1 Introduction

The United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 2012, p. 3) defined climate change loss and damage (L&D) as “the actual and/or potential manifestation of impacts associated with climate change in developing countries that negatively affect human and natural systems”. L&D includes impacts from both extreme weather and slow-onset events. In the context of L&D, loss refers to climate-related impacts that cannot be restored within reasonable time frames. Damage refers to adverse impacts in relation to which reparation or restoration is possible but imposes burdens and costs on communities. This includes reversible impacts such as damage to infrastructure or agricultural systems, or damage to ecosystems that will only recover over a period of time (Burkett 2014). Loss and damage can be economic or non-economic in nature. Non-economic L&D (NELD) refers to a broad range of losses that are non-financial and not commonly traded in the market (UNFCCC 2021). Examples of NELD include loss of habitat, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, loss of lives, and loss of ancestral land (Talakia 2015).

A recent systematic review of intangible L&D by Tschakert et al. (2019) demonstrated one thousand ways to experience losses over one hundred case studies from around the world. McNamara et al. (2021a) identified eight interconnected and core dimensions of NELD, which included health and well-being, current and future ways of being, cultural sites and sacred places, ways of being, indigenous knowledge, biodiversity and ecosystems, life-sustaining tools, and connection to land and sea. Apart from economic and non-economic losses, cascading impacts such as food insecurity risks, disruption to education, deteriorating ecosystem services, biodiversity loss, and loss of culture emphasise how L&D diminishes well-being of vulnerable communities and threatens social-ecological systems (SES) (Cámara-Leret et al. 2019; Chandra et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018).

Adaptation strategies documented in L&D studies include livelihood diversification and technical solutions such as building sea walls or adopting resilient crop varieties, modifying resource consumption, and enhancing reliance on social networks (Monnereau and Abraham 2013; Warner and van der Geest 2013; Yaffa 2013). Regardless, current adaptation measures are inadequate to prevent all L&D (McNamara et al. 2021b; Thomas et al. 2018; Warner and van der Geest 2013; Yaffa 2013). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that, for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), observed and projected risks have severe consequences for SES, including an increase in sea level; salt-water intrusion; increased intensity and frequency of droughts and other climatic hazards; constraints in freshwater resources; and rising temperatures (IPCC 2018). Even with meaningful adaptation and mitigation to limit temperature increases to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, severe climate change impacts are considered unavoidable and have the potential to devastate small island states (Falzon and Batur 2018; Oxfam 2016).

With projected climate change and likelihood of impacts worsening, there is an urgency to address L&D more coherently. Despite the United Nation’s Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) having clear mandates to avert, minimise, and address L&D (UNFCCC 2014) and the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage (SNLD) to catalyse technical assistance (UNFCCC 2019), any obligation to enhance action and support from wealthy nations, including the provision of L&D finance has remained vague (Maclellan and Meads 2016; Nand and Bardsley 2020; Page and Heyward 2017), while vulnerable communities continue to be disproportionately affected by climate change (Pill 2021).

The South Pacific region is particularly vulnerable and exposed to extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones (TCs) (Esler 2016; Magee et al. 2016). Recent research on L&D from TCs in the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has documented loss of life, livelihoods, homes, ecosystems and their services and critical infrastructure, as well as deteriorating human health and well-being (Esler 2016; Magee et al. 2016; Nakamura and Kanemasu 2020; Gard and Veitayaki 2017). The Fiji Islands are well-known for frequent TCs with damaging winds, storm surges, floods, and rain (PCRAFI 2011). The cyclones track from the north and west and normally occur during the wet season, from November to April, and occasionally in October and May during El Niño years (Magee et al. 2016; Waqaicelua et al. 2011). TCs are projected to become less frequent, but average maximum wind speeds are projected to increase by 2–11% and rainfall intensity by 20% within 100 km of the eye of the storms (CSIRO 2011). In Fiji, the majority of the population and critical infrastructure are located in low-lying coastal areas, exacerbating vulnerability and exposure to strong TCs (Magee et al. 2016). Consequently, it is increasingly likely that increased cyclone intensity, in conjunction with sea-level rise, heavy precipitation, storm surges, and high wind speeds, will escalate the impacts and generate substantial L&D to Fiji.

This study critically analyses the forms of climate change L&D from recent cyclones within Fiji’s sugarcane-growing communities and the sugar industry and derives policy recommendations to avert, minimise, and address the L&D. Recent cyclones in Fiji, such as TCs Evan, Winston, and Yasa, brought destructive winds and flash floods that caused massive L&D to the agricultural sector and associated communities (Government of Fiji 2012; UNOCHA 2003; Esler 2016). On 20th February 2016, TC Winston, a category-five cyclone, and one of the strongest recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, made landfall in Fiji (Ram et al. 2018). Sugarcane production was severely impacted because the TC struck during the planting season (Esler 2016). The Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) estimated that losses to the Fiji’s sugar industry were FJ$53.6 million and damages were FJ$21.8 million. Fiji received assistance from the international community in the form of humanitarian funding and long-term public financing and loans. Regardless, it has been estimated that almost 85% of the cost of the disaster was borne by the people of Fiji themselves (Richards 2018). Six weeks later, TC Zena passed over Fiji, causing more extreme rainfall and flooding, once again devastating the agricultural sector (Esler 2016). Given that the impacts of climate change are projected to increase in the future, we apply a multi-case study approach to examine the degree to which sugarcane farmers are affected by cyclones in Barotu and Toko settlements. By drawing on evidence from the two sugarcane communities, this research goes on to examine the effectiveness of adaptation measures, the experienced L&D, and the need for mechanisms to address that L&D. In particular, this paper outlines how conceptualisations of L&D could evolve to respond to ongoing systemic L&D and, especially, NELD.

