Grenada LBS Awareness & Implementation
Workshop
Date: April 6-7, 2009
National Stadium, St. George's, Grenada
Draft Report
Background
Grenada faces major threats to local watersheds and the marine environment including:
uncontrolled forest clearance; encroachment by farmers; use of agro-chemicals such as
fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides; siltation of rivers and dams; poor land use practices;
indiscriminate waste disposal; pollution; land tenure rights; and, unplanned developments.
The Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution (LBS) Protocol of the Cartagena Convention is a
regional agreement for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from land-based
sources and activities. It provides a framework for addressing pollution based upon national and
regional needs and priorities. It adopts an approach which focuses upon addressing the sources
of pollution, including the application of most appropriate technologies and best management
practices.
It also promotes the establishment of pollution standards and schedules for
implementation.
At least nine countries must ratify this Protocol before it can have legal force and effect, but thus
far only six countries have ratified. The Workshop will assist Grenada in its deliberations related
to ratification of this Protocol.
The Ministries with responsibility for the Environment and Agriculture in collaboration with the
Ministry of Finance, Planning, Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade & Cooperatives, with the support
of the Global Environment Facility-funded Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas Management
(GEF-IWCAM) Project, held a Land Based Sources of Pollution Awareness and Promotion
Workshop at the National Stadium in St. Georges, Grenada, on the 6th ­ 7th April 2009. See
Workshop Agenda, Appendix 1.
Workshop Objectives
The objectives of the Workshop were to:

raise awareness of the LBS Protocol,

examine its implications for Grenada, and

---

discuss its implementation.
The Workshop also sought to initiate the development of a master plan for a watershed at risk in
Grenada. It is hoped that this master plan will guide the design and implementation of appropriate
measures to minimize the risk posed to life, property and the coastal zone as a result of pollution,
accelerated land degradation and flooding.
Stakeholders from Government, and other non-governmental agencies, including private sector
and community-based organizations participated in the Workshop
Day 1:
Opening Ceremony
Participants were welcomed by Chris Joseph of the Environment Department of the Ministry of
Works. Vincent Sweeney, Regional Project Coordinator, GEF-IWCAM Project, also welcomed
the participants, saying that the GEF-IWCAM Project supported the Workshop as well as the
participation of a number of agencies because it recognized the importance of Grenada's
eventual ratification of the LBS Protocol.
Christopher Corbin reiterated this and pledged the
support of UNEP's Caribbean Regional Coordination Unit as well as the assistance of the LBS
Regional Activity Centres (RACs) in Cuba (CIMAB) and Trinidad & Tobago (Institute of Marine
Affairs).
The Honourable Sylvester Quarless, Minister of State (with responsibility for the
Environment), Ministry of Works, Physical Development, Public Utilities and the Environment,
opened the Workshop, noting the presence of representatives of a number of government
agencies as well as the private sector and Non-governmental Organizations; he hoped that
discussions over the next two days would be constructive and fruitful.
Introduction of Participants
Participants introduced themselves and the organizations they represented.
See Participants
List, Appendix 2.
Introduction to the GEF-IWCAM Project
Mr. Vincent Sweeney, Regional Project Coordinator of the GEF-IWCAM Project provided some
background on the Project, focusing upon its role in the LBS Protocol. The Project objective is to
assist Caribbean Small Island Developing States to adopt an integrated approach to watershed
and coastal areas management.
He introduced the various components of the Project.
Component 1 (Demonstration, Capture and Transfer of Best Practices), Component 3 (Policy,
Legislative and Institutional Reform for IWCAM) and Component 4 (Regional and National
Capacity Building and Sustainability for IWCAM), in particular are relevant to supporting the
objectives of the LBS Protocol.
The RPC stated that resources had been identified within GEF-IWCAM to assist in the
development of model guidelines and reforms. Linkages between national IWCAM reforms and
similar requirements for LBS should help countries meet their ratification requirements through a
funded and resourced process available through the Project. In addition resources had been
identified to assist with the preparation of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) plans,
which under the Global Programme of Action (GPA) have been linked. The Project can therefore
support National Programme of Action (NPA) planning, as part of IWRM planning in support of
the LBS Protocol.
See presentation titled: `The GEF-IWCAM Project; Opportunities for Ratification and Accession
to the LBS Protocol', Appendix 3.

