PROJECT Development Facility

Request for Pipeline Entry and PDF Block B Approval

* Indicate approval date of PDFA

7 Oct 2004

** If supplemental, indicate amount and date of originally approved PDF      

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific

ADB Asian Development Bank

BPoA Barbados Plan of Action

CBD Convention for Biological Diversity

CoP Conference of Parties

CSD12 Commission for Sustainable Development (Conference No. 12)

EA Executing Agency (of GEF)

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation (United Nations)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GWP Global Water Partnership

IA Implementing Agency

ICM Integrated Coastal Management

IWCAM Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management

IW:LEARN The International Waters Learning Exchange and Research Network

IFC International Finance Cooperation (World Bank)

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management

LBS Land-Based Sources (of Pollution)

LDC Least-Developed Countries

LME Large Marine Ecosystem

MEA Multinational Environmental Agreements

NEAP National Environmental Assessment Plan

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OP Operational Programme (of GEF)

PDF Project Development Facility (of GEF)

POPS Persistent Organic Pollutants

SIDA Swedish International Development Agency

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

WHO World Health Organisation

WSP Water and Sanitation Programme

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

WUE Water Use Efficiency

PART I - Project Concept

A. SUMMARY

In 2004, UNDP GEF signed an agreement with the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission to develop an innovative programme on Sustainable Integrated Water Management (IWRM) for the Pacific Island countries. This programme will support Pacific SIDS in the implementation of the Pacific Regional Action Plan that addresses sustainable water management. This plan aims to improve the assessment and monitoring of water resources, reduce water pollution, improve access to technologies, strengthen institutional arrangements, and leverage additional financial resources in support of IWRM. The current Concept Paper and PDF Submission is the result of this agreement.

The aim of this regional project is to assist the Pacific Island Countries to implement applicable and effective Integrated Water Resource Management and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) plans based on best practices and demonstrations of barrier removal. The project will be co-funded by both GEF and the European Unions’s ACP Water Facility in a partnership of mutual aid and assistance. The GEF PDF phase will run parallel with the EU phase and will share expertise and resources to develop model IWRM policies and plans for adoption by the 14 countries. The partners will also work in unison to undertake diagnostic analyses and IWRM ‘hotspot’ identification for the islands, as well as evolving an IWRM Resource Centre for networking, regional and international partnership development.

The Full GEF project that will be built out of this partnership will support the actual implementation of the national IWRM plans, supported by capacity building and training throughout both phases. In particular, the Full GEF project will focus on “on-the-ground” demonstrations of model integrated water resources management and water use efficiency, and the removal of barriers to the effective implementation of IWRM/WUE strategies. To this effect it is intended that significantly more than half of the GEF funding for the Full project will be used ‘on-the-ground’ to support IWRM-related demonstrations.

The End-of-Project scenario will be active and effective IWRM programmes operating in 14 islands towards meeting their WSSD goals, using lessons and best practices captured from Demonstration Projects, and imported from other regional SIDS groups. Similarly, the lessons and best practices from the PIC SIDS will be shared externally with other SIDS groups.

This proposed Full Project responds to the Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters of the Pacific Islands carried out in August 1997. The SAP identifies the priority concerns, imminent threats and root causes, and provides solutions and the proposed activity areas to implement those solutions. These are the target of the proposed Full Project and are discussed in further detail in the text of this PDF Submission.

B. COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

B.1. COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY

All of the countries are eligible under para. 9(b) of the GEF Instrument. One of the key programme gaps which has been identified in the last GEF Business Management Plan (2003) is that of water scarcity (and associated efficiency of water resource use) along with the need for a more integrated approach to the management of ground and surface water supplies. In relation to this, the Business Plan further recognises that there is a need for reform and capacity building focusing on the development of a more cross-cutting approach to water resource management that captures the relationship to other key GEF focal areas such as land degradation, biodiversity and climate change, particularly adaptation. In this context, GEF has agreed that LDCs, SIDS and World Bank IDA nations should receive priority in relation to removing barriers to sustainable integrated water resource management and efficient water usage.

The Pacific Island Countries (PICs) represent 14 countries that fall clearly into the above justification for priority eligibility under the GEF Business Plan guidance. Their inclusion into the GEF workplan would complement the already approved GEF Full Project addressing Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area Management in the Caribbean SIDS, and the recently approved Concept for Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater Management in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS, thereby giving full global coverage by GEF to water resource issues within all eligible SIDS.

B.2. Country drivenness and Regional Ownership

This proposed Full Project has evolved from and responds to the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the International Waters of the Pacific Islands carried out in August 1997. The goal of this SAP was to develop a strategy for the integrated sustainable development and management of International Waters in the region. The priority transboundary concerns for Pacific Island International Waters were defined as arising from the following imminent threats to the health of those waters:

1. Pollution of marine and freshwater (including groundwater) from land-based activities

2. Physical, ecological and hydrological modification of critical habitats

3. Unsustainable exploitation of living and nonliving resources

and the ultimate Root Causes to lie within management deficiencies, particularly those of lack of effective governance, and lack of information and understanding (knowledge deficiency). The SAP proposes to address the root causes of degradation of International Waters through regionally consistent, country-driven targeted actions that integrate development and environment needs. These actions would be designed to encourage comprehensive, cross-sectoral, ecosystem-based approaches to mitigate and prevent imminent threats to International Waters. The SAP provides the regional framework within which actions are identified, developed and implemented. Targeted actions would be carried out in two complementary, linked consultative contexts: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) and Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM). Through the ICWM and OFM approaches, the SAP sets out a path for the transition of the Pacific islands from sectoral to integrated management of International Waters as a whole.

The SAP identifies the solutions to these threats and root causes to be:

0. Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management, and

1. Oceanic Fisheries Management

This Concept for a Full Project proposes to directly address solution A (a separate GEF Project is addressing solution B).

This Concept has further evolved through a combination of regional dialogues and initiatives, and discussions between the GEF Implementing Agencies, SOPAC and the participating countries regarding their needs and priorities for water resource management, and in relation to the guidelines given by GEF Strategic Business Plan of 2003.

In July-August 2002, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) jointly organised a High-Level Regional Consultation meeting in Fiji. The meeting was attended by over 150 representatives of agencies concerned with water resources management, water authorities, service providers, rural development departments, health and environment agencies, regulators and NGOs involved in the water sector, the private sector, regional organisations and international development agencies. This regional consultation concluded with the adoption of a Regional Action Plan, a communiqué and a Ministerial Declaration, along with a commitment from a wide range of stakeholders to form a partnership under the Type 2 Initiative on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene as was submitted to the Commission for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002 and announced at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan in 2003. In adopting the action plan, and its sister strategies, the Pacific Wastewater Policy Statement and the Pacific Wastewater Framework for Action, the ministers and heads of country delegations from 16 Pacific Island Countries and representatives of civil society groups stressed the participatory nature of their deliberations and reinforced their commitment to sharing knowledge to address common water problems and solutions. They noted the unique geographic and physical characteristics, as well as the fragile nature of water resources in small island countries, which impact the health and well-being of their peoples, environment and economic development. They also recognized the important linkages between water resources, water services, and wastewater management, including sanitation and hygiene. The outputs and recommendations of this meeting were endorsed by 18 countries, and the Pacific RAP was formally endorsed by the Heads of State of 16 countries at the Pacific Forum Leaders Summit in August 2003.

The Pacific RAP is structured around six thematic areas. Each theme section consists of key messages to stakeholders with supporting statements drawn from the discussions of the respective working groups at the High–Level Consultation in Fiji. The thematic areas are:

0. Water Resources Management

1. Island Vulnerability

2. Awareness

3. Technology

4. Institutional Arrangements

5. Finance

and Annex 1 provides a summary of the key messages resulting from the consultations on issues raised under each theme.

The concept of inter-regional collaboration and the possibilities for a Joint Programme for Action were also discussed at the High-Level Consultation meeting in Fiji. As a result of these discussions, Caribbean and Pacific organisations (CEHI and SOPAC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding at the Third World Water Forum in Japan in 2003 to implement a JPfA between their 37 member states providing for cooperation on matters including freshwater environment, climate change, capacity building, data and information management, applied research and sharing of expertise.

In January 2005, Mauritius hosted an International Meeting to Review the Programme of Action for SIDS. One of the outputs of this Meeting was the Mauritius Strategy for Further Implementation of the Programme of Action. One of the formal statements within this strategy notes that “SIDS in the Caribbean and Pacific Region have demonstrated their commitment to SIDS-SIDS cooperation with the Joint Programme for Action for Water and Climate. The international community is invited to support the implementation of this programme, and the proposal to broaden it to all SIDS regions”.

C. PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

C.1. Program Designation and Conformity

The Concept conforms to Operational Programme 9 of the GEF Operational Strategy for International Waters. Projects under this OP focus on integrated approaches to the use of better land and water resource management practices on an area-wide basis. The goal is to help groups of countries utilize the full range of technical, economic, financial, regulatory, and institutional measures needed to operationalise sustainable development strategies for waters and their drainage basins. Global benefits are often produced in other GEF focal areas by these projects, and the cross-cutting issue of land degradation is an important element.

Because this Operational Programme includes components devoted to the cross cutting issue of land degradation, and the special conditions and needs of Small Island Developing States, projects in this OP often involve determining what sectoral changes are needed to achieve the goals of sustainable development as well as what type and nature of measures are needed to ensure that the ecological carrying capacity of the water-body is not exceeded (which encompasses the concept of environmental flow maintenance). Consequently, with these considerations (and the area-wide nature of interventions) community involvement and stakeholder participation become especially important in this OP. In addition, projects often involve processes that link biodiversity protection or climate change considerations into the thinking of sectoral managers (water engineers, agricultural officials, tourism development organizations, etc.) to ensure that sectoral policies and activities are modified to address sustainability and to protect aquatic ecosystems. Both the PDF process and the Full Project implementation will ensure adequate stakeholder and community consultation and involvement.

With their special conditions and needs, the GEF OP recognises that SIDS require more integrated approaches to improved land and water management in order to address threats to their water resources. In particular, projects in this component emphasise integrated freshwater basin - coastal area management as key elements to ensure a sustainable future for these island states. The GEF OP specifically identifies certain target issues which SIDS have in common, including protection of water supplies, addressing land and marine-based sources of pollution, vulnerability to extreme (particularly climate-related) events, related downstream coastal area management, sustainable management and protection of biodiversity, and tourism development. Regional groups of SIDS often experience common water-related environmental problems (for example, inadequate protection of water supplies, coupled with poor wastewater management and saltwater intrusion) that can be addressed through the GEF in the context of altering sectoral activities on each island state to meet sustainable development goals. SIDS share common environmental problems, and potential solutions to those problems, that reflect the partnership between their representative regional organizations and the capacity and institutional building needed on each island state to more comprehensively address these problems. This strengthens the requirement for international cooperation among sovereign island states as they seek to identify and utilize cost-effective and appropriate measures to protect their water resources. Both the PDF and the Full Project intend to address the need to evolve and develop more effective intersectoral coordination and management, and further intend to develop strong coordination mechanisms and sharing of experiences and best practices between SIDS not only on a regional level but on a global level.

The proposal also is consistent with the GEF IW Strategic Priorities. In particular it conforms to Strategic Priority IW-3: To undertake innovative demonstrations for reducing contaminants, addressing water scarcity issues and protecting valuable groundwater supplies. It also has linkages to Strategic Priority IW-2: To expand global coverage of foundational capacity building addressing the key programme gaps of water scarcity (and associated efficiency of water resource use). Related to this SP, the proposal also advances the priority GEF has placed on providing support to SIDS and LDCs and fostering of South-South exchanges.

C.2. Project Design

C.2.1. BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Background to GEF Support for SIDS Issues

The ability of SIDS to manage their resources and ecosystems in a sustainable manner while sustaining their livelihoods is crucial to their social and economic well being, and is clearly directly related to GEF’s mandate for protection and sustainable management of biodiversity and international waters. Within the last two decades or more, the special needs of SIDS have been recognized through a number of globally significant conferences and high-level international meetings.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro – 1992)¹ made one of the earliest references to the particular vulnerability of Small Island States to global environmental changes, and highlighted their special needs within the Global Agenda 21, the international programme of action for achieving sustainable development within the 21^st Century. Agenda 21 recommended that a global conference and periodic meetings on the sustainable development of SIDS should be convened. In recognition of this recommendation, the international community and the SIDS governments met in Barbados in 1994 and adopted the Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA)². The BPOA was therefore born out of the Global Agenda 21 and consists of specific actions and measures to support sustainable development of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

In 2002, the international community convened at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), in Johannesburg South Africa³, to review the Global Agenda 21. Once again, SIDS were high on the agenda and the World Summit issued a number of statements related to SIDS that identified priorities, and requested that global resources be targeted to address these priorities. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (arising from the WSSD) identified the need for actions at all levels to urgently assist SIDS in the removal of constraints preventing sustainable development within the context of sound environmental management. The requirements adopted by WSSD which are pertinent to this PDF proposal include A. The need to provide support, including for capacity-building, for the development and further implementation of freshwater programmes for Small Island Developing States, including through the Global Environment Facility focal areas; and B. Provide support to Small Island Developing States to develop capacity and strengthen efforts to reduce and manage waste and pollution and building capacity for maintaining and managing systems to deliver water and sanitation services, in both rural and urban areas.

The WSSD also re-confirmed the international community’s support for the UN Secretary- General’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Among other commitments of support to developing countries, the MDGs adopted the target to halve by 2015 the number of people without access to basic sanitation, and to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. Furthermore, a new target to develop integrated water resources management and water use efficiency plans by 2005 has since been adopted.

In response to these requirements GEF developed related policies through its Operational Strategy that would drive its pipeline development with regard to SIDS issues and concerns. Consequently GEF has confirmed the eligibility of International Waters projects that address the special conditions and needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

In January 2005, the international community met in Mauritius to discuss and review achievements within the BPoA (SIDS +10). The meeting renewed the international commitment and pledges to the MDGs as they relate to SIDS, and adopted the Mauritius Strategy for Further Implementation of the BPoA. This Strategy addresses the issues relating to SIDS and freshwater resources. It notes that:

SIDS continue to face water management and water access challenges, caused in part by deficiencies in water availability, water catchment and storage, pollution of water resources, saline intrusion (which may be exacerbated, inter alia, by sea-level rise, unsustainable management of water resources, and climate variability and climate change) and leakage in the delivery system. Sustained urban water supply and sanitation systems are constrained by a lack of human, institutional and financial resources. The access to safe drinking water, the provision of sanitation and the promotion of hygiene are the foundations of human dignity, public health and economic and social development and are among the priorities for SIDS’.

The strategy continues by explaining the cooperative commitments made between SIDS in the Caribbean and Pacific region (the Joint Programme of Action for Water and Climate), and reaffirms the need to take further and stronger action toward meeting the relevant MDGs, and calls upon GEF to assist in particular with capacity building for the development and further implementation of freshwater and sanitation programmes, and the promotion of integrated water resources management.

GEF is already providing assistance on related issues to a large number of SIDS within the Caribbean, and is currently developing similar assistance initiatives targeting the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS. The inclusion of the Pacific Region into the GEF SIDS work programme will effectively ensure that all GEF-eligible insular global SIDS are receiving a substantial level of assistance to address their more pressing issues related to water resource management and efficient use within the context of the GEF Operational Strategies and WSSD IWRM/Water Use Efficiency targets.

The Concept also needs to be seen in the context of earlier GEF support to the development of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the International Waters of the Pacific Islands (as discussed above under Country Drivenness and Regional Ownership), and the objective of addressing the proposed solutions to the threats and root causes to International Waters as identified in that SAP.