2 Research methods

Indo-Fijians have lived in Fiji for more than three generations and are descendants of more than 60,000 girmitiyas or indentured labourers who were brought over from India by the British Colonial government to work on Fiji’s sugar plantations (Trnka 2005). Sugarcane farms in Fiji are concentrated on the western side of Viti Levu and the north of Vanua Levu (Chandra et al. 2018). Despite the significance of the sugar industry, in recent years, it has faced many challenges such as social conflict and political instability (Bacolod 2014; Lal and Prete 2008; Duncan and Sing 2009; Pelling and Uitto 2001), land tenure insecurity (Lal et al. 2001; Prasad and Kumar 2016), weak policy coordination and implementation (FAO 2012), inadequate extension services, undeveloped local and export markets, lack of infrastructure and insufficient technologies (Booth 1999; Kurer 2001), and severe impacts from cyclones and drought (Bacolod 2014; Esler 2016; Government of Fiji 2012; Pearce et al. 2018; Zhao and Li 2015). Despite these challenges, many Indo-Fijian farmers have continued sugarcane farming because this is part of their history and cultural heritage (Singh 2020).

Fieldwork was undertaken in Barotu settlement in Rakiraki, Ra Province, and Toko settlement in Tavua, Ba Province, Fiji (Fig. 1). Ra Province is located in the north of Viti Levu and covers approximately 1341 square kilometres in area. Ra Province has the third-highest incidence of poverty among the 14 provinces in Fiji (Waqainabete-Tuisese 2016), with 53 percent of the population living below the poverty line (Brown et al. 2017). On the other hand, Toko settlement is part of Tavua district located in Ba Province. Tavua district is located in the Western Division on the northeast coast of the island of Viti Levu. The livelihoods of the majority of the population in both provinces are dependent on the agricultural sector.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of study sites in Viti Levu, Fiji Islands

Full size image

Barotu and Toko settlements in Viti Levu were selected as study sites because sugarcane farming not only accounts for the main source of farmers’ livelihood but also frames the way of life because the practice of sugarcane farming has been passed down through generations (Gawith et al. 2016). Additionally, the two rural Indo-Fijian communities have been identified as particularly vulnerable to cyclones through post-disaster assessment needs and climate change studies (Brown et al. 2017; Esler 2016; Magee et al. 2016). Both settlements are surrounded by mountains. Nailawa creek and Nasivi river run through the farming areas of Barotu and Toko, respectively, exposing both settlements to flash flooding during cyclones.

Prior to data collection, ethics approval (H-2019-075) was obtained through the University of Adelaide. Semi-structured interviews with sugarcane farmers were conducted from November 2019 to January 2020. Twenty farmers were interviewed through purposive sampling from each of the two farming communities. The sample farmers (both male and female) were selected based on the following criteria: (i) farmers must have resided and engaged in sugarcane farming in the community for 30 years, (ii) farmers’ main source of income is sugarcane farming, and (iii) farmers severely affected by recent cyclones. In addition, 28 key stakeholders were interviewed from relevant Fijian government ministries, such as the Ministries of Sugar Industry, Ministry of Agriculture, National Disaster Management Office, as well as academics and climate change experts between January 2020 and January 2021.

The interviews were conducted by the lead author. Interviews were organised with consideration of location and time, with each interview guided by a list of key questions and taking around 60 min. Interviews with farmers were conducted in Hindi inside or outside the farmers’ houses in a traditional talanoa style. A talanoa is a process where two or more people talk together, where one person tells a story while the other listens (Pearce et al. 2020). Care was taken to translate interviews from Hindi to English by the lead author to ensure that the translation did not misinterpret or lose meaning. The interviews with government officials were conducted in English, with questions developed from the improved understanding of L&D, emerging from deliberations within local rural communities. A mix of closed and open-ended questions was asked regarding the impact of cyclones on sugarcane farms, the adaptation measures implemented by farmers, and the resulting L&D and response pathways in Fiji’s sugar industry and the country in general. The interviews were audio-recorded, and a journal was used for memo writing to assist the data analysis process. Where the participants did not allow audio recording, the interviewer took notes. The data collected from the interviews and the notes taken were verified before concluding the interviews. The interview data were coded into themes with NVivo 12 Plus and analysed through thematic analysis techniques. Existing theories and definitions were also revised using the whole dataset.

3 Results

3.1 Adaptation measures

Most farmers from both settlements have observed more unpredictable and extreme weather events, including an increase in the intensity and frequency of cyclones over the past decade. This section documents adaptation measures implemented at the household level prior to a cyclone. These adaptation measures are undertaken using local knowledge and experiences that have been gathered over many years.

3.1.1 Farm protection measures

Similar farm protection measures for sugarcane and cash crop farms were noted in both field sites. All farmers from both settlements stated that no adaptation measures were undertaken in the sugarcane farms. Instead, farmers chose to bear the severe impacts of cyclones and associated L&D. Barotu farmer 8 said, “When the cyclone is approaching, we cannot do anything. We wait for the strong wind to blow everything away. There is nothing else we can do.”

Prior to a cyclone, reactive and short-term coping measures were commonly implemented on farmer’s vegetable farms, which local farmers refer to as “cash-crops”. For example, one of the farmers from Barotu settlement mentioned that he prefers to cut the stem of the okra plants close to the ground prior to a cyclone event so that the strong winds do not break the stem (Barotu farmers 12 and 20). Other short-term, reactive coping strategies included picking cash crops immediately before the cyclone. Mature cash crops were hand-picked for household consumption, and the surplus was later sold in the market to earn income (Toko farmer 15).