---

Introduction to the LBS Protocol
Mr. Christopher Corbin, AMEP Programme Officer, UNEP CAR/RCU, gave some background on
the Cartagena Convention and the Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution (LBS) Protocol,
describing the benefits it would have for Grenada upon ratification. In 1987 Grenada had signed
the Cartagena Convention and was now considering ratification / accession to the one of its three
protocols, the LBS Protocol. The LBS Protocol has as its objectives to reduce pollution through
establishment of effluent and emission limitations and/or best management practices, and, the
exchange of information o land-based pollution through cooperation in monitoring and research..
It had so far been ratified or acceded to by six countries and would come into force upon
ratification by at least nine. While describing country obligations (e.g. National Planning including
the use of Environmental Impact Assessments, Integrated Coastal Zone and Integrated
Management and Environmental Monitoring and Assessment) upon ratifying / acceding to the
Protocol, he also stressed the many benefits to which countries would then be entitled (among
them new technologies, training and technical support).
Grenada should seriously consider these benefits as well as the fact that actions required to help
them meet obligations under the LBS Protocol are similar to those required to move them towards
meeting the Millennium Development Goals and several other Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs). Ratification would moreover help Grenada to set priorities in the face of
many issues, to obtain additional financial resources through regional collaboration and to find
cost-effective solutions. He again pledged the support and assistance of the UNEP CAR/RCU
office.
See presentation titled: `The LBS Protocol ­ Dispelling the Myths', Appendix 4.
Panel Discussion: Benefits of the LBS Protocol to Grenada
The panel discussion which focused on the benefits of the LBS Protocol to Grenada was
moderated by Christopher Joseph of the Ministry of Environment.
Three panelists, Donna
Spencer of GEF-IWCAM, Christopher Corbin of UNEP CAR/RCU and Alphonsus Daniel of the
CWWA, raised many points, including:
-
A description of the process followed within Trinidad & Tobago leading to
accession. The National Cabinet-appointed Committee shared its views and
unanimously recommended ratification. This Committee was reformulated to
develop the National Programme of Action (NPA) after ratification. Stakeholder
involvement was considered important in developing the NPA. Sensitization
needs to be opportunistic and relentless. Economic and health impacts must be
stressed.
-
Try for some quick successes. Use what is "sexy" to the policy-makers (such as
is done for climate change).
-
CWWA is committed to sit on any committee that comes out of the workshop
deliberations and to support the process.
Questions raised for the panelists included:
-
What were the selling points for the Government of Trinidad & Tobago?
Response: Consistent representation by the IMA helped to reassure the
government that what was being promised would be delivered (such as funding
and technical assistance)
-
How was inter-agency collaboration facilitated in Trinidad & Tobago? Response:
A timeline was set by Cabinet which propelled the process forward, even though