The Pacific Island Countries Context

The Pacific Island Countries (PICs) vary considerably in their size, geomorphology, hydrology, economics and politics. The Pacific region has a wide variety of island types ranging from the large, high volcanic islands characteristic of Papua New Guinea to the tiny low coral atolls of Kiribati and the Marshall Islands in Micronesia. Some of the PICs consist of a few relatively sparsely inhabited islands while others have much more densely populated island groups. Niue, a single 259 sq. km. Island (and one of the world’s smallest self-governing states) with a population of less than 2,000 has no natural surface water features and is entirely dependent on rainfall harvesting and groundwater. In contrast, Papua New Guinea with a population of over 5.5 million and an area of nearly half a million sq. km has more than 11,000 km of waterways, including several large river systems. Consequently, there is clearly a need for a variety of different water governance and resource management strategies and approaches focusing on different scales, and different levels of capacity and need.

However, although the participating Pacific Island Countries (PICs) differ in size, resources and level of development, they do share some common environmental features that can have a profound influence on their development. Geographically, many of the island countries are small, low-lying and isolated which makes them vulnerable to climatic influences such as storms, drought and sea-level rise. Yet many of these same islands are globally significant with regard to biodiversity. Small islands may have relatively limited biodiversity from the point-of-view of species number but, by virtue of their isolation, they are frequently high in rare and endemic species. Pollution levels are generally higher in poorly-developed small islands as a result of lack of infrastructure and options for storage, as well as the frequently porous nature of soils and rocks. Water availability at both surface and ground level is generally unreliable unless suitable storage facilities and management regimes have been adopted. The relatively short length of access to surface water flows (compared to larger islands and continental countries) limits opportunities for abstraction and for storage methods. The strong dependence on agricultural production (for domestic demand and export) places a priority on expansion in this sector by any means available. This creates pressures on the relatively small areas of critical habitat available on these small islands which are in high demand for cultivation and livestock, and which are then heavily fertilised and dosed with pesticides resulting in chemical pollution throughout much of the small island watershed system. Prioritisation and subsidisation of water for irrigation then exacerbates water shortages and problems related to environmental flow. On top of this there is frequently an absence of effective water storage and distribution, inappropriate allocation and abstraction, and an absence of long-term planning for water resource conservation. All of these concerns, and many other closely related issues, threaten water resource management and efficient use within the participating PICs.

Many of the Pacific SIDS therefore share similar problems with regard to water management and conservation, land-based sources of pollution, and issues of environmental flow relating to habitat and ecosystem protection. It is further recognised that SIDS have specific concerns related to climate change and sea level rise. The SIDS also have specific needs and requirements when developing their economies. These are related to small population sizes and human resources, small GDPs, limited land area and limited natural resources.

Annex 2 provides an assessment of each country’s water and related sanitation management status.

In January 2004 SOPAC completed a report on IWRM implementation status in the Pacific Region, commissioned by the Global Water Partnership, as part of its preparation for CSD12 . The report identified a common trend that emerged from the analysis of the status of IWRM in each of the PICs. The trend indicated that while IWRM as an overarching national concept has not been widely used, most PICs have made some advances in the water sector generally. These include institutional arrangements for water resource management and supply and the application of IWRM and catchment principles at the local and regional levels (including the development of partnerships). This report also identifies that it is important to take into account the differences between the PICs in regard to the nature of the water management issues that they face, and the often different situations that can exist even within the same country. IWRM and WUE in the PICs therefore need to address sectoral and organisational issues at the national, regional and local (community) levels.

Table 1 demonstrates the status of the proposed participating countries in relation to Integrated Water Resource Management. It is most unlikely that any of these countries will now meet the international target (under the MDGs) of developing IWRM national plans by 2005 without immediate assistance, and many of them would need substantial support to achieve this aim in the foreseeable future.

The common water resource management and water use efficiency issues throughout the PICS can be summarised as follows:

• An increasing demand for water (potable, irrigation and industrial) coupled to a rise in population, increased tourism and/or expanding development

• Inadequate and inefficient capture, storage and distribution of water resources (small catchments, inadequate rainfall forecasting, poor watershed management, poor infrastructure)

• Pollution and associated reduction in water quality as a result of:

  • Poorly controlled urban and industrial expansion and development

  • Inappropriate domestic waste disposal

  • Inadequate sanitation and drainage infrastructures

  • Inappropriate agricultural practices (erosion of soils, excessive use of agro-chemicals, deforestation).

• Climatic threats to water supplies (e.g. drought, flooding, storm surge, sea level rise).

These can be linked back to root causes as follows:

0. Insufficient knowledge of water resource distribution, flow and management (hydrology, hydrogeology and recharge)

1. Insufficient education, training and capacity in integrated water resource management and water use efficiency (at various levels including government, private sector and community)

2. Lack of access to, and awareness of, appropriate technologies and methodologies for IWRM and WUE (including wastewater management and sanitation)

3. Lack of access to models and demonstrations of IWRM and WUE at national and catchment level appropriate to PICs and SIDS

4. Inappropriate policy, legislation, planning and administration.

TABLE 1: IWRM STATUS OF PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES

(after SOPAC Miscellaneous report 554 – Carpenter and Jones)

C.2.2. BASELINE SCENARIO AND JUSTIFICATION FOR GEF ASSISTANCE

The Baseline Scenario – (Business-as-Usual)

With no active assistance or input from the international community to assist the PICs, the expected general baseline scenario throughout the region can be summarised as follows:

• Deterioration in the availability and quality of freshwater resources

• Loss of water resources through loss of surface and ground storage and recharge areas

• A general failure in coastal and watershed ecosystem functions along with the loss of associated natural habitats and biodiversity

• Increased LBS pollution into the watershed and coastal environment

• A general deterioration of human condition (increased poverty, reduced health and well-being, failed economies, political instability)

• An associated deterioration in GDP and national economic stability

Clearly this is a generalised picture. Some countries may well be able to rise above this predicted scenario and may be able to develop certain aspects of water resource management or increased water use efficiency. But the sustainability of such actions, if undertaken in isolation and in a sectoral and non-integrated manner, would be questionable. Improvements in water collection and effective water storage techniques will be of little avail if pollution to these resources as a result of poor sanitation or inappropriate development continues. Quantity is of little value in the absence of quality. Furthermore, the converse is also true. Addressing and removing sources of pollutants to water supplies is of limited benefit if those supplies are non-sustainable and unreliable (high quality but insufficient quantity). This serves to highlight the urgency to develop integrated approaches to water resource management and water use efficiency.

The Alternative Scenario

In order to address the concerns that have been identified in the Background and Problem Statement

it will be necessary ultimately to focus on the following integrated water resource management and water use efficiency requirements:

• An assessment of existing water resources, including an understanding of hydrology, hydrogeology and recharge characteristics

• Improvement of national information capture and database capacities, and ability to deliver this information to the policy-makers

• An enhanced system of information sharing and networking between SIDS at the regional and inter-regional level

• Increased efforts at sensitisation and awareness across all sectors (including public, private, educational and community).

• Capacity building and training in IWRM and WUE (cross-sectorally and through a multi-stakeholder approach)

• Development of IWRM and WUE plans on a national basis that are applicable to specific national and local needs, and linked to National Sustainable Development Plans

• Identification and testing of appropriate technologies and methodologies for IWRM and WUE (including wastewater management and sanitation) using model demonstrations at both the national and local (catchment and community) level

• The design and implementation of reform mechanisms for national policies, legislation and institutional arrangements relating to IWRM/WUE

In addressing these issues within the context of an Integrated Water Resource Management approach, the proposed Full Project will be directly responding to the needs and recommendations arising for the Pacific Islands SAP prepared by the countries through support from GEF in 1997.

The current Concept and PDF B for a Full GEF Project is being developed in close cooperation and consultation with other partners. In parallel with the proposal for GEF assistance, SOPAC has also submitted a request for assistance to the European Union Water Facility for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP-EU Water Facility).

This SOPAC request to EU for funding is for a Pacific SIDS Integrated Water Resources Management Planning Programme which has been specifically crafted to work in partnership with the GEF assistance. The two projects (EU and GEF) would be mutually supportive and co-financing. This EU-SOPAC project will be a region-wide initiative to support participating countries to develop sustainable national IWRM policies and water efficiency strategies, endorsed by both government and civil society stakeholders, and integrated into national sustainable development strategies (NSDSs). The programme will use a regional support centre to create and strengthen national and catchment water partnerships, and assist them develop IWRM policies and plans. The intention is that this initiative would provide a foundation upon which GEF can undertake a series of IWRM plan implementation activities, coupled to actual demonstrations of IWRM and WUE in action in the different scenarios within the PICS at the national and local level.

The EU-SOPAC project partners would concentrate on the following

0. Creating a Regional IWRM Resource Centre

1. National and Catchment IWRM Partnership Promotion

2. Political and Public Awareness raising of IWRM

3. Support to IWRM National Initiatives to develop IWRM policies and strategies

4. Promoting IWRM Good Governance policies and strategies

5. Capacity Building

A more detailed breakdown of the proposed activities for this EU-SOPAC project are shown in Annex 3.

The GEF project partners would focus on the actual implementation of IWRM and WUE policies and strategies through a process of policy, legislative and institutional reform linked to working demonstrations within selected priority areas and hotspots. This would be a ‘true’, closely coordinated partnership of effort and financing with EU-SOPAC providing critical background delivery to support the GEF implementation process. The two projects would be directly linked through their cooperative and mutually supportive activities at both the PDF and Full Project level of the GEF initiative (see Full Project Components and Outcomes below and Table 2 – Description of Proposed PDF B Components and Activities). The GEF project would be timed so as to implement its PDF B phase during the implementation of the EU-SOPAC project and would be structured to develop its PDF outputs in harmony and coordination with complementary EU project deliveries. The two efforts would be further linked so that as the EU initiative (developing IWRM-related policies, strategies and good governance, along with associated capacity building) draws to an end, the GEF Full Project will plug-in to take over the actual implementation of IWRM and WUE reforms, supported by actual demonstrations of barrier removal at selected hotspots relevant to the varying needs of the different PIC scenarios.

Importantly, SOPAC has also submitted a second request for EU funding through the ACP-Water Facility. This second proposal is to support a Pacific Hydrological Cycle Observing System (HYCOS). Pacific HYCOS will be addressing such issues as developing and implementing national flood forecasting capabilities, implementing water resources assessments in major rivers, creating effective national water resources databases, strengthening drought forecasting capacities, and establishing basic national capacities for water quality monitoring. As such, the HYCOS project would be covering a number of the integrated water resource management and water use efficiency requirements identified as necessary under the Background and Problems statement (particularly the assessment of existing water resources, hydrogeology and recharge characteristics, and the improvement of national information capture and database capacities) and would be directly complementary and supportive to the aims of the GEF project.

Therefore, the overall objective of the partnership assistance would be the development, adoption and implementation of proven and applicable IWRM and WUE plans within the PICS through appropriate demonstration, transfer and replication. It is important to note that the GEF-UNDP IWRM processes for producing national IWRM plans will be discussed carefully with the countries in coordination with the proposed EU initiative to ensure that the EU IWRM initiative for developing national IWRM strategies is consistent with the GEF policies on IWRM development and promotion. In particular, the two project initiatives would be carefully coordinated to ensure that both parties are promoting the analysis of competing water uses and/or conflicts on each islands as part of the IWRM development process, along with effective and comprehensive stakeholder involvement in IWRM plan production (at both local and national level), and the inclusion of downstream coastal areas in the IWRM plan as appropriate so that the effects of sediments, sewage and other land-based and watershed related threats do not appreciably degrade important downstream habitats and ecosystems such as reefs, lagoons and wetlands It is intended that this careful linkage and coordination between the partner agency initiatives and the countries will avoid any tendency toward single-sector approaches to water resource management and water use efficiency and will therefore be consistent with GEF policies on integrating water resource management approaches in a cross-sectoral manner.

In order to achieve this objective, the following Full Project Components and Outcomes are proposed:

1. Implementation of IWRM and WUE – Policy, Legal and Institutional Reforms

This component focuses on the need for implementation of reforms in support of IWRM and WUE. The EU-SOPAC project will carry out much of the background work for this component during the GEF – PDF B phase and in coordination with the PDF B efforts. Consequently, at the inception of the GEF Full Project the Project Team and stakeholders will already have agreed IWRM strategies for each country and the relevant country institutions will already have received initial training in IWRM and WUE. Some guidelines for best practices will also be available. The GEF project will use these achievements and materials to move directly into an implementation stage making full use of the Inter-ministerial Committees adopted during the PDF B and EU-SOPAC project stages) whereby additional capacity building is provided to ensure smooth reforms at policy, legislative and institutional levels; national IWRM strategies are put into action (linked to local and catchment management strategies); sustainability mechanisms are clearly outlined and adopted; and a regular mechanism is agreed and adopted whereby national intersectoral technical groups review IWRM progress and data and make recommendations to the Inter-ministerial Committee on amendments and improvements.

EU-SOPAC GEF Joint Foundation Inputs:

1. Institutional and legislative mapping

2. Development of Manuals and Guidelines for Best Practice

3. Expert support for Implementation Strategy Development

4. Expert support for policy and plan development

5. Initial training for IWRM decision-making and policy development

6. Country specific training requests

7. Political and public awareness raising of IWRM

GEF Full Project Activities:

1. Implementation of national IWRM Technical Review Groups and Inter-ministerial Committees

2. An on-going programme of sensitisation and awareness targeting all sectors with particular emphasis on policy and decision-making levels.

3. Capacity building and support to implementation of policy, legal and institutional reforms agreed to in IWRM Plans

4. Implementation of national IWRM and WUE strategies (as defined by EU-SOPAC Project)

5. Implementation of a regular review mechanism for IWRM and WUE by technical and Inter-Ministerial Committees

Expected Component Outcome: Effective and operational national IWRM/WUE strategies, policy and legislation, and efficient intersectoral institutional arrangements that deliver real water resource management and water use efficiency measures and compliance. A national responsible intersectoral body that had the mandate to oversee an integrated Water resource Management policy along with an integrated approach to water use efficiency. Community and catchment level management endorsed by and supported by the national intersectoral body. Regularly scheduled reviews of efficiency and delivery to allow feedback and fine-tuning.

2. Demonstrations of IWRM and WUE – Removing Barriers to Implementation at the National/local Level.

During the GEF PDF B phase (and in coordination with the EU-SOPAC activities) national IWRM assessments will be undertaken focusing on national needs and priorities and including a diagnostic analysis of areas of critical concern and hotspots. Criteria for the selection of the national Demonstration Projects will also be adopted during this phase, with a specific requirement to focus on any examples of barriers to implementation of national IWRM/WUE strategies (which will have been identified during EU-SOPACs assistance to the countries in policy and plan development). Finally, as part of the PDF B activities in production of a Project Brief/Document, national demonstration sites will be adopted through a process of selection criteria, national priority and regional Steering Committee endorsement. The GEF Full Project will then begin implementation of the Demonstration Projects which will be under frequent review and assessment both for ‘steering’ purposes and to capture lessons and best practices. The Demonstration Projects represent the main thrust of the GEF Project and this will reflected by the priority given to these Demonstrations in the allocation of GEF funding in the Full project (greater than 50% of the total). These lessons and best practices will be fed back into the IWRM review activities scheduled under Component 1 (1.5 - Regular Review Mechanism for IWRM and WUE). The final results from each Demonstration Project will also be assessed and fed into a mechanism for dissemination and replication which will have been developed during the PDF B, and which will make use of the existing networking facilities within SOPAC as well as their proposed Regional IWRM Resource Centre to be set up under the EU-SOPAC project

EU-SOPAC/ GEF Joint Foundation Inputs:

1. Identification of national priorities/hot spots (Diagnostic analysis)

2. National IWRM self-analysis for institutional mapping and water issues

3. Development of Demonstration Site selection criteria

4. Development and adoption of National Demonstration Projects

5. Development of a Dissemination/Replication Mechanism for Demonstration results

GEF Full Project Activities:

2.1 Implementation of selected national demonstrations

2.2 Review and capture of lessons, best practices and best available technology using IW:LEARN as a vehicle for exchange and learning

2.3 Implementation of a Dissemination and Replication strategy for Demonstration lessons to other pertinent PICs at national and local (catchment and community) level.