During the cyclone season, there is also a greater risk of flooding. To avoid cyclonic-associated flood risks, a few farmers from Toko settlement implemented incremental adaptation measures such as planting less or “not have(ing) any crops in the farm” (Toko farmer 15). While planting less would avoid farm losses, at the same time, it is an erosive adaptation strategy because “there is less income in the household”, which could lead to food insecurity (Toko farmer 16). For that reason, to simultaneously overcome the risk of floods and food insecurity, some farmers have relocated and established small vegetable plots next to their houses. Such systems adaptation is an indication that farmers were proactive in avoiding risks, which they recognised were becoming more likely.

The farmers from the study sites were found to implement short-term coping measures to protect their livestock. As traditionally practised, farmers protect their livestock from tree fall by “making sure that they are close to the house and not tied close to a tree” (Toko farmer 15) or “moving their livestock away from the river and from the flood to higher grounds to avoid being swept away by the flash flooding” (Barotu farmer 16). Toko farmer 1 emphasised:

I take care of my livestock and move them to a higher ground level. During the flood, you can see dead cows being washed away in the flooded river. It is a horrible sight.

Women farmers from both field sites pointed out that, during the cyclone season, they felt overburdened with work. For example, women farmers “had to look after their household and their family, as well as their farms” (Barotu farmer 11 and Toko farmer 2). Women farmers who felt overburdened were less able to undertake any farm protection measures and endured the effects of cyclones. As a result, women farmers often suffered particularly severe impacts and were “not able to save anything in the farm” (Toko farmer 20). On the other hand, women farmers who had assistance prior to a cyclone implemented short-term and reactive adaptation measures, which have been commonly practised in the community such as “picking matured vegetables with the help of my children” (Toko farmer 11).

While Toko farmers disclosed secure land tenure, insecure land tenure was noted in Barotu settlement, which limits adaptive capacity and increases vulnerability to climatic risks. Under the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act of 1967, iTaukei communally owned land is leased to Indo-Fijians for 30 years for agricultural purposes (Kumari and Nakano 2016). The short-term land lease agreements and lack of options for land lease renewal after expiry are undermining the sustainability of local sugar production (Singh 2020). For example, long-term investments could be seen as a waste of time and resources if farmers are unsure if they will be able to retain their land. Barotu farmer 14 mentioned, “If I take [adaptation] measures on my farm and if the land is taken from me, then it is just a waste.” The Indo-Fijian tenants face great uncertainty with their land tenure as, in most cases, they are unaware if their land lease will be renewed or if they would become landless (Barotu farmer 1). Therefore, in Barotu settlement, land tenure insecurity is one factor that influences implementation of climate adaptation measures.

3.1.2 Property protection measures

Farmers from both communities undertook similar reactive and short-term measures to protect their properties as cyclones approached. For example, farmers from both settlements secured their houses by “cutting down big trees to prevent damage”, “putting on shutters”, and “securing houses with ropes” (Barotu farmers 5 and 3, and Toko farmer 20). In addition to securing their houses, farmers from Toko settlement also mentioned securing their farming assets such as drums, hose pipes, and storing seeds in a dry place (Toko farmer 9).

Again, women farmers faced particular difficulties in securing their houses. Barotu farmer 10 raised the concern, “I did not have time to prepare for the cyclone. I need help because I live alone. Sometimes, I ask for help but there is no one to help me.” Unable to implement any property protection measures, most women farmers endured the effects of cyclones on their property. On the other hand, some women farmers relied on community cohesion and social networks to assist in securing their houses. Most of the time, women farmers “had to call for help” to secure their property (Toko farmer 17).

3.1.3 Personal protection measures

After the traumatising experience of TC Winston, the farmers from both settlements now prepare for future cyclones by collecting necessary food items, batteries, torches, and first aid kits. Many farmers mentioned, “staying informed and alert during the cyclone season through the radio” (Toko farmer 15). Recalling his experience of TC Winston, Barotu farmer 1 anxiously stated:

TC Winston came very suddenly, and we were not able to prepare ourselves. That is why we have gone through a big trauma to save our lives and we almost died. If we had not taken shelter in our car, then we would have surely died.

Furthermore, many communities in Fiji have an evacuation centre where vulnerable households can seek shelter during disasters such as cyclones and floods (Lal et al. 2009). Farmers from Toko settlement mentioned having an evacuation centre nearby. Despite the severity of cyclones, farmers chose “not go to the evacuation centre. No matter how strong the cyclone is. We prefer to stay at home” (Toko farmer 4). One reason why farmers preferred to stay at home was that they could “look after their house and their livestock” (Toko farmer 18).

On the other hand, Barotu settlement does not have an evacuation centre nearby, and many farmers stated that they had “nowhere to go” and “stayed in our backyard during the cyclone” (Barotu farmers 17 and 7). In the absence of an evacuation centre in Barotu, farmers assisted each other. In particular, Barotu farmers with weak structural houses evacuated to their neighbours’ homes during cyclones. Barotu farmer 4 mentioned, “We had to leave our house when the roof was blown away and we stayed at our neighbours’ place for a few days.” Although no one has been injured during recent cyclones (Barotu farmer 6), the absence of an evacuation centre limits the effectiveness of personal protection measures. Given the severity of recent cyclones, Barotu farmers also pleaded with the government to build an evacuation centre in the community.