---

not all agencies were fully on board. Even in St. Lucia, all sectors were not fully
on board but all saw that it could address some of their concerns. Designation of
a lead agency was very important (to drive process; as "champion"). Small
incentives helped to keep committee members engaged in St. Lucia (through
small pilot/community activities).
-
How were stakeholders engaged? Response: Local level was involved in finding
the solutions (e.g. pig-farmers upstream impacting on fishermen downstream)
Status of IWRM, the LBS Protocol and considerations for Grenada
Dr. Christopher Cox, Programme Director, the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI)
defined Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), explaining what an IWRM plan is and
its links to other strategies and plans, such as National Environmental Management Systems
(NEMS). He described the structure of a typical IWRM plan and outlined the process which might
be followed. Grenada had, he said, begun by developing an IWRM Roadmap, i.e. a description
of the steps required in the development of a national IWRM plan.
Grenada had, he said, made significant progress, having already prepared a Draft IWRM
Roadmap, ratified a National Water Resources Policy, and defined legislative and institutional
arrangements. Following initiation of the process, a Steering Committee was being established in
addition to process management team. A stakeholder involvement plan was being developed
and implemented.
Here he underlined the importance of having a communications strategy.
Next steps involved conduct of a Situational Analysis and an IWRM Plan Framework, and
evaluation of IWRM Plan options.
Dr. Cox also discussed the similarities between IWRM Planning and the development of National
Programmes of Action (NPAs) which are promoted by the Global Programme of Action (GPA).
He stressed that while IWRM is an overall national framework, the NPA focuses on both fresh
and marine water pollution at watershed level. He gave the example of CEHI's recent work to
develop a Watershed Plan of Action in the Demerara watershed in Guyana. Grenada might find
such an approach useful.
See presentation titled `IWRM and Links to LBS Protocol's National Programme of Action for
Grenada', Appendix 5.
Implementation of a Watershed Activity to address the LBS Protocol
Trevor Thompson of the Land Use Division, Ministry of Agriculture made a presentation that
introduced the St. John's Watershed which was being considered for development of a
Watershed Master Plan to address the LBS Protocol. This Watershed Management Planning
approach will be used as a template that could be replicated in other high-risk watersheds in
Grenada and the Wider Caribbean SIDS.
After describing the St. John's Watershed he discussed many of the issues affecting it. These
include erosion and resulting sedimentation which affects Grande Anse Beach and its reefs
negatively, and repeated flooding of communities in the lower watershed area. In addition there
are manufacturing (e.g. soft drinks, detergent), agricultural, housing, mining and other activities
which are also causing pollution.
The area would be toured later in the day by Workshop
participants.
A three-step approach, to be led by an Inter-agency Collaborative team and to take place over 18
months, is envisaged:
1) initiation and scoping; 2) design and implementation of control
measures; 3) a monitoring and evaluation mechanism. He stressed that the entire effort should

---

be cross-cutting and integrated and that training for various stakeholders would be an integral
part of it.
There was a recognition that policy and decision makers need to be guided by
guidelines that encourage integrated management, that legislation needs to be revamped, and
that successful cases need to be promoted.
See presentation titles `Implementation of a (Watershed) Activity to Address the LBS Protocol,
Grenada', Appendix 6.
Open discussion followed.
Field Trip to St. John's Watershed
A field trip to the St. John's watershed, in which the capital, St. Georges, is located, took place on
the afternoon of April 6, at which time participants were able to view the various activities taking
place in the watershed, many of which are sources of pollution and other environmental risks.
Highlights of the field trip included visits to water treatment works, including intakes and treatment
plants. A number of commercial and institutional activities were also taking place near to the river
and were known to be polluting the river. These activities included automotive repairs, cement
block manufacturing, laundries, soft drink bottling, quarrying and health care facilities. A lot of
poverty was also observed within the watershed, evidenced by squatting.
The Ministry's Communications Officer participated in the fieldtrip and video footage was taken
along the way. Interviews were also conducted with Christopher Corbin, Trevor Thompson and
Chistopher Joseph while in the field.
Following the fieldtrip, Chris Corbin and Vincent Sweeney participated in a 30-minute discussion
with a moderator on the LBS Protocol and the GEF-IWCAM Project which had been arranged by
the Environment Department for the filming of their first episode in a new television series on the
environment called "Environment Grenada".
See Appendix 7: Photos taken on the visit to the St. John's Watershed.
DAY 2:
Recap of Field Trip to St. John's Watershed
Trevor Thompson highlighted the following aspects/observations of the previous day's fieldtrip to
the St. John's Watershed:

wide range of activities impacting the lower watershed in particular

problems exacerbated by the effects of the hurricanes (esp. loss of vegetation and
damage to nutmeg plantations)

problems caused by some human interventions (e.g. alteration in the course of the river
has increased flooding in the River Road area)

there is some knowledge of the kinds of pollution but more analysis is needed

need for increased public awareness of existing threats to health (a `selling point' of the
LBS Protocol)

the provision of clean drinking water is a challenge

striking level of poverty and high unemployment in watershed communities
He concluded by saying that political support would, hopefully, be an outcome of this Workshop
because despite its visibility and efforts in the past to clean up the river, some funded by private
enterprise, there had been little progress.