2.4 Feedback of lessons and best practices into Component 1.5 –Review mechanism

Expected Component Outcome: A series of Demonstration Projects that target particular concerns and barriers relating to the implementation of national IWRM and WUE strategies (see examples below). Capture of lessons, best practices and best available technology to A. feed back into the specific national IWRM/WUE strategy as a barrier removal exercise and B. for use by other PICs at the national and local level. This will involve direct linkages with IW:LEARN for guidance in exchanging experiences and learning among the SIDS.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation – Indicator Assessment

Monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of the IWRM and WUE process, and critical to its effective sustainability. Improvements (and indeed failures) in water resource management and efficient use need to be observable and measurable. Information on such aspects as water quality, distribution efficiency, use by sector, sources of pollution, predicted supply, alternative sources, etc are vital to the process of fine-tuning and improving IWRM and WUE efforts and planning. Both the GEF PDF B phase and the EU-SOPAC project need to develop IWRM indicators. GEF adopts an approach of defining its indicators either as Process (e.g. Policy and legislative reforms, capacity-building efforts, training, etc), Stress Reduction (actual physical changes at the source such as cleaner production, improved sewage treatment facilities, upgraded distribution infrastructure, etc), or Environmental Status (improvements in water quality, rehabilitation of downstream habitats previously threatened and under stress, etc) indicators. The PDF B phase will work closely with the EU-SOPAC project to harmonise these indicators. EU-SOPAC will provide the added advantage of a central clearinghouse for such information at the regional level (through its IWRM Resource Centre) to help standardise the data. Linkages will also be built to another EU-SOPAC project (the HYCOS project) which will be directly focusing on environmental status indicators. The Full GEF Project will then implement national and regional programmes for collecting IWRM indicators by providing capacity building and training at the national level (through SOPAC) and by implementing feed-back mechanisms to process this data into concise information that can guide policy makers and particularly the IWRM Inter-ministerial Committee.

EU-SOPAC/GEF Joint Foundation Inputs:

0. Regional IWRM Resource Centre

1. Development of IWRM Indicators linked to International Waters standard indicators (Process, Stress Reduction and Environmental Status)

2. Development of standardised data collection and reporting formats (HYCOS Project)

GEF Full Project Activities:

3.1 Implementation of national and regional programmes of IWRM indicator data collection, processing and analyses.

3.2 Implement information feed-back mechanism into 1.5 – IWRM technical and policy level reviews

3.3 Implement information sharing with Regional IWRM Resource Centre

Expected Component Outcome: Regional adoption of agreed IWRM/WUE standard indicators (compatible with GEF IWRM indicator use in other SIDS in Caribbean and Atlantic/Indian Ocean groupings). National programmes for data collection active and feeding processed information back into the decision-making process (technical and policy level IWRM/WUE Strategy reviews). A Regional Clearing House for deposition and regional processing of data (at SOPAC).

4. Project Management and Coordination:

A Regional IWRM Resource Centre will be created under the EU-SOPAC project at SOPAC headquarters, and this would almost certainly evolve into a shared Project Coordination Unit for the GEF Full Project. During the joint partnership phase between EU-SOPAC and the GEF PDF B, advantage would be taken of SOPAC’s regional knowledge and experience to select suitable national counterpart institutes for the GEF Project. Furthermore, the EU-SOPAC project will be actively concentrating on developing national and regional partnerships which will also be a focus of the GEF PDF B. In particular, during the PDF B phase, GEF will be looking to develop formal MoUs with partners for both activities and for funding of the Full Project. Under the Full GEF Project the standard procedures of day-to-day management, reporting, monitoring and project evaluation will executed through SOPAC. One particularly important element of this component will be the networking and sharing of information between other SIDS regional groups (with particular consideration being given to promoting the Joint Programme for Action between the Pacific and Caribbean SIDS, and expanding this to include the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS). In this context, the Full Project will develop close links to IW:LEARN and will actively participate with and link into the IW:LEARN Programme. Project staff and appropriate country representatives will be supported in attendance of relevant international meetings (e.g. International Waters Biennial Meetings) to allow for exchange and inter-reaction between SIDS Projects as well as other relevant IWRM projects.

EU-SOPAC GEF Joint Foundation Inputs:

1. Regional IWRM Resource Centre

2. National and Catchment IWRM Partnership Promotion

3. Partnership MoUs for participation and funding

4. Stakeholder/public participation plan

5. Identification of appropriate national counterpart institutes

GEF Full Project Activities:

4.1 Implementation of day-to-day management processes (staff selection and hiring, allocation of responsibilities, disbursement of funds, procurement of equipment, etc)

4.2 Project monitoring and evaluation (standard reporting, independent evaluations, specific evaluations as required, post-project objective evaluation, etc.)

4.3 Regional coordination (Steering Committee meetings, Intersectoral Committee meetings, training workshops, dissemination of information, websites and newsletters, etc.)

4.4 Further strengthening of IWRM and WUE partnerships within PICS region (including development of joint activities and leveraging of funding for further demonstrations)

4.5 Networking and sharing of information and experiences within the project, and with the GEF SIDS regional partners (Caribbean and Atlantic/Indian Ocean groupings). This will include the development of a website consistent with, and in participation with, IW:LEARN.

4.6 Capture and assessment of lessons, best practices and best available technology from other SIDS and other related IWRM/WUE exercises to feed into 1.5 – IWRM technical and policy level reviews

Expected Component Outcome: Effective project management and delivery (reflected through the evaluation and reporting process). Good stakeholder participation at national and local level. Continued effective networking within the PIC participatory countries and between the GEF SIDS regional partners in the Caribbean, Atlantic and Indian Ocean. Good transfer of experiences, lessons, practices and appropriate technologies.

Clearly, the final components of the overall Full Project would be developed in detail during the PDF B process. For example, in response to an initial review of this Concept by GEFSEC it may be appropriate during the PDF B to create a separate and discrete component dealing specifically with international networking, and particularly south-south inter-regional SIDS learning and exchange programmes (currently included under Component 4 on Project Management and Coordination, Activities 4.5 and 4.6). This would be coordinated closely with and through IW:LEARN. Nonetheless, the preceding structure provides an accurate indication of what the project would attempt to objectively address.

A primary focus of the proposed project and its associated funding will be the development of Demonstration Projects (during the PDF phase) and their implementation (through the Full project). These Demonstration Projects will target critical areas of concern so as to provide lessons and best practices for transfer and replication to other PICs with similar issues, both within the current Project proposal’s system boundary, and across to other global SIDS. In particular, the majority of Demonstration Projects will focus on the protection of surface drinking water supplies (watersheds), the protection of groundwater supplies (recharge areas) and the reduction of wastewater pollution from urban areas (including utility reforms, the incorporation of water supply and wastewater treatment into tariffs, etc) and especially sewage pollution reduction. The Demonstrations will be targeting local benefits with a long-term aim of capturing global benefits. Some examples of such Demonstration Projects could include:

• Localised examples of innovative mechanisms for ground water protection (managed and/or protected areas)

• Examples of effective revenue creation for maintenance and improvement of infrastructure through utility reforms, tariff increases (linked to installation of water-saving devices), transferred benefits, water demand management and leakage reduction, etc.

• Strategies for mitigating saline intrusion into over-stressed aquifers

• Pre-feasibility studies for polluted lagoons (sewage inputs, etc) to leverage development bank funding.

• Development of constructive wetlands for wastewater filtration

• Development of best practices to avoid steep gradient agriculture (possibly with strips and buffers) to mitigate effects of soil erosion and high levels of suspended sediments.

• Examples of rationalised ‘beneficiary-pays’ measures relating to resource use and cost of infrastructure (e.g. tourist industry, commercial).

• Flood mitigation measures (both soft engineering eg catchment land use improvements, and hard e.g.. flood retention basins)

• Drought mitigation measures (both soft engineering e.g. land use change and hard e.g. dams, groundwater recharge basins)

• Mining industry land use and pollution monitoring, regulation and enforcement.

• Community management of catchment areas/watersheds (demonstrating resolutions of land ownership rights)

• Demonstrations of community level cost-effective wastewater treatment and sanitation

The Demonstration Projects will therefore address specific issues at a more localised level and resolve them using technologies and practices appropriate to the scale, capacity and financial constraints appertaining to the country and the target area. These target areas will be selected during the PDF process using a combination of National Diagnostic Assessments and Hotspots analyses. Each country would be required to prepare a national report during the PDF stage (in conjunction with the EU-SOPAC requirements to identify national priority issues and to undertake National IWRM self-analyses activities) that summarises their current status regarding specific project issues (water resource management, wastewater management, groundwater management, land degradation, agricultural practices, coastal erosion and exploitation, development policies, climatic vulnerability, etc.). Countries would also be asked to identify their specific priority ‘hotspots’ that need urgent attention in relation to project objectives. Finally they would be requested to develop Demonstration Projects for submission to the PDF Steering Committee. The final Demonstration Project for inclusion in the Full Project would be selected based on a detailed and transparent selection process approved by the countries (through their Steering Committee). One important criteria for selection would be the need to address any barriers to effective IWRM strategy implementation. These could be identified during the development of the IWRM policies and plans (another EU-SOPAC activity). The selection process should then ensure that any national Demonstration Projects address those specific barriers as a lesson in barrier removal which can then be fed back into the national implementation strategy.

GEF funding will focus primarily on both the development of the Demonstration Projects during the PDF B (representing greater than 60% of the PDF B funding), and the execution of those projects on the ground during the implementation of the Full Project (intended to be greater than 50% of the GEF funding allocation for the Full project).

C.3. Sustainability (including financial sustainability)

One of the challenges for the Full Project will be the identification of sustainable mechanisms for maintaining the objectives in the longer term. With this in mind the Full Project would focus on building sustainability through the transfer of benefits realised through better watershed and water resource management back into the management process, and to create a better recognition of the value of a reliable and high-quality resource as a marketable asset. More specifically, the Full Project would assist the countries to implement strategies for recovering the costs of storage and distribution of water resources, to embrace a polluter-pays and beneficiary-pays approach to improved and sustainable water quality, and to market urban wastewater treatment as a service. Inevitably this will require an effective programme of public awareness and sensitisation of policy-makers, and will require legislative reforms as well as institutional capacity building. The Full Project will identify Partners-in-Sustainability (government, private sector, civil, NGOs, etc) by convincing government agencies and their policy level executives of the importance of a long-term package of cost recovery and maintenance, by engaging the private sector into attractive packages of cost-effective servicing, and by positioning and empowering communities to effect their own management strategies for water and wastewater. NGO stakeholders will also be invited to assist in the sustainability process by offering their services to support the long-term aims and objectives of the project beyond its initial lifetime. To this effect, the Full Project would contain a clearly defined Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation Plan as guidance.

The project sustainability will also be achieved through the establishment of the National Interministerial Committees in each country, by the presence and support of the Regional IWRM Resource Centre, and by adoption of the reforms and investments as outcomes of the project. The incorporation of project outcomes in the regular programme of work of both implementing agencies will also ensure the sustainability of the proposed project.

Once the benefits of a strategy of IWRM and WUE have been demonstrated (at both local and national levels) then the concept of sustainability should be much easier to promote. The Full Project itself will focus on the development of sustainability mechanisms (financial, legislative compliance and policy) through the Component on policy, legal and institutional reforms.

C.4. Replicability

A major component of the proposed Full Project will be the demonstration of pertinent, applicable and cost-effective methodologies, technologies and reforms (within the SIDS context) coupled with a process of capture of best practices and most effective strategies, so as to promote transfer and replication of lessons learned throughout the participatory SIDS and beyond. One of the proposed Project Activities will be the Implementation of a Dissemination and Replication Strategy (under Component 2) which will have been developed during the PDF B process. Policy, legal and institutional reform practices that prove to be effective will be shared through a networking process and directly through GEF activities in-country, as well as through regional workshops. Partnerships for transfer and replication (embracing in particular the potential within the private sector and the NGO community) will be also be evolved and utilise the existing JPfA. During the PDF-B a full scale replication strategy for the demonstration projects will be developed in cooperation with IW:LEARN. This will specifically focus on using the IW:LEARN platform for exchange of lessons and practices and to identify and capture existing best practices in IWRM as well as IW project implementation. IW:LEARN will be integrated into the south-south project partnerships and networking that this Full Project will develop between the 3 GEF IW SIDS projects in the Caribbean, the Pacific, and the Atlantic-Indian Ocean regions.

The actual potential for transfer and replication is significant. At the global level, most SIDS share the common problems based around the need to improve water resource management and watershed protection. In addition, there may also be valuable opportunities to transfer and replicate practices and lessons from other GEF and non-GEF SIDS projects around the world. Specifically, the project would identify the most appropriate measures and strategy to implement strong networking and information sharing between the SIDS participating in this Project and the other GEF regional grouping of SIDS initiatives currently in various stages of development and implementation. These include:

• The Caribbean SIDS Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area Management project, which has been approved by GEF Council and is due and implementation in mid-2005.

• The Water Resource Use and Management PDF B for the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS which has already been pipelined and is currently being developed as a PDF B proposal.

This networking and sharing of information, lessons and best practices would be linked into existing knowledge-sharing mechanism such as IW:LEARN and SIDSNet, as well as through existing and expanded MoUs between the regional SIDS using the Regional IWRM Resource Centre. Consistent with the learning strategy of GEF, the project will establish a web site linked to the IW:LEARN central meta-database module. Links will also be made to the UNU IWRM Virtual Water Learning Centre approved for implementation at the University of the South Pacific.

C.5. Stakeholder Involvement/Intended Beneficiaries

The primary stakeholders for the project will be the 14 governments of the SIDS (particularly those institutions dealing with Water Resource Management and Wastewater Management) and the people in the community dependent on access to clean water and requiring more sanitary conditions related to waste handling and treatment on a day-to-day basis. In this respect, the entire population of each of the SIDS will be a beneficiary. However, there will be large-scale global benefits expected also through the demonstration of IWRM and WUE methodologies that are applicable to all SIDS, through the securing of sustainable clean water resources for the islands thereby negating further interventions in this area, and through the development of a sustainable environmental flow strategy to support the conservation and management of unique island biological resources, along with the associated benefits to island economies and potential social improvements.

However, key commercial and public sectors will also benefit considerably from the project, particularly those which are already dependent on clean and easily available water. These include tourism, agriculture, food-processing and other selected industries.

The private sector should also benefit as opportunities arise for the development and implementation of activities and initiatives within the water resource management and wastewater treatment sector. In particular, more cost-effective and pragmatic approaches to related issues within the small-island context will require the evolution of customised technologies and specific sales and services that can be developed and fine-tuned by the private sector as investment and business opportunities. In this regard, the project would aim to develop a high level of involvement and collaboration with the private sector at the earliest stages of project development and implementation. For example, Component 2 - Demonstrations of IWRM and WUE – Removing Barriers to Implementation at the National/local Level should provide opportunities for engaging the private sector into project aims and objectives, bearing in mind that the private sector is currently not well developed throughout most of the PICs.

The NGO community should have a significant stakeholder role in promoting awareness of water management and use issues and concerns, especially in demo projects areas and in presenting the linkages both to human welfare and to sustainable resource, ecosystem and environmental management. The importance of the NGO community will not be overlooked by the project and capacity building of NGOs will be given serious attention during Full Project activities to support the Project’s objectives.

At the grass-roots level, the Project will focus on community involvement for watershed and resource management, and will also look at the capacity building requirements at this level. The communities will benefit from any improvements in resource management and the sustainable maintenance of water quality, both with regard to their living environment as well as their health and welfare. The Full Project will contain a Public Involvement Plan to ensure adequate participation and long-term involvement of civil society. The plan will be developed during the PDF-B. One area of serious consideration that would need to be treated with some delicacy is the region-wide problem associated with land ownership and rights to water resources. This will require extra efforts and careful diplomacy at the community level in order to develop suitable mechanisms for resolving these issues in the context of IWRM and WUE.