3.2 Unavoidable climate change loss and damage

This section documents L&D in Barotu and Toko settlements and Fiji’s sugar industry more broadly.

3.2.1 Loss and damage of crops

Farmers from Barotu and Toko settlements experienced devastating L&D in their sugarcane and cash crop farms from cyclones. Since farmers were unable to implement any adaptation measures in their sugarcane farms, most of the farmers stated that “we lost everything” and “everything was completely destroyed. Our farm was completely wiped out” (Toko farmer 19 and Barotu farmer 1). Given the intensity of TC Winston, farmers believed that L&D were unavoidable and irreversible. “There is nothing anyone can do. The strong winds, heavy rainfall, and floods bring massive loss to the farm. We just stay inside and pray for the cyclone to pass” (Toko farmer 17). Since TC Winston struck during the 2016 planting season (Esler 2016), the production of sugarcane declined drastically (FSC 2016). Stakeholder 16 emphasised, “So, about 50–80 percent of the crop was damaged. So, that year, [the sugar industry] had recorded the lowest production of sugarcane in the entire history of the sugar industry.”

The adaptation measures were insufficient to avoid farm losses in cash crop fields. The farmers from both fields mentioned that “all the cash crop by the river was washed away” (Toko farmer 7). Agreeing with this, Toko farmer 3 mentioned, “The heavy rain brought in a massive flood, and this swept away all my cash crop. I lost almost half of my watermelons.” Although recent cyclones in Fiji have not been as severe as category-five TC Winston, farm losses were still experienced. Toko farmer 19 explained at length.

The cyclone swept through my farm, and nothing was left. After that, we went through a difficult time. We did not know what to do. It hit us really bad, and it took a while for us to get back on our feet. The recent cyclones have not been that destructive, but we still lost about 50 percent of our crops.

3.2.2 Loss and damage to property

Regardless of implementing property protection measures, farmers from Barotu and Toko sustained unavoidable L&D to their houses. Barotu farmer 4 stated, “We tied our house and cut down all the nearby trees. However, with the recent cyclone, we faced a lot of damages. A big portion of my house was blown away.” Barotu farmer 12 recalled his experience with TC Winston:

After our house was blown away, we ran to the nearby farm which had big culverts and we stayed there overnight. We struggled a lot during the cyclone. I had to carry my old mother on my back to a safe place. The wind was so strong that we could not walk upright. We had to crawl.

After houses were lost, many families became homeless and “had no place to stay” (Barotu farmer 6). The following day, farmers “collected whatever housing materials we could find, such as roofing iron and made a small shelter for ourselves” (Barotu farmer 9). Unfortunately, many people stayed in temporary shelters “for more than six months” (Barotu farmer 5), with the extent of L&D so severe that many poor farmers are still recovering in partially built houses (Barotu farmer 6).

Damage was also experienced to vital infrastructure from TC Winston, “such as farm roads, flood gates, buildings and machinery damages, and destruction of nurseries” (Stakeholder 15). There was also damage to “infrastructure supporting livelihoods, such as electricity supply and water” (Stakeholder 11). Important damage to the sugar industry generated by TC Winston was the forced closure of the Penang sugar mill (Stakeholder 16). Due to Penang mill’s extensive damage and non-viability of the facility, the FSC Board decided to permanently cease all operations of the Penang sugar mill (FSC 2016).

3.2.3 Loss of livelihood and income

Due to devastating L&D in their sugarcane, cash crop farms, and properties, farmers’ “income was drastically reduced” by TC Winston (Toko farmer 7). Barotu farmer 1 revealed, “We lost all our cash crop such as okra. For a smallholder farmer like myself, I can earn $200-300 a week just for okra but I lost all this due to the cyclone.” Farmers expressed concerns that “it was a very difficult time” and faced “a lot of financial hardship” (Toko farmers 4 and 7). Many farmers mentioned that, due to loss of their livelihood, farmers had to “start all over again” (Toko farmer 8). However, recovering from TC Winston proved to be difficult as “there was no cash crop to sell” (Toko farmer 2). Due to a lack of household income, farmers from both settlements mentioned that “it took us a while to get back on our feet” (Barotu farmer 13). Barotu farmer 7 explained, “Once a farmer is hit hard like this, it takes time to recover, and we have to put in more effort than before.”

Since the majority of the women farmers were unable to implement farm and property protection measures, they had to bear severe consequences of recent cyclones. Most women farmers stated that the severe L&D from TC Winston had affected their socioeconomic standing. One woman farmer emphasised, “I think that due to Winston, we have been set back twenty years. We lost everything. Now we are slowly trying to recover” (Barotu farmer 6). Similar to the research findings of Warner and van der Geest (2013), this research affirms that vulnerable households suffer more severe and devastating L&D, with women farmers particularly severely affected in this case. Moreover, losses of crops and income had compounding and cascading impacts on households, especially on food security and children’s education. Toko farmer 1 stated:

When the cyclone hits, I lost all my matured sugarcane. During this time, I lost 100 tonnes of sugarcane - almost half of my crops were damaged. This also affects my income and I get worried because I need to send my three children to school.

Farmers from Barotu settlement also highlighted loss of livelihood due to land lease expiry (Barotu farmer 18), with many farmers from Barotu settlement forced to leave farming, relocate, and seek alternative employment. “I would say that almost 40 percent of the people have left and only 60 percent remain in this area to continue farming” (Barotu farmer 8). However, many older farmers are hesitant to leave sugarcane farming due to their strong ties to the industry and a sense of strong attachment to the land (Stakeholders 16 and 24). To maintain land leases and to continue farming, the farmers pay high land rentals and other payments such as goodwill payments to the landowners even this does not guarantee land lease extensions (Barotu farmer 3).