---

This was followed by a facilitated discussion and a working session to elaborate a
watershed management planning initiative which the GEF-IWCAM project would seek to
support.
Raymond Baptiste of the Ministry of Agriculture proposed an approach to the Watershed
Management Initiative to be guided by five programme components: watershed assessment;
education and awareness; facilitation and planning; monitoring; and technology development and
deployment. The approach had six goals/actions and these were put forward for consideration
during discussion:
1.
Ensure that the Watershed Management Initiative is a broad, consensus-based process.
2.
Ensure that necessary resources are provided for the implementation of the Watershed
Management Initiative.
3.
Simplify compliance with regulatory requirements without compromising environmental
protection and economic activities.
4.
Balance the objectives of water supply management, habitat protection, flood
management and land use to protect and enhance the marine environment.
5.
Protect and/or restore streams, reservoirs, wetlands and the marine resource for the
benefit of fish, wildlife and human uses.
6.
Develop an implementable Watershed Management Plan that incorporates science and
technology that can be continuously improved.
Development of a Watershed Management Planning Initiative
Dr. Christopher Cox discussed watershed management planning, underlining its importance
given the vulnerability of Caribbean island watersheds. This presentation used examples from
Dominica, Guyana and St. Lucia to illustrate Hot Spot identification utilizing GIS to arrive at
recommended land management regimes. It also identified a number of low-cost measures that
could be introduced in order to reduce pollution impacts. These included river-bank stabilization
measures and water breaks.
In the case of the St. John's Watershed, pollutant profiling would have to be done and
environmental stress reduction indicators and process indicators selected to arrive at a watershed
action plan and be able to prioritize.
See presentation titled: `Watershed Management Planning', Appendix 8.
Questions from participants followed:
Q. - How can different intervention measures be used to benefit watersheds?
A. - In the case of St. Lucia different interventions make reference to the management of forest
reserves, water catchment areas so that there is no pollution, although there is no mention of
"watershed" per se. Policy statements need to be translated into day to day operational plans for
reference by the various agencies e.g. forestry, agricultural extension, WASCO etc.
The
Watershed Management Plan should contain a series of recommendations and be a working
document.
In addition the use of creative measures can be effective (e.g. green banks can
effectively hold river courses). There are a large number of technical and other solutions but
appropriateness (including cost effectiveness) to the situation is always a consideration. Small
scale farmer solutions are not the same as industry.

---

Q. ­ In the case of Dominica, to what extent has the government adopted recommendations?
A. -
In that case, recommendations were used to halt a development but it has not gone much
further than that.
Dominica, as an eco-island is more fertile ground for planting seeds of
conservation. The difficulty is that if denying use for development, where would compensation for
environmental services come in? We need to get to this and present these arguments to the
government as well.
Q. - How about legislation regarding intakes on private land?
A. - I cannot say how far they have gotten but longer you wait the more costly it becomes. We
need to stress the economic cost of not intervening.
For example in the case of this stadium
(Grenada National Stadium), what will the cost of not dealing with water pollution be?
Comment ­ Benedict Peters, Ministry of Health explained that regulation under Public Health Act
­ 78.
Pollution of Streams, if enforced, should cover most activities resulting in pollution of
streams.
Enacted in 1953 (?); revised in 1990.
It should also be noted that the St. John's
watershed includes St. Georges so that in each area there should be an officer to enforce. The
penalty is a charge of 50 dollars every day until there is conformity. The most recent prosecution
was 2 years ago. He also noted that at a recent town meeting government had said it was an
opportune time to review legislation; that an environmental court should be set up and fines
should be incentives to government to fund the system.
Development of a Watershed Management Planning Initiative ­ Working Groups
Following this presentation participants were divided into two Working Groups to consider the
following questions related to implementation of a Watershed Management Plan for the St. John's
Watershed.
-
What steps should Grenada take to implement such a plan?
-
What are the critical issues/hazards to be addressed within the watershed? (Consider
NPAs)
-
Who are the key stakeholders that must be involved?
-
What is needed in order to get the necessary buy-in or commitment from key
stakeholders and decision ­ makers?
-
How will the plan be implemented (including budget and manpower/ capacity
considerations)?
-
What can various partners contribute and who should lead the process?
Working Group Presentations / Recommendations:
A number of recommendations were made by the Working Groups in terms of moving the
initiative forward.
They responded to the goals / actions proposed earlier by the Ministry of
Agriculture, which all covered the questions above.
1.
Ensure that the Watershed Management Initiative is a broad, consensus ­ based
process.
Group 1:

