escape rising sea levels —Standard Operations Procedures for Planned Relocations (SOPs)—contains comprehensive strategies to deal with climate change and relocation. According to the document, the relocation process is structured into three main pillars: Decision, planning, and implementation.

These three pillars shall be embedded together with the principles enumerated below to ensure that the values and the rights of the Fijian-affected communities are always to be respected in the process of a planned relocation.

Fiji is embarking on an unprecedented journey. Politicians and scientists have been debating climate migration for years. The question is no longer whether communities will be relocated, but rather how they will be relocated.

Hence, Real Research launched a survey on Fiji’s radical strategy to escape rising sea levels of Fiji to gather further information on this matter.

Survey Highlights:

• 38.39% believe the climate relocation would be highly favorable to Fiji villagers
• 16.04% believe flood barriers would be an effective way to protect Fiji from climate change
• 33.97% believed in the long-term effectiveness of Fiji’s radical strategy to relocate Fiji villagers

Up to 36.31% Are Confident in the Safety of Fiji’s Radical Strategy

The survey began by asking respondents if they were aware of the crisis the villages of Fiji are currently facing as a result of rising sea levels. 69.02% of respondents were aware, 23.74% were partially aware, and 7.24% were unaware.

As a result of rising sea levels, the Government of Fiji has chosen to relocate villages to other locations called “Climate Migration.” The survey asked respondents whether they were aware of this term. 71.45% were aware, 20.96% were partially aware, and 7.6% were unaware.

The survey then asked respondents whether they thought moving Fiji villagers to higher altitudes ensured their safety. 36.31% were very confident in its safety, 31.88% were neutral, 19.94% were somewhat confident, 9.51% were somewhat doubtful, and 2.35% were very doubtful.

Nearly 16% Believed That the Loss of Homes Affected Fijians Most

Respondents were asked about the effectiveness of Fiji’s radical strategy. 38.39% believed the relocation would be highly favorable to Fijians, 30.39% were neutral, 23.83% believed it would be somewhat favorable, 5.5% believed it would be somewhat unfavorable, and 1.31% believed it would be highly unfavorable.

Next, the survey asked respondents for alternative solutions to ensure the safety of Fijians. 16.04% believed in building flood barriers to protect Fiji alongside its infrastructure and the inhabitants of the Fiji villages, 12.69% believed in integrating climate change solutions into new infrastructure, 11.97% believed in developing coastal restoration plans, and 11.55% believed in modeling effective infiltration and sewage systems.

Respondents were asked which of the possible losses were the most impactful for the relocated Fijians. 15.75% said it was the loss of homes and residences, 13.31% thought it was financial losses, 12.25% thought it was the loss of land, and 12.09% thought it was the loss of infrastructure.

42% Believed That the Fijian Government Could Fund the Effort Alone

The respondents were then asked how they believed the Fijian government could fund Fiji’s radical strategy. 42.73% believed that the Fijian government could afford the move, 25.89% believed that higher taxes on hotels, resorts, cruise ships, and ferries would cover the relocation, and 11.01% believed that the Fijian government should raise income tax to support the relocation.

Respondents were asked how they perceived the climate change-related safety of areas comparable to Fiji. 37.4% believed these areas to be extremely safe, 27.51% were neutral, 19.66% believed these areas to be somewhat safe, 11.58% believed these areas to be somewhat unsafe, and 3.86% believed these areas to be extremely unsafe.

Finally, respondents were asked about their thoughts on the effectiveness of the Fijian government’s efforts over the long term. 33.97% believed it would be highly effective, 32.5% believed it would be neutral, and 24.05% believed it would be somewhat effective. 7.02% believed it would be somewhat ineffective, while 2.45% believed it would be highly ineffective.