3.2.4 Non-economic loss and damage

The interviews for this research were conducted 3 years after TC Winston. Regardless, many of the participants expressed fear and anxiety while recalling their experiences with the recent TCs. Farmers expressed that “Winston was a very scary experience and since then we have been traumatised” and hoped that the “same severity of cyclone does not come again” (Barotu farmers 18 and 11). Having witnessed severe destruction during TC Winston, many residents expressed feelings of still being at risk and “fearing for our lives” because “the cyclone could have killed us” (Barotu farmer 13 and Toko farmer 20).

After experiencing the severity of TC Winston, one farmer highlighted that “when the cyclone is near, we forget about our farm, and we hide in our house - praying for our lives” (Barotu farmer 1). Evidently, in cyclone-prone communities, traumatic experiences, anxiety, and fear could trap farmers and work to undermine their adaptation measures. Barotu farmer 11 emphasised, “If we do not come out of this trauma, then we cannot move ahead.” Participants’ perceptions of such NELD were that this form of L&D could not be monetised because “it is very difficult to measure”, “cannot be quantified”, and “no money can replace that” (Stakeholders 15 and 8, and Toko farmer 18). This raises important questions regarding what is economic and non-economic L&D in Fijian sugarcane communities.

Additionally, farmers from both communities greatly value their livestock such as chickens, ducks, and goats, which are largely for subsistence production. Farmers categorised elements of the loss of livestock as NELD because it is not compensated for by the government. In this case, many farmers have been unable to purchase new livestock to support their livelihoods through farming (Barotu farmer 16). Loss of cattle was categorised as NELD by Hindu farmers because “cows are sacred animals and have religious significance” (Toko farmer 19). Cows also provide milk and are a source of ghee (clarified butter), which are used in prayers or worship of Hindu gods (Barotu farmer 20). Toko farmer 18 said, “We also value our cattle a lot. Losing them during the cyclone is a very disheartening experience.”

Respondents reported deteriorating emotional well-being after seeing the destruction on their farms. Given the severity of TC Winston, some farmers also faced “great uncertainty” and “did not know what to do” after the cyclone had passed (Barotu farmers 20 and 17). Farmers also expressed feeling “lost and sad” or “trapped” (Toko farmer 18 and Barotu farmer 16). In some cases, the extent of psychological NELD is so severe that farmers did not know how they will “survive and feed the children because everything was gone” (Barotu farmer 20).

Older farmers also classified loss of their homes as both economic and NELD because their family home “has been here for many generations” (Toko farmer 14). Toko farmer 20 highlighted:

The sad thing was that we had this house for three generations. Losing a part of the house was like losing a part of me. For me, my kids, and grandkids have grown here. We have their memories here. So, the damage to the house affected me badly. After TC Winston, I fell sick. I was worried about my house.

In addition to loss of homes, farmers also mentioned loss of place of worship and religious artefacts and books during TC Winston (Toko farmer 20). In many cases, places of worship or temples are located next to farmers’ homes. Barotu farmer 1 said, “My place of worship was ruined, and I was very sad.” Toko farmer 8 also added, “I lost my temple during TC Winston.” The loss of place of worship and temples represents a significant NELD because Indo-Fijian farming communities have established places of worship through priests and prayer rituals.

Additionally, loss of livelihood and relocation due to land lease expiry (as discussed in Section 3.2.3) is distressing because people were forced to leave their birthplaces, seek alternative livelihoods, sever ties with community members, give up their history and identity as sugarcane farmers, and face psychological stress and an uncertain future (Stakeholders 16 and 24). Stakeholder 24 pointed out:

I think the people in the sugar industry have a very strong personal relationship where their forefathers have been in the industry for a very long time - since they arrived from India. So, they have a strong relationship with the sugar industry - especially the older generation. If you ask them to turn away from the sugar industry and do something else, it will be quite difficult for them.

3.3 Addressing climate change loss and damage from TC Winston

Post TC Winston, immediate responses included collecting materials to build a temporary shelter and looking for other essential items such as food, water, medical supplies, and clothes (Barotu farmer 6 and Toko farmer 14). Farmers assisted each other and provided emotional support (Barotu farmer 18). The post-disaster response and recovery included rebuilding houses and re-establishing farmlands (Barotu farmer 19 and Toko farmer 20). Farming tools and seeds were provided to farmers by the Ministry of Sugar Industry. One concern highlighted was the provision of the same crop varieties after disasters for the same production systems, which would result in similar impacts from the next disaster (Stakeholders 1 and 20).

After TC Winston, the Prime Minister’s fund was mobilised for disaster response and relief purposes. For disasters such as TC Winston, the estimated national L&D amounted to FJ$1.9 billion, and the Fijian Prime Minister’s fund was insufficient to address the scale of the destruction. As a result, the Government of Fiji declared a state of emergency and requested international assistance (Esler 2016). A lot of assistance arrived from the public, civil society, donors, development partners, and non-governmental organisations. Farmers also received assistance from the international community such as “the Australian Government was the first one to help” with “military and medical teams” (Toko farmers 16 and 20). Additionally, to assist the affected communities post-TC Winston, people could access money from their Fiji National Provident Fund, a superannuation fund. However, many farmers did not have access to the fund, leaving them reliant on external assistance (Esler 2016).