Primary
key
stakeholders
(directly
involved)
include:
the
Ministry
of
Works,
Communications, Public Utilities and the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture,

---

Forestry & Fisheries, the Ministry of Health, NAWASA, Farmers Associations, and small
business owners.

Secondary stakeholders (those who benefit or are in some way impacted) include: the
Ministry of Lands, Community Development & Housing,
the Ministry of Tourism, the
utilities (Cable & Wireless and Grenlec), the Grenada Chamber of Industry and
Commerce,
the
Grenada
Hotel
and
Tourism
Association,
Non-governmental
Organizations, and Community-based Organizations.

Thought should be given as to how to incorporate various stakeholders
Group 2:
·
Identify & Use Existing Community Groups: Social, Cultural, Environmental, Religious;
·
Careful Engagement of Political Directorate;
­
Government; Opposition; Constituency Representative;
·
Stakeholders must be seen as equal;
·
Several agencies: water authority, forestry, health & other key institutional stakeholders
from private sector, NGOs and community.
·
Established Agencies already have a clear mandate.
·
Other agencies can play a support role as well as compliance especially where they will
be affected by the interventions.
·
Need for Stakeholder Analysis and build on what has been already done
·
Lead Agency for implementation: Ministry of Agriculture; with support from NGO/CBO
(co-chairing?)
·
Stakeholder analysis should identify clear roles & responsibilities but also take into
account capacity constraints and ability to influence actions both at the policy level and
on the ground in the communities;
·
Advocacy must be a central activity;
·
Critical need for involving Law enforcement, the private sector and the community who
are contributing to the pollution problem;
·
Schools should be integrally involved.
·
Different approaches must be taken to engage all stakeholders ­ e.g. one on one
discussions, improving enforcement.
·
Identify potential media and Ministers that are sensitive to the process, could provide
support and also help in the advocacy efforts and bringing the information out to the
general public;
·
Use of GIS, Environment Grenada etc.;
·
Recognition that there will be a cost to this process including advocacy and innovative
ways will have to explored to facilitate this.
2.
Ensure that necessary resources are provided for the implementation of the
Watershed Management Initiative.
Group 1:

Levy on all utilities e.g. erecting of antennae and poles in a particular watershed to be
used for management of the watershed

Following assessment, direct payments by utilities and other users (e.g. manufacturers)
into a Watershed Management Fund

Following assessment, in cases of private property, where relevant, setting aside of a
buffer zone in lieu of payments?

Gov't - build capacity of Watershed Management Unit (Forestry Dept.) through increase
in staffing, training and larger financial allocation
Group 2:

---

potential sources of funding include existing Environmental Projects ­ IWCAM;

Regional Agencies ­ CEHI, UNEP, UNDP, OECS

MEAs ­ Climate Change, Biodiversity, LBS Protocol;

Private Sector ­ on the ground implementation; adopt a section of the river/watershed;

Government ­ Levies, taxes, incentives, tax rebates; concessions; disincentives; fines;
polluter pays principle; rewarding best practices e.g. buffer strips ­ showcasing, awards
etc.