As part of the standard requirements and criteria of the Implementing Agencies, young people, women, minority groups and those below the poverty line will be given particular attention in the development of deliverables and activities under the Full Project.

A detailed stakeholder involvement plan will be produced by the PDF process for inclusion in the Project Brief.

D. FINANCING

D.1. Financing Plan

PDF A funds of $25,000 have already been allocated through the Lead Implementing Agency (UNDP) to the development of this project Concept and PDF B Submission. This project Submission is requesting a GEF contribution of $697,950. Financing for the PDF B phase is discussed in Part II under Budget.

Financing for the Full Project will be elaborated and defined through the PDF B process but GEF funding requests are expected to be in the order of $12 million in GEF assistance to the Full Project. The actual distribution of funding across the project components would need to be elaborated through the detailed PDF process between UNEP and UNDP. However, the intention at the Concept stage would be to ensure that at least 50% of the GEF funding during the Full Project goes toward supporting very specific and concrete deliverables within the demonstration projects. A minimum GEF to Co-funding ratio of 1:3 will be maintained and exceeded wherever possible.

D.2. Co-Financing

A primary source of co-financing will come from the EU-SOPAC Pacific SIDS Integrated Water Resources Management Planning Programme, which has been specifically crafted as a co-funded partnership to work alongside the GEF assistance.

The EU-SOPAC IWRM Project will provide co-financing during the GEF PDF B stage of $447,800 (see details below under PDF B BUDGET). The total figure for The PDF B co-financing is estimated at $1,108,200.

A further $4 million will be provided as direct foundation co-funding support to the GEF Full Project through activities identified above under the EU-SOPAC GEF Joint Foundation Inputs. The actual co-funding per activity will be confirmed in the Full Project budget.

The total co-funding contribution from the EU-SOPAC IWRM project toward the GEF PDF B and Full Project will therefore be in the order of US$4.36 million) at a current exchange rate of $1.36:Euro1).

Other potential sources of co-funding for the Full Project will be identified through the PDF stage. Co-funding contributions and assistance would be expected to evolve out of discussions with the participating governments, regional development banks, other international donor agencies, UNDP Country Offices, NGOs, and the private sector. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) would be targeted for discussion. Negotiations would also take place with AusAID, NZAID and other international development agencies that have a history of support to this region. ADB have already expressed a specific intent to support the outcomes of the Pacific RAP and its priority actions as well as its monitoring through the support of the Coordination Unit of the Pacific Partnership on Sustainable Water Management. NZAID is supporting the implementation of the Pacific RAP through a programme that includes capacity building in hydrology and the exchange of climate information as identified in Themes 1 and 2 of the RAP. The European Union is supporting the implementation of the Pacific RAP through a Programme for Water Governance as identified in Theme 5 of the RAP. AusAID will be supporting the implementation of the Pacific RAP through a programme on water quality monitoring and the provision of safe drinking water as identified in themes 1 and 4.

Those NGOs with subject interests in both the thematic and geographical area would be invited to identify appropriate activities which they would consider for co-funding and participatory support. The private sector would also be engaged in dialogue regarding the investment potential in the water resource and wastewater management arena (this would be particularly pertinent to the co-funding of the Demonstration projects). Governments themselves would inevitably incur some financial commitments through the Full Project and this would be clarified and expanded. Full co-funding contributions will be elaborated through the PDF process and confirmed through endorsement letters.

E. Institutional Coordination and Support

The GEF and other Implementing Agency Commitments in this region are substantial and the following constitutes just an initial list of the more obvious projects and initiatives with which both this PDF B and the Full Project would need to coordinate. Some of the more obvious areas for coordination along with some more innovative approaches from which the PDF and Full Project could learn include:

1. Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island Developing States: The long-term objective of this project is to conserve and sustainably manage the coastal and ocean resources in the Pacific Region. Targeted actions are being carried out in complementary linked consultative contexts: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management and Ocean Fisheries Management. The OFM component is now completed and a second phase is currently with GEF for final adoption. The ICWM phase is nearing completion. Consideration is now being given for a second phase. A number of lessons and best practices for working in this isolated and dispersed region could be captured from this project which has dealt with coastal and watershed issues as well as open ocean concerns.

2. The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project: The goals of the Project combine the interests of the global community in the conservation of a marine ecosystem covering a huge area of the surface of the globe, with the interests of some of the world’s smallest nations in the responsible and sustainable management of resources that are crucial for their sustainable development. The Project will support Pacific SIDS efforts as they participate in the setting up and initial period of operation of the new Commission that is at the centre of the WCPF Convention, and as they reform, realign, restructure and strengthen their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities which the WCPF Convention creates and discharge the new responsibilities which the Convention requires. This is another project closely related and evolving from the previous one which may have lessons for working in this region with respect to the diverse nature of the islands.

3. The South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme: This project protects the biological diversity of 14 island states by facilitating the establishment of conservation areas with agreed criteria for development based on long-term ecological sustainability. It supports scientific and technical assessments, trains NGO and government officials, facilitates extensive consultations with local groups, assists with initial management of protected areas, and raises public awareness. There may be useful guidelines here for working in those islands with issues of land-rights and local ownership.

4. Vanuatu – Resource Management: This project proposes to facilitate and strengthen initiatives by traditional landholders and their communities to manage biodiversity through a mosaic of temporally changing small-scale local protected areas (or micro-reserves). The intention is to recognise and support traditional mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, and to build the information base and capacity of provincial authorities to assist communities with biodiversity conservation initiatives. Examples could be captured here regarding the difficulties of working in PNG in consideration of the traditional land-ownership issues which can compete with attempts to address water resource management.

5. Papua New Guinea – Milne Bay Conservation: While Milne Bay’s coastal and marine ecosystems remain in relatively pristine condition compared to those elsewhere, pressures on the environment are escalating and precautionary conservation interventions are needed to foreclose the loss of global conservation values. The project supports community-based conservation management demonstrations working in many different social settings. The community-based demonstration approach which takes into account different social settings may provide some useful lessons to the IWRM project demonstration approach.

6. Traditional Melanesian Marine Management: The project addresses the GEF’s emerging priorities as outlined in its Pillar II on Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors. The Project focuses specifically on the productive marine seascape with its objectives including institutional capacity building, improving awareness and education among the government agencies and local stakeholders, demonstrating mainstreaming, and developing further the lessons and practices for doing so. Again, the traditional focus of this project is very relevant to what the IWRM project will have to address in its demonstrations.

7. Papua New Guinea Biodiversity Conservation and Resource Management: This project provides support for government conservation strategy through assistance in establishing two pilot areas for Integrated Conservation and Development. Includes building technical and institutional capacity of resource centre, awareness enhancement, establishment of biodiversity objects and monitoring criteria, and implementation of sustainable development practices and alternative income opportunities. The project is heavily involved in the problems of determining land use and customary tenure. The project was designed to address the need to work at the landowner level. The problems of land use and customary tenure, and indeed the whole problems of land-ownership is very pertinent to the IWRM project which will expect to implement a demonstration in PNG.

8. Saving Threatened Lowland and Upland Rainforests of Savaii through Community-Based Conservation and Development: The project will assist in conserving and sustainably managing the habitats through a participatory approach, which will empower the indigenous resource owners to plan the conservation and sustainable use of the resources. Attention will be given to in-situ conservation of flora and fauna, preserving traditional knowledge and incorporating customary management approaches into the management of the conservation area. The project will explore alternative income generating activities for communities as incentive measures for conservation. Empowering the indigenous resource owners,, preserving traditional knowledge and incorporating customary and traditional management approaches are all very pertinent to what the IWRM project will need to achieve at the catchment and community level.

9. South Pacific Renewable Energy Initiative: This project is a follow on activity to the Regional Pacific Island Climate Change Assistance project which completed operations in Summer 2000. The GEF funded renewable energy project will have the unique features of capacity building through transfer of experience, methods and results in countries of this region. The expected PIREP project will promote an environment within the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) conducive for the widespread implementation of renewable energy technologies (RETs) through the removal of bias policies (fiscal, financial, regulatory, technical, information) and institutional structures currently favouring fossil fuel-based technologies over RETs. It will also establish the frameworks and capabilities required for the sustainable management (design, implementation, monitoring, maintenance and the evaluation) of applicable renewable energy (RE) projects in each PIC. Appropriate RET demonstration schemes will also be implemented showcasing not only the merits of the technology application but also the process by which such applications are designed, developed, financed, and delivered. Such schemes will cater to replicable and economically profitable "win-win" transactions and activities to kick-start the growth of profitable transactions and a sustainable renewable energy market in the PICs and other Small Island Developing States (SIDS). This project showcases its unique features of capacity building through transfer of experience, methods and results in countries of this region. There may well be valuable lessons here that the IWRM project can capture in developing its own transfer and replication mechanisms.

10. LDC and SIDS Targeted Portfolio Approach for Capacity Development and Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management: The project will assist 48 LDC and SIDS countries that have not yet completed their National Action Plans to develop individual, institutional and systematic capacity for sustainable land management. Eligible countries will be able to access an expedited medium-sized project under the Portfolio Approach. This covers all of the Pacific Island Countries except Kiribati and Vanuatu. Any land management issues and solutions/mitigations are going to be directly relevant to the IWRM project. Capacity development to address land management cannot effectively proceed in isolation from watershed issues and water use management and efficiency. The IWRM project and the SLM project will need to explore synergies very closely.

11. Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building Programme: This is a global GEF-World Bank project that aims to conduct specific, targeted research to fill critically important information gaps in the fundamental understanding of coral reef ecosystems so that management and policy interventions can be strengthened globally. This includes investigations into issues related to coral reefs such as bleaching, connectivity, diseases, modelling, remediation and remote sensing. Many of the LBS problems associated with the SIDS watersheds are having direct impacts on the coral ecosystems associated with the Pacific SIDS. The potential for cooperation between these two projects will be explored carefully during the PDF B.

12. Capacity Building for Observing Systems for Climate Change: The objective of the project is to improve observing systems for climate in developing countries. The project will launch processes that will develop national capacity in a significant number of non-Annex I Parties to participate in systematic observation networks for meeting the multiple needs of the UNFCCC. This process will involve training and assessment, and will help to develop regional Action Plans for improving observing systems. To ensure that the project feeds into National Communications, the workshops will involve national climate change coordinators of enabling activities. Clearly climate change is a major issue for all of the Pacific SIDS, be they steep volcanic peaks or low-lying islands. Any system that is observing climate change can be related to the IWRM problems of the SIDS and their concerns about climate variability, cyclonic flooding, drought, storm-surge, sea level rise and inundation.

13. Strengthening Global Capacity to Sustain Transboundary Waters: The International Waters Learning Exchange and Research Network (IW:LEARN)Operational Phase: To strengthen Transboundary Waters Management (TWM) by facilitating learning and information sharing among GEF stakeholders. This project will provide an ideal template to test the effectiveness of IW:LEARN.

There are, of course a large number of UNDP, UNEP and World Bank initiatives within this area that are not directly related to GEF but which would need to be taken into account during project preparation and implementation. These include UNEP’s Regional Seas initiatives, UNDP’s various Country programmes and project’s and the World Bank’s assistance to capacity and infrastructure development in the region. The PDF B will provide sufficient time and funds to review these in detail, ensure complementarity, avoid duplication, and capture lessons as appropriate.

SOPAC, the Executing Agency, is of course heavily involved in many assistance initiatives within the region, and further details can be found on their website at www.sopac.org. SOPAC's work focuses on providing assistance to its member countries in three key programme areas (see below under Implementation and Execution Arrangements).: SOPAC conducts several long-term projects and programmes at a regional level including:

0. Environmental Vulnerability Index

1. The Sustainable Development Strategy Project

2. Geographic Information Systems And Remote Sensing

3. SOPAC – Island System Management

4. Small Island Water Information Network

5. Wide Area Geographic Information System

6. Pacific Islands Energy Policy and Strategic Action Planning

7. Water and Sanitation Programme

The project would look carefully into possible synergies and lessons relating to these projects also.

E.2. IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS

The project will be jointly implemented by UNDP and UNEP. Both agencies have comparative advantages which will benefit the project objectives. UNDP has a strong country and regional presence and linkages between the project activities and the UNDP country assistance strategies. UNEP offers a strong relationship with its Regional Seas Programme and International Environmental Conventions. The project is designed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by both organisations to achieve good synergies and complementarity with other projects being undertaken in the region. UNDP will serve as the lead Implementing Agency.

SOPAC will act as the Executing Agency for the Project and will provide in-kind support through the provision of office facilities, ICT support, communications, library resources, equipment, regional partnerships, networking, integration with existing and future technical and training programmes, and post-project support of the PICs water resources agencies. SOPAC will be providing concrete regional back-up and assistance through its IWRM Regional Support Centre that will be developed through the EU-SOPAC IWRM project. SOPAC is legally mandated to contribute to the sustainable development, poverty reduction and enhanced resilience of 18 Pacific Island Countries by supporting natural resources development and vulnerability reduction through capacity building, advocacy and awareness raising. SOPAC supports national & regional initiatives & activities in three technical programme areas:

0. The Community Lifelines programme focuses on improving community access to water and sanitation, energy, and information & communication technologies, in resources assessment, development & management; asset management; and governance. Typical activities carried out in Water and Sanitation include: Development and Implementation of regional policies and plans to achieve sustainable water and wastewater management; Advocacy & capacity building for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM); Development of regional and national water partnership; Capacity building in strategic water sector planning and management, hydrological training, water demand management, drinking water quality treatment, on-site sanitation & hygiene promotion; Water governance activities with a particular focus on national inter-agency cooperation; Advocacy & awareness raising of bi-lateral project sustainability, with specific attention to rural community participation and urban cost recovery.

1. The Ocean and Islands programme aims to improve technical knowledge of ocean and island ecosystems for the sustainable management of natural resources.

2. The Community Risk programme aims to build safer communities through improved disaster risk management practices.

A Project Steering Committee will be established during the PDF-B, consisting of one representative from each participating country, representatives of the implementing agencies, representatives of the executing agencies, and other invited stakeholders. This PSC will be headed by an elected Chairman from one of the participating countries. SOPAC will act as the Secretariat for this Steering Committee. It is expected that approximately three meetings will be held during the life of the PDF phase and probably 4-5 during the Full Project. Existing regional bodies will be considered as a possible foundation for the Steering Committee rather than creating a new bureaucracy (e.g. the Steering Committee for the Pacific Water Partnership Initiative on Sustainable Water Management).

National Intersectoral Committees would be established in each country during the PDF phase through the National Focal Points and where available using the existing inter-sectoral arrangements e.g. national water committees, sustained after the 2002 regional water consultations. These would be further guided by technical specialists and agencies in-country. These would continue into the Full Project implementation phase.

High quality technical and financial implementation would be ensured through the supervision and monitoring activities of the two Implementing Agencies (UNDP and UNEP). In this context, the presence of UNDP country offices would be captured and built into the management process.

A full Monitoring and Evaluation plan for the project will be developed during PDF-B.

PART II - Project Development Preparation

TABLE 2- DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PDF COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES

TABLE 3: WORKPLAN FOR PDF B OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

C - Justification

The Background and Problem Statement section above provides strong justification for the need for the project itself. The PDF B is a requirement for the following reasons:

• Insufficient information is currently available to provide a detailed and comprehensive description of the needs of each country regarding IWRM, Wastewater Management and Water Use Efficiency

• The need to recognise and prioritise national hotspots which urgently require attention

• The requirement to identify potential demonstration activities which can:

  1. Provide real and direct mitigations or resolutions to serious national problems, and

  2. Be transferable and replicable within other SIDS.

• The need to develop full and detailed demonstration project submissions to complement the Project Brief. These will be projects within their own right, with their own sets of justifications, eligibilities, budgets, etc.

• Project partnerships will need to be forged, especially with potential co-funders. This necessitates a Project Development phase:

1. To identify and engage suitable partners

2. To negotiate partnership roles

3. To demonstrate proper and transparent participation by ensuring partnership involvement during the project development process

• To provide the necessary time and resources for a fully-participatory stakeholder input to the project development process at both national and regional level.