The Government of Fiji also implemented social protection programs to provide relief to households. These social protection programs included the Poverty Benefit Scheme, a Food Voucher Programme, and the Help for Homes initiative (Esler 2016). The Fijian Government showed commitment to “build back stronger” by organising a Help for Home programme to assist farmers in home reconstruction (UNDRR 2019). However, some farmers claimed that the assistance provided after TC Winston was minimal compared to the damages sustained (Barotu farmer 18). Many farmers tried to rebuild their houses, but financial constraints prevented them from rebuilding to disaster-resilient standards, and houses were rebuilt to comparable standards as before TC Winston (Toko farmer 19), leaving them similarly vulnerable to future events.

Many farmers highlighted that the monetary assistance provided was unmatched by the L&D experienced. In other words, vulnerable communities are disproportionally affected by climatic impacts for which “there is no compensation provided” (Toko farmer 11). At the same time, farmers highlighted that NELD experiences simply could not be reduced to monetary values. Toko farmer 18 pointed out, “We received money according to the damages we have faced. But, losing our ancestral home, you can say no money can replace that.”

Considering the severity of recent cyclones in Fiji, the current mechanisms to address L&D were seen as inadequate. Supporting this claim, stakeholders from the Ministry of Sugar Industry themselves pointed out that “our efforts are negligible in the sugar industry” and “we will need to scale up our efforts to address climate change loss and damage” (Stakeholders 16 and 11). In fact, if efforts to address L&D are not scaled up, Fiji’s sugar industry may encounter challenges to remain operational. Stakeholder 11 emphasised:

Apparently, Fiji’s sugar industry will encounter challenges to remain operational and exist – an immense drop in the cane tonnage supplied, causing a drop in sugar produced, a drop in the quantity of sugar exported, less income, employment affected, and increasing poverty.

4 Discussion

4.1 Adaptation measures

The research findings indicate that there are various adaptation measures to prepare and respond to cyclones in Fiji. These adaptation measures included bearing the effects of cyclones, coping strategies such as reactive and short-term measures, incremental adaptation, and systems adaptation. Yet, during recent severe cyclones, farmers stated that they were unable to undertake any adaptation measures to protect their sugarcane. As a result, farmers were forced to accept the impacts of cyclones on their key farming activity. According to McCubbin et al. (2015), bearing the effects of a stressor is a response employed for conditions that people view as inevitable—people do nothing and accept the loss.

Some farmers implemented reactive, short-term adaptation measures to protect other assets, for example, cutting crops closer to the ground, hand-picking matured crops, and moving livestock to higher ground. Magee et al. (2016) and McNamara and Prasad (2014) noted similar coping measures in Fijian villages. Nevertheless, some incremental adaptation measures implemented in both study sites were erosive in the long term. For example, farmers chose to plant fewer cash crops during the cyclone season, which undermines household income and food security. Systems adaptation in both settlements included relocating small cash crops next to the house to minimise risks from cyclones and flash flooding. Adaptation research has highlighted that systems adaptation offers increased benefits as compared to incremental adaptation (Rickards and Howden 2012; Howden et al. 2013), but these measures are very limited for Fijian sugarcane communities.

While households have shown a willingness to adapt, in the end, the adaptation constraints faced by farmers act to marginalise them further and ultimately increase their vulnerability to cyclones. For example, farmers faced financial constraints when preparing for cyclones and were unable to undertake property protection measures such as securing their houses. Past adaptation studies in the PICs have also documented that financial constraints limit household abilities to implement adequate adaptation measures (Currenti et al. 2019; McCubbin et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2018). Some farmers expressed anxiety while preparing for a cyclone, such that the psychological stress experienced during and after an event, including fear and trauma, could act as a barrier for implementing further successful adaptation measures (Magee et al. 2016).

4.2 Examining climate change loss and damage

Evidently, adaptation measures implemented by farmers are inadequate to avert and minimise severe L&D to property, crops, and income. In many cases, farmers also became homeless and lived in tents for extended periods, with some poor and marginalised farmers still living in partially incomplete homes some years later. Fiji’s sugar industry also recorded its lowest sugarcane production and L&D to vital infrastructure, such as mill closure, that will diminish long-term production. Many farmers are still “just getting by” after largely having to accept L&D. The severity of L&D experienced suggests that the communities are facing experiences well beyond their limits to adaptation (McNamara and Jackson 2019), and they continue to exist precariously between boundaries of “safe” and “unsafe” operating spaces at the adaptation frontier (Dow et al. 2013; Preston et al. 2013; Warner and van der Geest 2013).

NELD documented in both field sites included uncertainty, fear, and trauma, as well as loss of homes, livestock, and places of worship. Participants’ perception of NELD was that it could not be monetised because it is difficult to measure or quantify. Some participants categorised loss of homes and animals as NELD because of sentimental value. Additionally, loss of places of worship and cattle was also considered NELD because of religious significance. This research highlights that people perceive L&D, including NELD, differently according to their personal values, experiences, and social constructs. For example, a loss of a home that existed for many generations was considered NELD by a farmer, while, to an outsider, that particular home would just be a house and conceptualised as an economic loss alone. Therefore, L&D, including NELD, is highly context specific and depends on what people value and how they experience loss.

While the UNFCCC (2021) provides a list of NELD with three major categories: individual, society, and environment, this research argues that UNFCCC’s broad NELD categories do not fully capture NELD such as personal psychological and cultural losses experienced at the local level. Poor understanding and growing concerns about L&D have drawn critical insights into how people experience losses, what people value, and how people engage with loss (Barnett et al. 2016; Tschakert et al. 2019). Recent research on NELD in the PICs has aimed to improve understanding of NELD (McNamara et al. 2021a; McNamara et al. 2021b); however, these studies are again aligned with UNFCCC’s classification of NELD without a critical evaluation of how current categories could be expanded or reconceptualised.