Need to link levies, taxes and incentives to the actual positive and/or negative practice
occurring;

In-kind contribution ­ technical and human support ­ especially at the community level;

These could be supported by policies, agreements and ultimately legislation; Role for
lobbying/advocacy ­ name and shame; boycotting etc;

Capacity building ­ streamline and coordinate;

To promote monitoring ­ need to demonstrate to the policy makers, the importance of
this data and information for improving decision making;
3.
Simplify
compliance
with
regulatory
requirements
without
compromising
environmental protection and economic activities
Group 1:

Public education and awareness re. existing regulations as well as reasons for these (i.e.
benefits of good practice)

Improved enforcement of existing laws and regulations

Provide incentives to those who comply with the law (look at working examples in some
of the Caribbean SIDS)
Group 2:

Is the legislation and regulation adequate? Are fines adequate?; Are they realistic?

Importance of having the law/regulations in place but with options and alternatives
including non-penal measures;

The name and shame game ­ publishing of results and infractions.

What are the constraints? ­ Enforcement standpoint.

Recovery of the proposed pilot watershed is possible;

Incentives: Maintaining buffer zones

Changes in Land use; attitudes; behavior ­ Poverty/employment issues

Public awareness and education ­ new legislation and regulations!
4.
Balance the objectives of water supply management, habitat protection, flood
management and land use to protect and enhance the marine environment.
5.
Protect and/or restore streams, reservoirs, wetlands and the marine resource for
the benefit of fish, wildlife and human uses.
Both groups discussed questions 4.and 5. at the same time as it was felt they were the same
issue, essentially.
Group 1:

Need to consider key benefits of watershed, what is threatened / in jeopardy; benefits
were given a relative ranking: (1) source of potable water, (2) livelihoods - subsistence /

---

artisanal uses and agricultural production (e.g. nutmeg), (3) maintenance of land and
property value (impact of quarrying), (4) recreation / aesthetics.

In addition, green-based recreation, biodiversity...maintenance of flora and fauna (esp.
birds); flood control / mitigation maintenance of flows for absorptive capacity (infiltrative
and buffering capacity; implications for sewage management were considered important
Group 2:
With regard to protection and restoration there are complex Interactions:

Alleviating Poverty

Housing

Land Ownership

Public Sanitation

Jobs and alternatives provided for existing polluting practices

Zoning

Supporting policies, legislation and regulations;
Specific measures to be taken:

Based on doing a comprehensive pollutant profile: source, type, activity;

Physical Cleanup

Awareness & Education;

Buy back; incentives/disincentives;

Specific focus on schools;

Improved enforcement;

Acquire lands above the dam;

Improved Housekeeping Practices ­ Private Industry
6.
Develop an implementable Watershed Management plan that incorporates science
and technology that can be continuously improved
Group 1:
Determine indicators for each desirable / promoted activity. These activities should be prioritized.
Perhaps they should begin with the appointment of an intersectoral committee to lead the
process. Consideration could be given to preparation of a relevant project proposal for external
funding.
ACTIVITY
INDICATOR
Education & Awareness
Minimum of 4 public awareness consultations amongst
stakeholders in SJW area
Digital mapping of all assets
Already completed by Land Use Division
Digital mapping of all issues and hotspots
On digital maps already held by Land Use Division,
subsequent mapping by community
Designation / zoning of particular areas for
Some Land Capability maps already created; to be
certain uses
completed
Review and update / consolidation of existing
Update legislation regulations to implement the control
legislation and regulations
measures
Installation of storm water management facilities
Reduced levels of siltation by at least 15 percent ...
Establish an effective governance process (e.g.
Intersectoral Committee which meets regularly and reports
intersectoral committee)
to the relevant minister / authority