• To coordinate with the EU-SOPAC project which will run parallel with the PDF B and act as a preparatory phase for the Implementation Phase of the GEF Full Project

D – Budget

Table 4 shows the output budget for the proposed PDF B. It includes the support costs for the PDF Executing Agency. Annex 4 presents a more detailed budget showing expenditure by activity, with descriptions of the actions requiring expenditure. $546,200 of the GEF funding is assistance to the countries (at approximately $39,000 per country) for workshops and direct inputs by specialists and advisors to undertake preparation of National Reports, Hotspot Analyses, review potential Demonstration sites and select final sites. These will be undertaken wherever possible by National Specialists (taking into consideration the shortage of expertise in the PICs, and the need for counterpart assistance and capacity building of human resources), and always through a participatory stakeholder approach. Approximately 60% of the GEF PDF B funding will be used to identify national IWRM and WUE issues, agree and adopt national hotspots and finalise the demonstration Projects. The total requested GEF funds for the PDF B phase are $697,950.

The EU-SOPAC IWRM Project will provide direct co-financing during the GEF PDF B stage of $310,800 to support the cost of the National Technical Specialist involvement in National Reports, Hotspot Analyses and Demonstration Development and Selection. SOPAC itself will provide a further $137,000 as in-kind co-financing through the contributions from SOPAC Experts in time, and the in-kind contributions by way of office support and facilities. The Implementing Agencies (UNDP and UNEP) are expected to contribute $81,500. Another $549,900 in-kind co-financing is expected from the national level by way of counterpart contributions and stakeholder inputs (government, community, private sector). Finally, other Project partners such as International agencies and NGOS are expected to contribute $29,000 in time and attendance. The total figure for co-financing is therefore estimated to be $1,108,200. The GEF contribution versus the co-funding contribution is at a ratio of 1:1.6.

The overall cost of the PDF B phase (GEF assistance and co-funding) amounts to $1,806,150.

Total PDF phase financing including the PDF A amounts to $1,831,150.

TABLE 4: PDF B OUTPUT BUDGET

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Summary of key Thematic Messages linked to the Pacific RAP

Annex 2: National Water Resource and Sanitation Assessments

Annex 3: Proposed EU-SOPAC IWRM Project Components and Activities

Annex 4: Detailed GEF PDF B Output Budget

Annex 5: Response to Reviews

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF KEY THEMATIC MESSAGES LINKED TO THE PACIFIC REGIONAL ACTION PLAN

1. Water Resource Management

1.1 Strengthen the capacity of small island countries to conduct water resources assessment and monitoring as a key component of sustainable water resources management.

1.2 Implement strategies to utilize appropriate methods and technologies for water supply and sanitation systems and approaches for rural and peri-urban communities in small islands.

3 Implement strategies to improve the management of water resources, and surface and groundwater catchments (watersheds) for the benefit of all sectors including local communities, development interests, and the environment.

2. Island Vulnerability

2.1 There is a need for capacity development to enhance the application of climate information to cope with climate variability and change.

2.2 Change the paradigm for dealing with Island Vulnerability from disaster response to hazard assessment and risk management, particularly in Integrated Water Resources Management.

3. Awareness

3.1 A high quality participatory framework should be adopted at the national level to allow for open participation of communities in sustainable water and wastewater management.

3.2 Access to, and availability of information on sustainable water and wastewater management should be provided to all levels of society.

3.3 Water and sanitation education should be mainstreamed into the formal education system.

3. 4 Improve communication and coordination of all stakeholders in sustainable water and wastewater management including government, civil society, and the private sector.

4. Technology

4.1 Appropriate institutions, infrastructure, and information will support sustainable water and wastewater management.

4.2 Utility collaboration and regional partnership to reduce unaccounted-for water will significantly improve the sustainability of utilities and reduce the need for developing new water resources.

4.3 Island specific regional training programmes should be developed, resulting in sustainable levels of skilled and knowledgeable people and communities within the water and wastewater sector.

5. Institutional Arrangements

5.1 Work together through a comprehensive consultative process, encompassing good governance, to develop a shared national vision for managing water resources in a sustainable manner.

5.2 Develop national instruments including national visions, policies, plans, and legislation appropriate to each island country taking into account the particular social, economic, environmental, and cultural needs of the citizens of each country.

5.3 Promote and establish appropriate institutional arrangements resourced sufficiently to enable effective management of water resources and the provision of appropriate water services.

5.4 Recognize and share the water resources management knowledge and skills of all stakeholders at a national and regional level in the process of developing and implementing the national vision.

5.5 National and regional leadership in water resources management should be recognized and encouraged.

6. Finance

6.1 Create a better and sustainable environment for investment by both the public and private sector, by developing and implementing national, sector, and strategic plans that identify the economic, environmental, and social costs of different services and develop pricing policies, which ensure the proper allocation of resources for the water sector.

6.2 Establish financially-viable enterprises for water and sanitation that result in improved performance by developing appropriate financial and cost-recovery policies, tariffs, billing and collection systems, and financial and operating systems.

6.3 Reduce costs through improved operational efficiency, using benchmarking, development of water loss reduction programmes, and improved work practices.

6.4 Ensure access for the poor to water and sanitation services by developing pro-poor policies that include tariffs with lifeline blocks and transparent and targeted subsidies.

ANNEX 2: NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE AND SANITATION ASSESSMENTS

Information for this section has been taken from a variety of sources including:

• ‘Country Briefing Notes’ from ‘Proceeding of the Pacific Regional Consultation on Water in Small Island Countries’. July-August 2002. Fiji (ADB & SOPAC).

• An Overview of integrated Water Resource Management in Pacific Island Countries: A National and Regional Assessment – SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 554 (revised edition). Carpenter, C. and Jones, P. August 2004.

• www.infoplease.com

• www.cia.gov/cia/publications/feedback

COOK ISLANDS

Area: 240 sq. km Highest Elevation: 652 m Population: 21,200 (2004)

GDP per capita: $5,000 Land Use: Arable: 17%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 17% Permanent Crop: 13%

Industry: 8% Other: 70%

Services: 75%

Description: 15 islands, of which 12 are inhabited. North Islands = 7 sparsely populated low-lying coral atolls. South Islands = 8 elevated fertile volcanic islands (most of the population)

Natural Resources: Negligible

Economy: The key economic sectors include agriculture, tourism, black pearls, offshore banking and fisheries. Economic development hindered by isolation from foreign markets, lack of natural resources, periodic devastation from natural disasters, and inadequate infrastructure. The main economy base is agriculture with copra and citrus fruits being the major export. Limited manufacturing focuses on fruit processing, clothing and handicrafts.

Environmental Issues: Generally, in comparison to similar SIDS within the Pacific, environmental impacts are few, but the issue of sound water resource management is one of the main issues facing the Cook Islands.

The Cook Islands sources its water from two main sources. In the Southern Group of islands which includes the main island of Rarotonga, surface water is sourced from springs and streams within catchments valleys, while in the Northern Group of islands, water is sourced from rainwater and groundwater as the islands are coral atolls. Freshwater lens are present, however, the past practice of manually extracting water from wells have been abandoned. The old steel and galvanised pipes are having problems with corrosion and leakage. Replacement of the old pipes by uPVC and polyethylene pipes is in progress on the respective islands to alleviate these problems. Per capita consumption figures of about 260 litres per capita per day are high for a developing country, and water losses throughout the system are thought to be between 50-70%. Like many PIC’s, since water supply issues are dominant in the management of water resources, attention generally has focused on the areas of greater population, namely, the towns and cities. In the Cook Islands, the trend is no different, with the primary focus having been on water supply systems within Rarotonga. The responsibility for water management including regulation falls under the auspices of the Ministry of Works (MoW), but other agencies also have a key interest including the Environment Service, Cook Islands Investment Corporation, Ministry and Finance and Economic Management, and Ministry of Health. The Department of Water Works within MoW is responsible for managing water supply in Rarotonga in consultations with island councils. Community meetings indicated that a significant proportion of the general public has a reasonable degree of awareness of the need to improve the water supply service and quality of water, which is consistent with a high proportion of respondents buying drinking water. Water intake zoning is needed to ensure public and animal access is reduced, thereby reducing possible pollution into the water system.

The Ministry of Health periodically carries out water monitoring for microbiological content (coliform). The water supply in Rarotonga and Outer islands are neither properly filtered nor disinfected. There are coarse filters at some intakes. During the wet season the water supply is often discoloured and turbid and contains silt, sediment and debris. The water system at present is vulnerable to any form of disaster, such as contamination from agriculture chemicals, sanitation contamination and saltwater intrusion.

Septic tank systems are widely used throughout Rarotonga, comprising of a septic tank and a soakaway. The septic sludge is currently dumped on vacant land, or on fields at the request of planters. There is only one reticulated sewerage system on Rarotonga, install in the early 50s. The sewer system collects sewage from the residents and is fed into septic tanks for treatment. The septic tanks were replaced in 1994 with an Enviroflow proprietary sewage treatment plant. But the plant was neither maintained nor operated correctly, and fell into disuse. The raw sewage currently bypasses the plant and flows into the sea.

The common theme in reviewing the water sector in the Cook Islands is that water management and water sector policy generally is not advanced. There is no single national water supply legislation in place except for scattered provisions that address the supply of water to the public such as the Rarotonga Waterworks Ordinance of 1960. In the absence of such a framework, water supply projects especially on the outer islands have been historically implemented without full assessment of their viability, sustainability and impact on the local community and environment. There is no national policy on water, sewerage or sanitation and there is no effective regulatory framework in which the public utilities operate to control and manage water. There is a lack of commercialisation within the water sector – water is provided free in Rarotonga – and there is generally a lack of capacity and expertise including human and technical resources in the water sector, both government and private sector.

The government recognises that improvements to water supply and water resource including catchment management have a direct impact on maintaining a clean environment and attracting tourism to assist economic development. However, like many PICs, the growing capital towns such as Rarotonga continue to be the focus of major infrastructure investment for water supply including major rehabilitation of the distribution network. Such focus continues despite the lack of water supply, sewerage tariffs and ‘demand management’ approaches, and the need for communities to take a greater responsibility for sanitation, wastewater and the environment including the catchment generally. These issues are being addressed albeit slowly by Government of the Cook Islands.

The operation of water supply facilities in the Outer Islands is now subsidised by the National Government, with any consultation regarding water supply generally channelled from the respective Island Secretary. Government priorities now serve to redress past socio economic imbalances within the Outer islands with initiatives based on equity and the alleviation of poorer standards, which help to justify strengthened and cooperative efforts by aid funding agencies.

Positive changes in governance arrangements are in place – for example, the devolution of responsibility from central government to island councils such as the island Council of Aitutaki where Mayors have been elected to allow communities to have a greater say and responsibility in managing local affairs. Furthermore, there is greater awareness of the fragility of the island system and the interdependence between urban and rural land use, water supply, health and environmental issues. This includes the impact of wastewater at the household and island level. In Rarotonga, for example, the Rarotonga Catchment Protection Committee has been established to promote awareness of the importance of land use activities in the catchments and the effects on water quality and environmental health downstream Like many PIC’s, the Cook Islands face increasing development pressures spread out over many islands but with limited and financial, human and technical resources to address water sector issues.

Improvements in water supply and wastewater will make the Cook Islands more attractive to tourists, thus boosting the economic potential of the country. Financial sustainability is a must and the introduction of water tariffs is needed. More independence is needed in the management and operations of the system, which implies a new commercial structure for water supply.

FIJI ISLANDS

Area: 18,270sq. km Highest Elevation: 1,324 m Population: 880,874 (2004)

GDP per capita: $5,800 Land Use: Arable: 11%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 17% Permanent Crop: 5%

Industry: 22% Other: 84%

Services: 61%

Description: Includes 332 islands of which approximately 110 are inhabited. The islands are mostly mountainous and of volcanic origin

Natural Resources: Timber, fish, gold, copper, offshore oil potential, hydropower.

Economy: One of the most developed of the Pacific Islands, endowed with forest, mineral and fishery resources. Sugar exports and rising tourism are the major source of foreign exchange. Sugar represents one-third of industrial activity. Long-term economic problems include low investment and uncertain land ownership rights.

Environmental Issues: Deforestation and soil erosion

The natural terrain in Fiji is one of mostly volcanic mountains. Average annual precipitation over the Fiji group ranges from 1500mm on the smaller islands to over 4000 mm on the larger islands. Topographic affects mean however that much of this falls within the windward side of the islands. High annual, inter-annual and seasonal variation of rainfall makes Fiji particularly vulnerable to floods and droughts.

All urban centres within Fiji have metered, reticulated water supply systems, and many have wastewater treatment facilities. Even though 70% of the population has access to treated, metered reticulated water, continuity of supply is not ideal and maybe in question, particularly in the drier months. This high percentage is achieved because of the concentration of the population in the urban settlements and with urban corridors such as between Lautoka-Nadi and Nausori-Suva. The situation in rural areas is different, with most having their own supplies through subsidized small rural surface or borehole schemes. The smaller islands support significant but much smaller populations and have variable water resources, thus relying on conjunctive use of roof catchments, minor streams and boreholes.

Responsibly for Fiji’s water resources falls within the jurisdiction of the Director of Water and Sewerage in the Public Works Department. The Fiji Public Works Department has responsibility to supply potable water supply to over 80% of the country population. The consistent development of water resources and supply strategies in Fiji has been thwarted by a lack of clear and comprehensive legislation compounded by the number of government agencies that are mandated to deal with water at one level or another. These include the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Lands and Mineral Resources, Health, Regional development, Ministry of Housing Local Government Squatter Settlements and Environment and Agriculture and Irrigation. Hydrology falls within Public Works while the Ministry of Lands and Resources assists in the planning and assessment of ground water resources. Although Fiji is fortunate to have a plentiful supply of freshwater with high rainfall from volcanic islands, droughts and floods over the last twenty years have caused major interruptions to the collection, treatment and reticulation of potable water supplies issues. The symptoms of these impacts have been most noticeable in the towns and cities of Fiji where major water supply shortages and breakdown have been the norm, but also on small outer islands that rely mainly on rainwater.

Legislation related to water resources in Fiji is outdated but has generally served the nation well until recent times given the plentiful supply. Legislation identified as being in need of review to reflect current policy includes the Water Supply Act, Rivers and Streams Act, Native lands Act, Crown Acquisition of Lands Act and Electricity Act. The commercial use of water from groundwater supplies as well as resource management issues in catchments including logging, underlies the need for a comprehensive review of national policy followed by legislation. Many of these issues are politically and socially sensitive in Fiji, with the shortage of water supply in towns and cities and need for major infrastructure investment being a major national ‘front page’ issue for the last decade.

Unfortunately, development in Fiji Islands over the last 15 years has been severely constrained by the political coups in 1987 and more recently in 2000. However, there is much optimism in both the community and government as reflected in the Governments Strategic Development Plan 2003-2005 that places a strong focus on water resource development, primarily in the context of improved supply to the major urban centres of Suva and Nausori. This includes the continued implementation of the Suva/Nausori Regional Water Supply Master Scheme improvements and expansion programme, as well continued support for the Self Help Rural Water Supply Scheme for rural communities. While the government’s vision and action statements relate primarily to the provision of adequate, reliable and safe water supply, it falls short of ‘addressing water and water use in a holistic and integrated manner that considers the multitude of water users’.

Like many PIC’s, the resources given to the assessment of water resources, their sustainability and protection have been far less than resources given to the development of water infrastructure to ensure potable supply. Notwithstanding this, projects are up and running in Fiji which have a clear catchment basis including the Live and Learn River Care project which focuses on mobilising sugar cane communities in the upper inland catchments and the ESCAP funded Nadi River Basin project which takes an integrated approach with stakeholders to managing the important Nadi River catchment from mountains to sea. The need for integrated water resource management including water sector coordination is well recognised and in 2002 the Government established a National Water Committee to oversee the development of a Strategic Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Fiji. The main goal of the committee is to establish a plan and draft national water policy that has a major focus on water resources planning and management including addressing IWRM issues at the national and regional level. A draft national ‘Water Policy for Fiji’ was released in 2003.