The experiences of sugarcane farmers in Fiji suggest that L&D, including NELD, which often goes unchecked or unnoticed, has the ability to undermine the local SES, weakening systemic resilience, and increasing future climatic risks. Expanding on McNamara et al. (2021b), our research highlights the importance of psychological trauma after a climatic event. Farmers experienced the deterioration of emotional and mental health, which is often undocumented NELD, even though the trauma is still clearly evident many years later. Our research findings also reveal that poor households faced L&D, which had compounding and cascading effects, evident through losses of crops, income, household food insecurity, and children’s education, which they were unable to respond to effectively, again after extended periods. It is, therefore, evident that L&D, including NELD and associated cascading impacts, is not occurring separately within the SES but is inherently interconnected in nature, as has been recognised in other studies in the PICs (McNamara et al. 2021a; McNamara et al. 2021b; Pearce et al. 2018; Thomas et al. 2018), and makes it very difficult for full recovery to be facilitated.

Women farmers suffered severe L&D in comparison to male farmers. One woman farmer mentioned that TC Winston severely affected her socioeconomic status and set her back 20 years. This could be partly explained by women’s huge responsibility towards household and farm commitments, and lack of time and assistance to prepare for disasters (Chandra et al. 2017). A L&D study by van der Geest and Warner (2015) similarly highlighted that vulnerable and marginal households, particularly households led by women, are more likely to suffer severe L&D from recurring extreme climatic events. The relatively weak capacity to prepare and respond, demographic attributes, and socioeconomic standing are regularly cited by scholars as factors that marginalise women and increase their vulnerability to climatic stressors (Chandra and Gaganis 2016; Clissold et al. 2020; Thomas et al. 2018). As the scale and impact of L&D experienced by different social groups are a product of differentiated vulnerability (Boyd et al. 2021), L&D research such as we conducted here not only provides an opportunity to critically reflect on the effectiveness of adaptation measures but also the root causes of SES vulnerability and opportunities for transformation.

Land tenure insecurity, an unresolved issue for many decades, has cascading implications for the sustainability of the sugar industry. Barotu farmers highlighted that insecure land tenure prevents them from implementing farm adaptation measures under changing climatic conditions, limiting their adaptive capacity and enhancing their vulnerability to TCs. Recent research by IPCC (2019) and Murken and Gornott (2022) has highlighted that insecure land tenure affects the ability of vulnerable households and communities to advance climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Already, the expiry of land leases is forcing farmers to seek alternative livelihoods. According to Dean (2022a), in 1994, there were 22,807 registered sugarcane farmers; however, this number declined to 16,666 in 2018, out of which 11,902 were active farmers. The expiry of land leases has not only caused a substantial loss of sugarcane farmers but also sugarcane labourers for cultivation, harvesting, and transport of sugarcane, creating a ripple effect in the sugar industry. Not only have many sugarcane farmers lost their main source of livelihood but the vacated land is often no longer productive, resulting in a decline in sugar production (Naidu 2013). Moreover, giving up sugarcane farming, relocation, and seeking alternative livelihoods create questions for farmers’ identity and sense of belonging. Evidently, our findings demonstrate that climatic and non-climatic factors are a powerful force that enhance SES vulnerability and fuel L&D, including NELD and cascading effects.

Much of the residual climate change L&D in Fiji’s sugar industry is irreversible and could be categorised as unavoidable L&D that cannot be avoided through mitigation and adaptation measures (Verheyen and Roderick 2008). According to Stakeholder 11, under changing climatic conditions, sugarcane farming will become increasingly difficult and Fiji’s sugar industry will encounter growing challenges to remain operational. The sustainability of the sugar industry is being brought into question by changing climatic conditions in association with other domestic and external shocks, such as land tenure insecurity (Kumari and Nakano 2016; Singh 2020). Engaging in sugarcane farming is a way of life for Indo-Fijian farmers, giving them purpose and helping to define them as individuals. The L&D in their sugarcane results in loss of income and the inability to provide for their families’ needs, deterioration of a way of life and well-being, and disruption in self-esteem and identity, which created crises in their ways of being. Farmers who have been part of the sugar industry for many years would identify the collapse of the sugar industry as a loss of identity, loss of history and cultural heritage, and loss of a way of life. Many farmers have also developed a strong sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the land, their community, and the sugar industry. Hence, turning away from the sugar industry and seeking alternative livelihoods are a difficult choice to make.

4.3 Current climate change loss and damage address mechanisms

To address L&D, the Prime Minister’s fund was mobilised after TC Winston for disaster response and relief purposes. The Fijian Prime Minister’s fund, also known as the National Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation Fund, can release up to FJ$1 million for any disaster. The recently established Rehabilitation Fund also receives an annual funding of FJ$2 million (Esler 2016). However, for disasters such as TC Winston, estimated L&D amounted to FJ$1.99 billion (Esler 2016), indicating the severity of L&D, and the governments’ inadequacy to respond effectively. After TC Winston, social protection programmes and humanitarian efforts were scaled up to provide relief (Mansur et al. 2017). The Fijian Government also received strong support from donors, civil society, humanitarian partners, and the international community (Mansur et al. 2017). However, the majority of the L&D from TC Winston remained unfunded (Richards 2018), and our research suggests that has real long-term implications for farmers and their homes, livestock, and ecosystems. Also, the constant use of farming and construction methods similar to pre-TC Winston standards increases the likelihood of comparable L&D when the next disaster strikes the islands.