---

Ensure that local legislative, regulatory and
Ministry with responsibility for the Environment (?) ensures
institutional framework supports obligations to
that Grenada is signatory to various agreements
MEAs
Group 2:
What are the steps to be taken?
·
Obtain Buy in of the government (2) Big launch; (3) Competition for schools; (4) Public
relations campaign; (5) Get to know your water shed (6) Sign Boards; (7) Caption of a
really big thing will happen; (8) Community designed water shed model ­ see Group 1.
What are the critical Issues?
·
Use of inorganic fertilizer; animal slurry; trade effluent, poor agricultural practices;
burning; solid waste from factory and homes; pesticides and weedicides; quarrying within
the water shed; domestic liquid waste; lack of buffer zones; protection of the catchment
areas; spent oil from garages;
Who are the key stake holders?
·
Government Ministries: Agriculture, Environment, Forestry and Health;
·
Statutory bodies: Water Resource Management; Solid Waste
·
Support Ministries: Finance, Tourism
·
Private Sector & Umbrella bodies
·
Community Groups/NGOs
·
Media
What is needed to get the necessary buy in?
·
Massive propaganda campaign
·
Community consultations
·
Bring in persons already involved
How will the plan be implemented?
·
Gather data and prioritize. We need help here ­ review/update of legislation.
·
Who should lead the process?
·
Ministry of Agriculture, Water management Department with collaboration with other
Ministry personnel ­ Intersectoral Cte.
Discussion of Next Steps
Christopher Corbin of UNEP made the following points on the way forward for Grenada:
·
Establish linkages to how the development of this pilot Watershed Management Plan
contributes to Grenada meeting its regional and global commitments such as the LBS
Protocol and the Millennium Development Goals - reduce vulnerability to Climate Change
and alleviate poverty;
·
Identify opportunities for obtaining further support from donors, regional and international
agencies, private sector, NGOs and civil society based on a set of agreed priorities - very
high risk areas; e.g. NOAA's interest in supporting a National Programme of Action for

---

prevention of pollution from land based sources of marine pollution and activities here in
Grenada.
·
Characterize where the interventions are needed at both the watershed/local level
(practical, low cost, sustainable, culturally acceptable and implementable solutions (have
an economic spin off benefit) and also at the national level - e.g. changes in policies,
legislation etc. must occur at the national level;
·
Opportunity that this initiative can be used as a demo/best practice that can be replicated
and/or scaled up at the national level here in Grenada and/or replicated in other
countries.
·
Therefore mechanisms for Documenting the process and the achievements - build on the
small successes.
·
Finally - State of Grenada's Coastal Environment - Contribute to overall assessment of
total pollutant loads entering the marine environment - UNEP in collaboration with CEHI.
After some discussion the following steps were proposed in order to move the process forward
(with those responsible in brackets):
Watershed Management Initiative
-
Consolidate/Articulate (Draft) Plan (CEHI/IWCAM)

Use Workshop Outcome as Background
-
Articulate Budget (CEHI/IWCAM/Government of Grenada (GoG))
-
Identify Resources (UNEP/IWCAM/Others ­ Partners)

CARIWIN (Intern?)

CIMH

SGU

GEF/UNDP Small Grants

NOAA

IMA
-
Establish National Intersectoral Committee (NIC)
-
Identify Roles (NIC/CEHI/UNEP/IWCAM)
-
Engage Stakeholders (NIC; support from IWCAM)

PA/PE

Sensitization
-
Establish Baseline Conditions (IWCAM/CEHI) utilizing:

Students?

GoG

Community members
-
Prioritize Activities (NIC/CEHI)

Conduct Hotspot Assessments
-
Implement Plan (NIC)

Physical Cleanup

Improve "Housekeeping"
LBS Protocol Ratification
-
Provide Background on LBS Ratification to GoG (IWCAM/UNEP)
-
Support GoG through Technical Cooperation Among Countries (IWCAM/UNEP)

Exchange with St. Lucia

LBS Regional Activity Centre at IMA

---

-
Draft Cabinet Note (GoG/C. Joseph)
Closure of Workshop
Vincent Sweeney shared with participants that he and Christopher Corbin, accompanied by Chris
Joseph, were able to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the
Honourable Nazim Burke, earlier. Minister Burke was briefed on the purpose of the mission, on
the GEF-IWCAM Project and on the LBS Protocol. He confirmed the interest of the government
in taking appropriate measures to address pollution of the marine environment and confirmed
their desire to ratify the LBS Protocol, once all necessary steps can be taken. UNEP and the
GEF-IWCAM Project had agreed to assist as appropriate.
Christopher Joseph closed the Workshop, noting that concrete suggestions had been made on
the way forward. The Ministry felt encouraged and pledged its commitment and assistance to the
process. Finally, he thanked all Workshop participants.

---