Significant educational and awareness programmes are needed particularly in smaller rural, village and semi urban communities to develop a conservation attitude with regard to water. Wells on many small islands are contaminated with faecal coliform due principally to a lack of sanitation, habits and awareness. There is an “aid recipient” mentality on the part of some where high-tech solutions such as boreholes are sought for where simpler solutions such as conjunctive use of water from a number of sources needs to be established, with simpler, more sustainable solutions.

Whilst the development of plans for key areas are being considered for loan funding one major constraint not significantly being addressed is the question of cost recovery, with the cost to consumers for water being low compared to the rest of the region. The Government’s commitment to deliver water for all and to maintain current cost structure means therefore the developing of better efficiencies and reducing wastage.

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Area: 702 sq. km Highest Elevation: 791 m Population: 108,155 (2004)

GDP per capita: $2,000 Land Use: Arable: 6%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 50% Permanent Crop: 46%

Industry: 4% Other: 48%

Services: 46%

Description: 4 major island groups consisting of 607 islands which vary geologically from high mountainous islands to low lying coral atolls and volcanic outcroppings on Pohnpei, Kosrae, and Chuuk.

Economy: Key economic sectors are agriculture (subsistence farming), fisheries and tourism (plus some high grade phosphate deposits). Geographical isolation and poorly developed infrastructure are the major impediments to development

Environmental Issues: Over-fishing, climate change and pollution

About 60% of water resources in FSM exist as surface water in the form of small, intermittent streams that drain catchments areas of limited aerial extent. The streams are dry for about 20% of the year. The development of surface water is therefore inherently expensive, since it requires the construction of dams to impound the surface runoff for use during dry periods. The topography in the stream basins is not conducive to the construction of economical dams. Furthermore, surface water requires extensive and costly treatment, largely to reduce high turbidity, undesirable taste and odours, and to remove all micro-organisms. The remaining 40% of the islands’ water resources exist as groundwater in small, dispersed zones of sedimentary deposits, weathered volcanics and weathered schist. These formations are not conducive to the development of high yielding wells. Drilling through this formation involved costlier investment also. However, the hydrogeology is suitable for multiple, low- to medium-yielding wells in the range of 20-150 gpm. The quality of the ground water is mostly excellent, but many health hazards in the FSM are related to poor water quality and limited water quantity. The small low lying coral islands face severe constraints in terms of both the quality and quantity of freshwater due to limited groundwater resources and protected by a thin permeable water lens. Water use practices, arising from the general historical availability of water from rains, are extravagant when water is available.

All four of the focal islands have coastal mangrove fringes and intermittent development along their coasts, with much less interior development. The natural vegetative cover is dense on all islands and has not generally been disrupted for intensive agriculture use. Whether planned or fortuitous, this has protected watersheds, helping to reduce the rapid runoff and maintaining a reasonable recharge opportunity for the aquifers that are important to each State for a portion of its water supply. The direct runoff from these intense rainfalls, even on these relatively small surface catchments, also provides one important source of water for all four islands; however, in each case, drought periods also arise when supplementation from ground water sources is important, and even critical. The islands are prone to extremely damaging natural disasters, in the form of typhoon, extended drought, landslides, tidal erosion and extensive floods. The islands of the FSM are particularly vulnerable to global warming and climate change and sea level rise. The FSM National Government has planned to launch a long term Infrastructure Development Plan. The IDP considers the future projects concerning Water, Waste Water/Solid Management needs within FSM.

Roof catchments exist in all four islands. In many of the islands, there are no appropriate actions or policy to protect and safeguard watershed and groundwater resources, which poses a threat due to the rapid population growth on the main islands. On the outer islands, there are no piped water systems and the residents rely exclusively on individual rainwater catchments and dug wells. The standard of construction and maintenance of these facilities varies considerably from island to island. The piped water systems utilize stream water sources and consist of a small intake across the stream, a raw water main to the treatment plant (for those systems which incorporate treatment) and a transmission and distribution network. Water treatment is by rapid filtration, followed by chlorination. Only 5 systems out of about 70 have treatment facilities, and most systems supply untreated water. Groundwater systems usually consist of a production borehole fitted with a submersible pump, and a transmission and distribution network. A chlorine injection procedure is sometime incorporated into the system at the wellhead. A total of about 90 boreholes have so far been drilled in the main islands.

Only limited areas are provided with sewerage systems so far and large numbers of household still have pit latrines or other unhygienic excreta disposal systems. Considerable attention is required for planned drainage in the developed areas to protect the road pavement and foothill areas from land erosion and flooding. There are now five sewerage systems, which serve Kolonia town in Pohnpei, Weno Island in Chuuk, Colonia town in Yap, Lelu town in Kosrae and the Tofol administrative area in Kosrae. The sewerage system in Weno Island, Chuuk State is non-functional and raw sewage is discharged into the Weno lagoon, through a 2,000-foot long marine outfall. The FSM is yet to establish an organized system for the collection and disposal of solid waste. There are several poorly constructed and maintained dumpsites throughout the FSM. The dumping of solid waste in particular human excreta is considered on of the FSM’s foremost environmental health problems.

Management of the water sector is complex in FSM as it is managed by a number of tiers of government, namely,

• The FSM national government which provides guidance and assistance including funding support for infrastructure projects to the state governments;

• State governments, which provide funding for capital improvements and operation and maintenance funds in each state. The key utility corporations in each state are the Pohnpei Utility Corporation (PUC), Chuuk Utility Corporation (CPUC), Kosrae Utility Corporation (KUC), Yap State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC) who take the lead role in the management, operations and maintenance of water supply and water resources management in each state, and

• Municipal government, which contribute to funding for capital improvements to local; water supply systems. Municipal governments working with community group and NGO’s maintain many community water systems.

The government of FSM does not have any direct role in setting policy frameworks for the sector. The national government through the Department of Finance and Administration coordinates the mobilisation of funding for water supply projects for State and municipal governments to consider. Existing community based water projects are driven from the state and municipal level. There have been a number of IWRM projects in FSM including the Pohnpei Forestry Watershed Management Project that started in the mid 1980’s. In nearly all of the island states, there are no overarching policies and plans to protect and safeguard watershed and groundwater resources. NGO’s water based projects are few, with many local initiatives taken at the community level with municipal government support. Contamination of indiscriminately discharged human and livestock wastes is a common threat to freshwater resource in all states of FSM. Problems of land access in most states especially in Chuuk makes enforcement difficult. There is no national water committee and no overarching national plan developed to date. Given the diversity of tiers of government and dispersed nature of the populated islands, capacity and expertise in technical, design and planning of the water sector in FSM is limited.

The major threat to the development of the water sector and FSM generally comes from the potential termination of United States (US) funding under the US-FSM Compact of Free Association funding agreements. The US government has been involved in supporting some FSM states in water resource management as a basis to improve water supply quality in villages and towns. They have also been supporting water utilities by providing grants and hence the sustainability of many utilities would be under question if this support were to be reduced and phased out totally. Both national and state governments have recognised the need for realigning the institutions in the water sector to make them more efficient, including financial viability. At the national level, the need for integrated water resources legislation, clear policy and consistent planning approaches for improvement of a sustainable management sector are well recognised by government. Like many PIC’s, donors and development banks such as ADB assist in reform of the water sector primarily with a focus on infrastructure and investment needs. Such needs including water supply, are reflected in the FSM Infrastructure Development Plan, 2003-2017.

As is the case in may SIDS throughout the Pacific cultural and traditional beliefs are entrenched in many peoples way of life in FSM. A good understanding of underlying cultural issues is likely to be very important when establishing water and environmental improvement programmes, particularly in rural areas. Cultural factors therefore affect the way groups use the environment and how they approach health and health services. In case of rural water supply and environmental sanitation the approach of community participation is crucial for sustainable development. Public participation in the water supply sector has historically been very low. There are no national level public education policies with respect to water supply and sanitation issues.

KIRIBATI

Area: 811 sq. km Highest Elevation: 81 m Population: 100.798 (2004)

GDP per capita: $800 Land Use: Arable: 3%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 30% Permanent Crop: 51%

Industry: 7% Other: 46%

Services: 63%

Description: A group of 33 pacific atolls straddling the equator to include the three island groups; Gilbert Islands, Line Islands and Phoenix Islands Mostly low-lying coral atolls surrounded by extensive reefs. 21 of the 33 islands are uninhabited

Natural Resources: Phosphate (production discontinued in 1979 when exhausted). Banabu Island is 1 of 3 three great phosphate rock islands of the Pacific Ocean

Economy: The islands have few natural resources. The phosphate was exhausted at the time of independence. Copra and fishing now form the bulk of production and exports. Tourism represents about one-fifth of GDP. Development is constrained by a shortage of skilled workers, weak infrastructure and remoteness from international markets.

Environmental Issues: Heavy pollution in the lagoon of South Tarawa due to heavy population migration mixed with traditional practices such as lagoon latrines and open pit dumping. Ground water is at risk.

With a land area of only 726 square kilometres, Kiribati has a territorial area of over three million kilometres spread over 33 islands the majority of which are coral atolls. Rainwater in Kiribati is considered only as a supplementary water source. This is due to the uneven distribution of rainfall through out the year. Droughts lasting many months are common, making large storage tanks necessary. This is often very costly and beyond the reach of individuals and community groups. However, people are encouraged under the Law (building permit regulations) to include a tank of sufficient size (Minimum 5 m³) when constructing a new building.

South Tarawa supports the highest population density of the islands. Around 43% of the population now lives on South Tarawa which has a land area of approximately 18 square kilometres. The remaining population is scattered across the dispersed outer islands. Water on South Tarawa as well as outer islands is sourced from groundwater lens and where possible, supplemented with rainwater collection at the household level. The potable water supply from the existing reticulation is insufficient, and often restricted to one hour a day. Shortages of drinking water that have been experienced during prolonged droughts in some islands, appears to point out that the traditional methods of extracting drinking water from the ground are inadequate. Hand dug wells are traditionally excavated in the village area, which is nearly always located fairly close to the lagoon-side beach. Rainwater collection by individuals and institutions, which could substantially alleviate the shortage of drinking water, is not widespread enough. During prolonged droughts the freshwater lens shrinks, causing seawater intrusion. Consequently, the on-going introduction of water supply systems based on wells and galleries located a few hundred meters inland from the village, is absolutely necessary, not only in order to distance the source of water from potential sources of pollution, but also to assure that water will be extracted from the deepest part of the lens, where seawater intrusion is unlikely to occur (as long as the galleries are laid out correctly and are not over-pumped). Desalination technology will remain to be the only other alternative water source Banaba, a raised limestone island located west of Tarawa relies on rainwater harvesting supplemented by small desalination plants. A larger desalination plant supplements the reticulated groundwater system on South Tarawa and was established in 1999.The main draw back of desalination plants for SIDS is the energy cost of running such facilities.

The high incidence of water-related diseases (mainly diarrhoea), particularly on South Tarawa, can be attributed to people still using shallow open hand-dug wells contaminated by nearby sewage soak pits, leaking toilet pipes, and faces from Tarawa lagoon and local pig-pens. Numerous water supply and sanitation facilities installed in the rural areas have broken down. The common type of sanitation system in the country ranges from a simple pit latrine commonly used in the outer islands to sewerage system on the three major centres of South Tarawa; i.e. Betio, Bairiki and Bikenibeu. The raw sewage from the sewerage system is discharged at the edge of the reef without any form of treatment. Compost toilets were introduced in the country very recently, but not very popular and considered culturally unacceptable. Only 6% of the South Tarawa population prefer to use compost toilets. Apart from pit latrines, septic tanks are quite common in the areas of South Tarawa that the sewerage system does not serve. Many water supply systems often have substantial leaks, and an active leak detection and repair program is essential for both delivery systems and individual household systems. The existing seawater-based sewerage system in South Tarawa is both under-utilised and wasteful. Public toilet facilities constructed in high-density areas are run-down and hardly used by the population who have therefore returned to the tradition of defecating on the beaches. Approximately 60% of the population still defecate on the beach at South Tarawa and this figure is substantially higher on the outer islands. The Public Utilities Board, responsible for the water supply and sewerage in South Tarawa, is in dire shortage of technical personnel. The water supply and sewerage systems are not adequately maintained. The water is charged at a very low rate ($5.00 to $10.00 per household per month) to domestic water users while commercial users are charged a very high rate of $5.00 to $8.00 per 1000 litres. Income generated from commercial users represents some 20% of water produced, which is not sufficient to meet the operation and maintenance costs of the water system.

Population densities are far less on the outer islands, and villages still use wells supplemented by galleries, which are often, located inland from villages to avoid pollution of the sources. The relationship between sustaining good water quality and improving poor sanitation practices is clear in this atoll setting where low standards of living are the norm. Outer island communities mainly need the upgrading and rehabilitation of old and damaged water systems originally installed under UNDP Projects. Other villages previously not installed with the system need such water systems to be able to have better access to limited freshwater water sources. Another main concern faced is seawater intrusion to shallow wells particularly in narrower width lands suffering from coastal erosion. The needs of South Tarawa communities are being addressed through implementation of the SAPHE Project. However water issue in terms of water access still exists particularly in areas that are not connected to the Public Utilities Board reticulated water system and in areas and households with lower income.

The institutional arrangements for water are shared between three main agencies – the Water Unit of the Ministry of Works and Energy (MWE), the Environmental Health Unit in the Ministry of Health and Family Planning and the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the water service provider on South Tarawa. The Water Unit in MWE has responsibility for overall water resource management and supply in Kiribati, both urban and outer island. The Environmental Health Unit in the Ministry of Health and Family Planning retains responsibility for water quality monitoring and provision of sanitary facilities in urban and rural villages. The PUB, a government owned corporation, has three key functional responsibilities – the urban water supply on South Tarawa, power generation and sewerage on South Tarawa. There has been a major realignment of functions in all the three main agencies over the last decade and institutional strengthening programmes continue in the PUB as well as the Water Engineering Unit (WEU) within MWE. This includes assistance with hydrology, water quality monitoring and resource assessment, and participatory water resource management and IWRM on the urban water reserves so as to conserve and protect the limited and valuable groundwater resource. A national resources management and protection plan is now being drafted with the assistance of ADB and a national steering committee is established as a result of this technical assistance. The need for overarching water legislation to reflect the refocused institutional roles and activities has been identified but has not been carried out.

The main problems in the water sector relate to (i) water supply on urban south Tarawa (ii) management and protection of the water resource, and (iii) development of capacity in the key water sector institutions including the PUB and WEU.

On South Tarawa, the reticulated groundwater is sourced from a major underground lens at Bonriki and Buota at the apex of South Tarawa and North Tarawa islands. Pumping rates remain conservative whilst water pressure is low due to limited water resources and variations caused by El Nino and climate change. Leakage loss is high due to the age of the systems (late 1970’s aid funded project) and the numerous illegal connections. All of the above have made it difficult for the PUB to increase tariff charges. Given the rising demand for a sustainable urban water supply, the development of groundwater resources into North Tarawa at Abatao and Tabiteuea is a priority. Land issues compounded by the reality of land shortage and complex family land ownership has meant that water reserves set aside for ‘public’ water supply have been under increasing pressure from squatters and agricultural/plantation uses. These issues continue to plague the protection of the current major reserves at Bonriki and Buota, thus leading to the establishment in 2002 of Water Reserve Management Committees. These partnerships with communities and government are now working through the numerous water resource management issues including annual compensation payments, squatter removal, cemetery relocation and appropriate land use, all integral to sustaining the future of the water resource and health of the atoll.

There has been a major increase in awareness of water supply and resource management issues on both South Tarawa and outer islands. Nearly all major water projects including the current $US17 million ADB funded water and sanitation project have piggybacked major community education and awareness programs, often facilitated by NGO’s and government divisions at the community level. On outer islands, solar pumping systems are used to pump water from household and village infiltration galleries with funding assistance from UNDP while other donor programmes support projects in tank making, water conservation practices, good sanitation and wastewater practice and changes to the school curriculum to incorporate water resource themes.