5 Recommendations

The findings from this study provide valuable lessons and justify the necessity for crucial policy interventions as a way forward. This research recommends short- and longer-term adjustments in agricultural practices, integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, provision of secure land tenure, and the urgent mobilisation of L&D resources, including technical and financial resources at the international level.

To begin with, short- and longer-term adjustments in agricultural practices are required to minimise L&D in Fiji’s sugar industry. Fiji’s sugar industry could aim for a greater focus on resilience by scaling up efforts to diversify its products and production systems (Sachan and Krishna 2021). The Ministry of Sugar Industry, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, could encourage livelihood diversification. For example, integration of other farming activities such as livestock raising could improve farm profitability (Singh 2020). Studies have also shown that livelihood diversification enhances local resilience as it spreads out the risks across socio-ecosystems (Clissold et al. 2020; Giannini et al. 2021). In addition, Fiji’s sugar industry could adopt structural adjustment programmes as a response to the long-term viability of the industry and to support farmers to leave with dignity and resources. The Government of Fiji needs to work with development partners to identify long-term solutions to the heightened risks. However, even externally supported structural programmes are likely to be most suited for farmers who only place an economic value on sugarcane farming rather than farmers who identify sugarcane farming as a cultural heritage and form of identity. It remains uncertain how loss of ethnic identity, cultural heritage, and a sense of belonging could be effectively compensated.

Urgent policy reforms are required for insecure land tenure. Due to insecure land tenure, Indo-Fijian farmers have inequitable access to land for agricultural and livelihood purposes. Insecure land tenure has also resulted in reduced investments on the farm and constrained adaptive capacity of sugarcane farming communities (Kumari and Nakano 2016; Neef et al. 2018; Pearce et al. 2018; Prasad and Tisdell 2006). Hence, the Ministry of Sugar Industry, the Ministry of Land and Mineral resources, and the iTaukei Land Trust Board, in consultation with landowners, should work together and offer farmers secure land tenure and land lease renewal options for agricultural land. Recent study on Fijian sugar industry has highlighted that Indo-Fijian farmers preferred a longer-term 99-year land lease after expiry of their initial leases (Dean 2022b). Ongoing land reforms and innovative land tenure interventions should consider emerging climatic risks, promote climate change adaptation policies and projects, and allow farmers to best respond to climate change (Murken and Gornott 2022). Ultimately, more research is required on land tenure issues to recommend sustainable solutions for Indo-Fijian sugarcane communities.

The L&D experienced by the rural communities provides a compelling case for integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into the Ministry of Sugar Industry’s plans and policies (Gero et al. 2011; Nalau et al. 2016). That planning would increasingly need to account for SES vulnerability, current and future impacts, L&D, and to identify what opportunities exist for policies to incorporate climate considerations for a resilient future. Identifying entry points for weather and climate information into existing policies, services, and products would be a key step. The integration of climate change considerations into existing plans and policies would shift the focus from a business-as-usual approach towards a climate readiness approach. Stakeholders also need to engage with communities to create awareness, advise on policy measures, and develop targeted multi-hazard approaches to reduce current and future risks. It is crucial to improve access to and accuracy of weather forecasts and early warning signals for communities to enable timely responses to cyclones. Such knowledge would enable anticipatory actions that could enhance disaster preparedness, improve adaptive capacity of communities, reduce vulnerability to climatic stressors, and limit L&D (Magee et al. 2016).

At the international level, the UNFCCC’s broad L&D categories do not fully capture the personal and cultural losses experienced at the local level. Any misalignment of the UNFCCC’s L&D categories and the NELD experienced at the local level could result in significant policy gaps. Hence, more research is required to understand local L&D to categorise it effectively. Socio-cultural, gender, psychological, and political factors all need to be considered in L&D policymaking for resource mobilisation. Yet, the level of international L&D action and support has been inadequate and remains a political struggle (Nand and Bardsley 2020). Developing countries are experiencing devastating L&D without having substantially contributed to the problem themselves and, in most cases, have the least capacity to respond to the risks (Bodansky 2017; Huggel et al. 2016; Schinko et al. 2019; Wallimann-Helmer 2015), which has been evident during recent cyclones in Fiji. The L&D experienced by vulnerable countries requires urgent mobilisation of resources. Importantly, the operationalisation of SNLD needs to be accelerated to provide timely technical and financial assistance required by vulnerable countries for implementing approaches to avert, minimise, and address L&D. The experiences from sugarcane farming communities suggest that the functions of the SNLD must be specifically aligned to the needs of developing countries’ communities and institutions to confront the current and future challenges these countries face in addressing L&D.

6 Conclusion

This study contributes to the understanding of adaptation measures and resulting climate change L&D in Fiji’s sugar industry. This study revealed that farmers implemented farm, property, and personal adaptation measures while preparing for a cyclone, although most proved inadequate. Fiji’s sugar industry suffered severe L&D from recent cyclones including loss of property, crops, and income. NELD was also documented in both field sites in the form of growing uncertainty, fear, and trauma, as well as loss of animals, homes, and places of worship. Evidence suggests that L&D, including NELD, is highly context specific and depends on what people value and how they experience loss. Of great concern is the sustainability of Fiji’s sugar industry under changing climatic conditions. Therefore, this research recommends short- and longer-term adjustments in agricultural practices, integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, provision of secure land tenure, and the urgent mobilisation of L&D resources, including technical and financial resources at the international level. Finally, further research needs to be conducted on how socio-cultural, gender, psychological, and political factors influence climate change L&D and how changes in the conceptualisation of L&D could assist vulnerable communities to adapt to future climatic risks.