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Area: 181 sq. km Highest Elevation: 10 m Population: 57.738 (2004)

GDP per capita: $1,600 Land Use: Arable: 17%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 14% Permanent Crop: 39%

Industry: 16% Other: 44%

Services: 70%

Description: Two archipelagic chains of 30 atolls and 1,152 islands. Mostly low coral limestone and sand.

Natural Resources: Coconut products, marine products, deep seabed minerals.

Economy: Agriculture is primarily subsistence. Tourism employs less than 10% of labour force. The main hope for additional revenue is from existing natural resources

Environmental Issues: Inadequate potable water, Pollution of Majuro lagoon from domestic wastes and discharges from fishing vessels.

US Government assistance is the mainstay of this tiny island economy, Agricultural production is concentrated on small farms with the most important commercial crops being coconuts and breadfruit. Small-scale industry is limited to handicrafts, tuna processing, and copra. The tourist industry, now a small source of foreign exchange employing less than 10% of the labour force, remains the best hope for future added income. The islands have few natural resources, and imports far exceed exports. Under the terms of the Compact of Free Association, the US has provided more than $1 billion in aid since 1986.

An independent investigation by the government revealed in 2004 that the main source of fresh water is limited ground water supplies. With no surface water, rainwater is caught by roof catchments in the outer islands and collected from the airport runway in the Capital Island. The country is not constrained by water management issues alone, but also by capacity and human resource issues. As is the case with most Pacific SIDS the impacts of climate change, sea level rise and climate variability are all issues. Conflicts over ownership and access are increasing. Saltwater intrusion and pollution by human waste are reducing the availability of usable water. The Government acknowledges the need for suitable frameworks on integrated water resources management, and is seeking the support of the international community for regional initiatives such as the Pacific Regional Action Plan on Sustainable Water Management. Where investments have been made on water, these have typically involved the upgrading and/or replacement of existing urban water supply schemes, for example in the capital Island of Majuro. Some of these investments have been accompanied by associated institutional reform and separation of the water provider from the core government services, through corporatisation and/or privatisation.

The notable attention accorded to water governance by development agencies, in terms of institutional strengthening especially of water service providers, has been very encouraging. However, national integrated water management, catchment scale and community governance have been a challenge. In this regard, the general focus on creating legislation and regulatory tools needs to be strengthened with better public awareness and education. Assistance is required in this area.

At the national level the National Environmental Management Strategies (NEMS) provides an overall strategic approach for water management. Momentum created by the World Water Forum has resulted in the Government embarking on more holistic initiatives on water resources management. Challenges relating to sustainable water resources management can be categorized into three thematic areas: unique fragile water resources, lack of financial and human resources, and the complexity of water governance.

NAURU

Area: 21 sq. km Highest Elevation: 61 m Population: 12,809 (2004)

GDP per capita: $5,000 Land Use: Arable: 0 %

GDP by sector: Agriculture: ?% Permanent Crop: 0%

Industry: ?A% Other: 100%

Services: ?%

Description: World’s smallest independent republic, the tiny state of Nauru consists of one 21km² island and is 1 of the 3 great phosphate islands of the Pacific Ocean (although reserves are now depleted). Nauru is an isolated uplifted limestone island located just south of the equator, surrounded by a fringing coral reef some 120 to 300 metres wide. A narrow coastal plain surrounds a raised coral limestone plateau of pinnacles and outcrops, the latter 70% and 30% of the island land area respectively. The limestone plateau has been the focus of extensive phosphate mining for the past 80 years which is to be finally phased out in the next 10 ten years.

Economy: Revenues of this tiny island have traditionally come from exports of phosphates, but reserves are now depleted. Few other resources exist. The rehabilitation of mined land and the replacement of income from phosphates are serious long-term problems.

Environmental Issues: Very limited freshwater resources. Rainwater harvesting is common. Highly dependent on an ageing desalination plant. Intensive phosphate mining has left central Naura as a 90% wasteland.

Nauru consists of a sandy beach rising to fertile ring around raised coral reefs with a phosphate plateau in centre. Limited natural fresh water resources and periodic droughts are a major threat to the island. Roof storage tanks collect rainwater, but the island is mostly dependent on a single, aging desalination plant. Nauru is located in the dry belt of the equatorial oceanic zone, with annual rainfall extremely variable, averaging 2126 mm per year. Traditionally, the island has depended on phosphate deposits but these are now near exhaustion.

In anticipation of the exhaustion of Nauru’s phosphate deposits, substantial amounts of phosphate income have been invested in trust funds to help cushion the transition and provide for Nauru’s economic future. As a result of heavy spending from the trust funds, the government faces virtual bankruptcy. To cut costs the government has called for a freeze on wages, a reduction of over-staffed public service departments, privatisation of numerous government agencies, and closure of some overseas consulates. In recent years Nauru has encouraged the registration of offshore banks and corporations. In 2004 the deterioration in housing, hospitals, and other capital plant continued, and the cost to Australia of keeping the government and economy afloat has substantially mounted. Few comprehensive statistics on the Nauru economy exist, with estimates of Nauru’s GDP varying widely.

The freshwater resources of Nauru are contained in Buanda lagoon, a landlocked, slightly brackish freshwater lake located in the southwest of the island on the plateau. Groundwater from the underlying lens is considered extensive, with the result it has been tapped by several hundred household wells to supplement the main source of potable water supply from desalination. Beneath the upper layer the water becomes increasingly brackish with depth until it meets salt water at 80 m below sea level. Replenishment or recharge of the freshwater lens is dependent on rainfall. A first approximation of the average groundwater recharge for Nauru is 800 mm per year.

A plant commissioned by the government from the National Phosphate Commission (NPC) provides desalinated water using waste heat generated from its power station. Water is delivered by truck to individual households and commercial storage tanks. When the plant is not in operation due to maintenance or breakdown, the island faces severe water shortages and an increased reliance on the groundwater sources for supply. The drought from 1998 to 2001 stretched the water resources on the island and highlighted the urgent need for a sustainable water supply system. The drought resulted in overuse of the lens and a decline in water quality, leading to rising health and environmental issues due to seepage from household sewage pits into the increasingly brackish and contaminated groundwater.

Long-term potential threats to the quality of the groundwater resource included contamination by cadmium, rubbish dump leachate and sewage. The brackish ground water from wells used as an alternative supply has high coliforms and high dissolved solids and the brackish ground water is not suitable as a potable supply. It was also found that increased extraction of ground water from wells around the perimeter of the island could lead to seawater intrusion as well as threatening the supply of freshwater to the roots of coastal plants.

The key players in the provision of water supply and resource management in Nauru are:

• the National Phosphate Commission for the establishment and operations of a desalination plant;

• the Nauru Works and Community Services for distribution of water supply to residents and business;

• the Department of Health for testing and monitoring water quality, and

• the Nauru Rehabilitation Corporation for data collection of wells and aquifers.

The national Department of Economic Development coordinates water sector activities including project proposals and liaison with donors and aid agencies.

Nauru is facing major economic difficulties as it dependency on phosphate-processing winds back in the next decade. With increased diesel costs to maintain the NPC power plant, it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet daily water needs of potable drinking water for the island population. At the request of the Ministry of Health, a draft Water Plan was commenced in 2002 with the support of WHO. The draft plan identified a range of priority actions including feasibility studies on an underground gallery for rainwater storage from airport runway run-off, establishment of a secondary desalination plant, extraction from the fresh surface layer from the groundwater lens (if possible), installation of groundwater monitoring wells and clear delineation of the extent of underground resources so as not to risk over pumping. Most of the water resources information available is some 20 years old and needs urgent updating to indicate data on safe yields, water quality and other important monitoring and assessment data. Finalization of the Water Plan including continued public awareness on the fragility of the islands resources is a major water resource priority. Much of the water shortage in Nauru is due to, or accentuated by, faulty management. Unless effective action is taken soon to conserve water and improve water supplies the years ahead will soon be dominated by recurring droughts.

NIUE

Area: 260 sq. km Highest Elevation: 68m Population: 2,156 (2004)

GDP per capita: $3,600 Land Use: Arable: 15%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: ?% Permanent Crop: 12%

Industry: ?% Other: 73%

Services: 55%

Description: Steep limestone coastal cliffs with a central plateau

Natural Resources: Fish and arable land

Economy: Agriculture is mostly subsistence/ Limited industry concentrated on fruit processing, honey and coconut cream. Trying to promote tourism

Environmental Issues: Increasing attention being given to conservation practices to control the loss of soil fertility for traditional slash-and-burn agriculture.

Niue is a small elevated coral outcrop with fringing coral reef. It consists of two terraces with the upper terrace forming the bulk of the island. It is believed to be the largest coral atoll in the world, with 13 villages spread around the lower coastal terrace. The population is a little over 2,000 persons. The economy suffers from the typical Pacific island problems of geographic isolation, few resources, and a small population. Government expenditures regularly exceed revenues, and the shortfall is made up by critically needed grants from New Zealand. The island in recent years has suffered a serious loss of population though migration to New Zealand. The island was badly hit by Cyclone Heta on 6^th January, 2004, and this is likely to see further residents leave for New Zealand to rebuild their lives. Efforts to increase GDP include the promotion of tourism and a financial services industry.

There is no surface runoff in Niue in the form of rivers, streams, and lakes. As such, water for residential and commercial consumption can only be sourced from the underground water lens supplemented by the collection of rainwater at the village or household level. It is estimated approximately 66% of Niue’s annual rainfall evaporates. The water quality of the lens is potable and it is piped untreated to all consumers in all villages. The Government meets all costs for pumping and distribution of water. Attempts to introduce a user pay system have up till now been decline by government. Approximately 85% of water that is pumped from the groundwater lens is used for domestic use, 10% for agricultural use and 5 % for commercial and industrial usage. All the 13 villages on the island have their own water system that consists of a submersible pump and a water reservoir except for the main village of Alofi, which has two reservoirs, and 4 submersible pumps. Water pumped from reservoirs to household storages is not treated, with households deciding themselves whether to treat or boil the water.

Responsibility for water supply and water resource management rests with:

• the Water Unit in the Ministry of Public Works and

• the Public Health Unit of the Health Department for water quality testing.

In terms of water supply, major recurrent problems identified have been leakages from distribution pipes and reservoirs and overflows resulting from manual operation of pumps. People are reluctant to report any leakages around the households because of costs of repairs. There is also a negligent attitude to water conservation. Water and subsequent electricity conservation has not been a high priority. AusAID funded an institutional strengthening program in the Water Unit in 1987 and included a successful leak detection program A draft Master Plan for waste, water and sanitation was prepared in 1998 with external funding but has not been finalized due to financial and human resource constraints. There has been no recent detailed surveys or assessment of the underground water resource since 1980. A Water Resource Act was passed by the government in 1996 but has not been able to be implemented because it requires drafting of detailed regulations. There is community concerns over ‘catchment’ rights and fears of demands for compensation by government from residents if the new Water Resource Act is enforced.

The underground fresh water reservoirs are very prone to contamination from land-based contaminants due to the very porous coral aquifer. Most households on the island have a septic system but most do not comply with the WHO standards. There are currently no drying pits for the sludge from the septic tanks, these were just pumped into a selected area far from any bore sites and about 1.5 km from the coastline. There are no proper waste dumps although an attempt was made to upgrade one of the existing dump near the main town into a proper and main dump. Later on, this dump will be used as a transfer station for the main dump to be set up on the southern side of the island. Agricultural fertilizers and pesticides is one area of concern that is being addressed by the Pesticides Committee.

A study carried out by SOPAC on coastal water quality in 2003, originally initiated due to fish poisoning outbreaks and fish deaths, confirmed high nitrate and phosphate concentrations. This is believed to have been caused by inadequate wastewater treatment primarily from septic tanks draining into the groundwater regime. The survey highlights the vulnerability of the islands water resources to any land surface activities, and the close link between land and catchment activities and coastal zone impacts.

There have been no recent surveys on the underground lens in Niue since 1980. Modelling of the lens is urgently in need for a better and clear understanding of the characteristics of the lens and also to monitor for possible contamination from land-based activities. Water pumped from the lens is stored in reservoirs and directly fed to the consumers without treatment. Most of the water bore sites are located on the upper terrace and at a minimum distance of about 1.5 km from the coastline. The aquifer of about 50-60 meters is porous and ground level contaminants can be easily filtered through to the lens. However, there has been no known outbreak of disease, which relates to un-treated water and no complaints from the visitors to the island.

Awareness programmes exclusively for water campaigns have been run in the schools with technical and financial assistance from regional organisations. Funding to continue these awareness programs is the main hurdle at this stage, with no continuity. It is hoped that with concerted effort and co-operation from all concerned parties in managing and avoid contaminating the underground fresh water lens, fresh water can continue to be pumped un-treated to the consumers. However, regular testing of the artesian water is recommended. Currently although there is a Water Resource Act already passed by Government in 1996, the enforcing of the Act cannot be legally carried out until there is a regulation in place.

With the planned increase in economic development of the island including a fish cannery (with associated fish waste effluent disposal), cash cropping of vanilla and growth of the tourist industry, an IWRM approach needs to be developed for the island to ensure the adequate protection of the groundwater from over-abstraction and contamination. The immediate priority challenge for Niue however is to establish the water supply system following the devastating cyclone of 06 January 2004. In the longer term there is an urgent need for water resources assessment and a community education and awareness programme to operationalize and mainstream the Water Resources Act of 1996. Stronger partnerships between villages, residents and government are priorities to sustain and portent the water resource.

SAMOA

Area: 2,944 sq. km Highest Elevation: 1,857 m Population: 177,714 (2004)

GDP per capita: $5,600 Land Use: Arable: 21%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 14% Permanent Crop: 24%

Industry: 23% Other: 55%

Services: 63%

Description: Two main and several smaller islands plus some uninhabited islets. A narrow coastal plain with volcanic rugged mountains in the interior.

Economy: Two-thirds of the labour force are engaged in agriculture which provides 90% of exports (coconut cream, coconut oil and copra). Limited manufacturing concentrates on agricultural products. Fisheries resources appear to be falling. Tourism is growing and now represents 25% of the GDP. The economy of Samoa has traditionally been dependent on development aid, family remittances from overseas,

Environmental Issues: Soil erosion, deforestation, invasive species, over-fishing

The water supply system in Samoa utilises rainfall, surface and underground water, and is fortunate in having adequate annual rainfall reasonably distributed throughout the year giving rise to a reliable source of water. The treatment mode for surface water that forms the main supply for the urban capital Apia is sand filtration followed by disinfection. Bore water used in many rural villages is either disinfected or pumped direct to household systems. Samoa generally has an acceptable level of access to surface and groundwater, with approximately 95% of the population having access to piped water, with approximately 65% supplied by surface water and 35% by borehole and rainwater. High water consumption and leakage have been some of the problems faced by the Samoa Water Authority, although measures are now in place to addresses these issues. Deforestation and land clearing leading to soil erosion contribute highly to poor water quality in terms of high turbidity values and bacteriological counts.

The institutional arrangements for the water sector have been realigned following a Public Service Reform Program review in 2001 and 2002. This review identified fragmentation of functions, lack of overarching legislation and lack of financial resources as key water sector issues. The institutional arrangements currently being embedded focus on water supply being under the auspices of the government owned corporation, the Samoa Water Authority (SWA); the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Meteorology having responsibility for watershed management and hydrology; while the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment being responsible for national resource and environmental policy. This includes protection of the water resource. The SWA is the designated service provider for the country’s water supply in both urban and rural areas, with coastal villages either being part of a larger reticulated system such as exists to the north west of Apia, or subject to community water schemes managed, operated and maintained by the SWA.

The SWA has approximately 16,500 customers broken down into metered household customers, metered commercial customers and un-metered (or flat rate) customers. The existing tariff for metered consumers recognised the need to cut the very high household consumption rates, which existed at the time metering commenced. However, the experience has been that the installation of meters has resulted in a metered household cutting consumption from an estimated 4.6 cubic metres per day to around 2.0 cubic metres per day. Un-metered customers make up the bulk of the SWA’s customer base. Consequently, the very low revenue generated by flat rate customers is not offset by the tax on commercial customers. Thus the low revenue from flat rate customers is a major reason why the SWA’s revenues do not cover costs of production. The SWA has recognised that this situation is not sustainable. The high consumption rates are reducing the effectiveness of the water treatment plants.

The SWA has under gone major institutional strengthening programs over the last decade in areas such as corporate, asset, human resource and financial management, with assistance from a range of agencies such as AusAID, EU and SOPAC. The SWA with major EU grant funding has also undertaken major upgrading of reticulation systems in Apia and the rural areas on Upolu and Savaii. Installation of water meters and tariff charges in urban Apia and rural areas has meant a reduction in water usage to around 280 litres per day and reduction in unaccounted losses. With funding from the EU, the government of Samoa is currently undertaking a National Water Resource Policy to identify key water resource management issues and means of resolution. A national steering committee now exists to identify and action priorities, and there is a keen enthusiasm within government and NGO’s to make further gains in water sector, noting its strong relationship with environmental and resource management in a small island setting. The institutional framework for water resources.

Samoa is currently going through the process of preparing a sanitation plan for Apia and investigating ‘appropriate’ technology for any wastewater treatment scheme or schemes that may be proposed for the Central Business District in Apia.

The concept of catchment management is well known in Samoa especially given the distance from the centre of the high dividing range to the fringing coast averages approximately 7 kilometres in length. Flash flooding during the wet season often followed by droughts in the dry season, has highlighted the interrelationship of urban and rural land use and other activities on the health of the catchment and water resource. Government and NGO’s have and continue to undertake community education and awareness programs including projects on the care and management of rivers, streams and the wider catchments. FAO, for example, has implemented watershed management projects under the former Ministry of Agriculture in the upper catchments in the 1990’s. Unlike many other PIC’s, the government of Samoa and key agencies such as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, balance regulation and the problems of dealing with native landowners such as land access issues, with regular community education programs on all facets of protecting and sustaining the bio physical environment. This includes a strong and sustained focus on water resource and catchment management.

SOLOMON ISLANDS

Area: 28,450sq. km Highest Elevation: 2,447 m Population: 523,617 (2004)

GDP per capita: $1,700 Land Use: Arable: 1%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 42% Permanent Crop: 2%

Industry: 11% Other: 97%

Services: 47%

Description: Scattered archipelago of about 1000 islands, mostly rugged and mountainous with some low-lying coral atolls

Natural Resources: Fish, forestry, gold, bauxite, phosphate, lead, zinc, nickel.

Economy: The bulk of the population are dependent on agriculture, fishing and forestry. The islands are rich in undeveloped mineral resources. Severe law-and-order problems in recent history.

Environmental Issues: Deforestation, soil erosion, majority of surrounding coral reefs are dead or dying.

The Solomon Islands support a coastline of 5,313 km. Severe ethnic violence, the closing of key business enterprises, and an empty government treasury have led to serious economic disarray, indeed near collapse. Tanker deliveries of crucial fuel supplies (including those for electrical generation) have become sporadic due to the government’s inability to pay and attacks against ships. The disintegration of law and order left the economy in tatters by mid-2003.

Water resources availability in Solomon Islands varies considerably. It ranges from sizeable rivers to small streams from a high mountainous and dense rainforest islands to rainwater harvesting and thin fresh water lens of underground aquifers of the small low-lying atolls and islets. In 1986, flooding claimed about 100 lives. In 1995, drought severely affected most parts of the country causing severe food shortages. Bad development practices such as logging and the traditional slash-and-burn method of farming have gradually destroyed the quality and capacity of rivers and streams, threatening the availability water to many parts of the country. There are three main types of water source extraction methods employed; using gravity feed systems, the use of rain and roof catchments and hand-dug wells using hand pumps. Rural water supply is still provided by standpipe in most cases. With the increase in population, underground water source is also under threat due to human activities, saltwater intrusion and sea-level rise.

Leakage from water supply system is estimated to be around 70-80%. Water ownership and management is also a source of conflict in the country among social groups, clans, tribes and landowners. Water quality analysis in is a major problem. Most of the existing laboratories are incapable of undertaking the necessary analysis as specified in the International standards for water quality.

Four government ministries are directly involved in the assessment, planning, development and management of water resources; Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS), Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Aviation (MCTA) and the Ministry of Transport, Works and Communication (MTWC). Other Non government organization are also involved with provision of safe water to the communities and villages, namely Adventist Development Relief Assistance (ADRA), World Vision (WV) and Solomon Islands Development Trust (SIDT). Among all these, there is a need for an appropriate coordination and strategic planning and management of water resources in the country.

The government’s aim is to provide safe water to present and future generations, and to develop an appropriate understanding of the local hydrology and water resources. Actions already taken include the securing of appropriate equipment for hydrological data collection and limited assessment of water resources. Future actions needed at the national level include an increase in awareness programmes on the understanding of water resources and impacts of climate, the establishment of appropriate water regulations for the protection of water resources, and the development of water resource policy.

PALAU

Area: 458 sq. km Highest Elevation: 242 m Population: 20,016 (2004)

GDP per capita: $9,000 Land Use: Arable: 9%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: ?% Permanent Crop: 4%

Industry: ?% Other: 87%

Services: ?%

Description: 6 islands groups and a further 300 islets varying from high mountainous on the main island to low coral islands fringed by large reef systems.

Natural Resources: Forests, minerals (especially gold), marine products, deep seabed minerals.

Economy: Primarily from tourism, subsistence agriculture and fishing.

Environmental Issues: Inadequate waste disposal facilities. Threats to the marine ecosystem from sand and coral dredging. Illegal fishing and over-fishing.

Over half of the population of Palau live in the two states of Koror and Airai. A new surface water treatment plant serves approximately 13,800 persons at present. Water is collected and treated at a trickling filter plant, with an ocean outfall. A bureau of public utilities part of the Palau National Government operates these two systems. There are over 2,000 connections, of which over 1,700 are metered. Unmetered customers are charged a flat rate of ($17/month in Koror and $5/month in Airai). The water charge for metered customers is 85 cents/1000 gallons. Practically all water consumers in Koror and Airai are now on 24-hour water service. A programme of metering all unmetered customers and an aggressive leak detection programme are urgently needed.

Due to the treatment process capability of the existing Airai water treatment plant being limited only to filtration and chlorination of the raw water, the quality of the water produced does not meet U.S. Public Health Service standards for public water systems. The nature of the available water source is such that the raw water must first pass through a chemical pre-treatment process prior to filtering and chlorination, in order to meet U.S. Public Health Service standards for maximum turbidity allowance in public water system, prior to distribution to the consumers.

Approximately 800 of the 3,500 people living outside the Koror-Airai water system’s service area are without public water supplies. These people rely on rainwater caught in 55-gallon drums. The remaining 2,000 people use several small village water systems, which serve fewer than 100 households each. All of these village systems have surface water sources or shallow wells as their water sources. The best of the surface water systems provide only basic filtration and chlorination of the raw water before being pumped into the distribution system. There are several small public water systems located in the states on the island of Babeldaob. Four systems were built by Japanese private companies in the states of Melekeok, Ngarchelong (two systems), and Ngaremlengui and serve approximately 800 people.

Due to the topography of the service area, the majority of the gravity sewers are arranged in 34 “satellite” or regional collection areas which empty into their own individual sewage pump stations. The effluent is discharged through a pipe into 60-foot deep water in the Malakal Harbour. Although the wastewater system presently provides service to most of the hamlets in Koror State, additional satellite systems are needed to serve areas still unsewered. These unsewered areas are also presently experiencing rapid growth.

Water quality sampling by the Palau Environmental Quality Protection Board has shown coastal waters to be contaminated by raw sewage near several of the outfall areas. To alleviate the improper disposal of human waste in the rural areas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided funds to implement a Rural Sanitation Programme.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Area: 462,840 sq. km Highest Elevation: 4,509 m Population: 5.42 million (2004)

GDP per capita: $2,200 Land Use: Arable: 0.5%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 34% Permanent Crop: 1.5%

Industry: 38% Other: 98%

Services: 28%

Description: Mostly mountainous with coastal lowlands and rolling foothills

Natural Resources: Gold, copper, silver, natural gas, timber, oil

Economy: Richly endowed with natural resources but exploitation is hampered by the terrain and high cost of infrastructure. Agriculture is a subsistence for livelihood for 85% of population

Environmental Issues: Deforestation of the rain forest as a result of demand for tropical timber, pollution from mining, occasional severe droughts

.

Papua New Guinea consists of a group of islands including the eastern half of the island of New Guinea between the Coral Sea and the South Pacific Ocean. Mineral deposits, including oil, copper, and gold, account for 72% of export earnings. The economy has faltered over the past four years, but the government has had considerable success in attracting international support, specifically gaining the backing of the IMF and the World Bank in securing development assistance loans.

Approximately 15% of the population live in some 20 designated urban centres ranging from Port Moresby with 252, 000 persons to the smallest Lorengau with 5,800 persons. The bulk of the population, approximately 4.5 million people, live in rural areas and villages, with water sourced from surface water in catchments as well as groundwater. Although PNG has an abundance of water, ranking as one of the highest rainfall areas in the world, some of the lowland and islands adjoining the mainland have experienced water shortage problems and prolonged dry periods pronounced by El Nino during the last decade.

The majority of people in PNG who live in rural communities have access to questionable water quality and inadequate sanitation, 15% of the population live in urban areas with access to safe water and with adequate sanitation. The urban areas of PNG are generally provided with good reticulated water supply systems extracted either from ground water or surface source. Most have 24-hour supply with water quality meeting WHO Drinking Water Guidelines. The rural villages source their water from springs, wells, river, streams and rainwater, with some villages having communal reticulated village systems. Fourteen out of the 20 provincial towns and 3 out of the 86 district towns are supplied with safe treated drinking water. As such, accessibility to safe drinking water in rural areas is low.

The institutional setting for the water resources sector is characterised by national, provincial and local government involvement, namely;

• the Department of Environment and Conservation who regulate water resource discharge from groundwater, rivers, springs and lakes such as the issues of permits for extraction of groundwater and surface water resources;

• the state owned PNG Water Board who manages water supplies in 11 of the designated urban centres excluding Port Moresby;

• the state owned Port Moresby City Water Supply who manages and operates water and sewerage systems in Port Moresby;

• the Department of Health for water quality monitoring and promotion of water supply and sanitation in rural areas, and

• the rural Provincial and Local Governments who operate all the village and non-urban water supply and sanitation systems.

Like other PIC’s, overall planning of the water sector including donor and project coordination is the responsibility of the national planning office, namely, the PNG Department of Planning.

There has been a considerable amount of consultation on issues in the water sector in PNG since the early 1990’s. The National Water Supply and Sanitation Committee was formed in 1991 and continues to be the main consultative forum for water policy comprising a range of government agencies, agencies and donors such as WHO and UNICEF, plus NGO’s. At the provincial and local levels, Water Supply and Sanitation Committees have also been set up Recent reviews include the recently completed ADB water sector study to identify water sector investment priorities while in 2002 JICA undertook a groundwater resource study for 8 district towns severely affected by drought during the 1997/1998 period. Draft environmental regulations were prepared in 2002 under the recently promulgated Environment Act of 2000. The government is keen to privatise urban water supply, with the government indicating it intention to privatise the PNG Water Board as the National Water Authority to achieve operational efficiencies. While there is no overarching water sector legislation, PNG has a range of dated water legislation including the Water resources Act, 1982: the Environmental Planning Act, 1978 and Environmental Contaminants Act, 1978.

Projects have included development of village water supply schemes, provision of solar and hand pumps, numerous institutional strengthening programmes and the like. Human resources issues, combined with continued domestic civil unrest and disorder issues, plus the sheer size of PNG including hundreds of different regional and local dialects, all form major constraints to comprehensive water resource management. In 2003 PNG held a National Water Seminar to refocus its efforts on achieving sustainable water management. The multi-stakeholder meeting has resulted in the creation of a National Water Association, with multi-stakeholder multi-departmental government and non-government representation, and a clear strategy for the development of a national water policy. With the bulk of the PNG population dispersed in rural areas, mainly highlands, and depending on a subsistence economy for survival, the provision of safe water to 50% of the PNG population by 2010, as stated in the 2001-2010 National Health Plan, is key priority.

In PNG the commonly held perception is that water is plentiful and therefore should be provided free of charge. There is a low public awareness on issues relating to water management. This may be attributed to the low profile of water supply and sanitation. The low level of access to safe water by the majority of the citizens is well documented.

TONGA

Area: sq. km Highest Elevation: m Population: (2004)

GDP per capita: $ Land Use: Arable: %

GDP by sector: Agriculture: % Permanent Crop: %

Industry: % Other: %

Services: %

Description: An archipelago of 169 islands of which 36 are inhabited. Most islands have a limestone base formed from uplifted coral formations; others have limestone overlying a volcanic base.

Economy: Tonga, a small, open, South Pacific island economy, has a narrow export base in agricultural goods. Squash, coconuts, bananas, and vanilla beans are the main crops, and agricultural exports make up two-thirds of total exports. The country must import a high proportion of its food, mainly from New Zealand. Tourism is the second-largest source of hard currency earnings following remittances. The country remains dependent on external aid and remittances from Tongan communities overseas to offset its trade deficit. Tonga has a reasonably sound basic infrastructure and well-developed social services.

Environmental Issues: Deforestation is a serious concern as more and more land is cleared for agriculture and settlement. Some damage to coral reefs from starfish (Acanthaster planci) and indiscriminate coral and shell collectors. Over-hunting threatens the native sea turtle population.

The water resources of Tonga are primarily in the form of groundwater. Surface water resources are not present on most islands, except ‘Eua and some of the volcanic islands including Niuafo’ou and Niuatoputapu. Groundwater is normally pumped from drilled wells and some old dug wells, some of which are over 50 meters deep. The water supplies for the main urban centres: Nuku’alofa (Tongatapu), Pangai (Ha’apai) and Neiafu (Vava’u), and some villages’ water supplies are also source from groundwater. Rainwater is the supplementary source of portable water and is mainly collected from the rooftop and stored in reinforce concrete, fibre glass and galvanizes iron tanks.

There is a range of institutions involved in the delivery and management of water in Tonga. The key agencies are:

• the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Natural Resources who is responsible for assessment and monitoring of the water resource;

• the Tonga Water Board who is responsible for the planning, installation, operation and maintenance of the public water supplies in the selected urban areas including the capital Nuku’alofa on the main island of Tongatapu;

• the village water committees who are responsible for operating and maintaining the physical components of villages water supply systems outside of the reticulated systems;

• the Ministry of Health for implementing villages water supply schemes and undertaking water quality testing and monitoring, and

• the Water Resources Committee, a sub committee of the National Development Coordination Committee, who is responsible for initiating and reviewing development proposals as they relate to water resources and their planning and management.

The institutional framework for water resources is robust with a national water committee in existence and water master plans having been completed for the reticulated supply systems and for national water resource development. A draft Water Resource Bill is currently under consideration by government with a focus on ensuring the sustainable use of groundwater resources. Donor and aid projects have been active across a range of areas in the water sector including strengthening of the Tonga Water Board (for example, legislative review, leak detection programmes, improvement of the ‘Neiafu and ‘Eua water supply schemes including new infiltration galleries); establishment of local catchment management projects such as the catchment project to support sustainability of the ‘Eua water supply; UNESCO study of groundwater resources; installation of solar panels for pumping on outer islands, and pilot projects in the construction of domestic rainwater tanks on all inhabited islands.

While substantial gains have been made in the water sector in Tonga, many institutional and governance issues still remain for resolution to protect and sustain the limited water resources of the dispersed islands. These include lack of enforceable rules and regulatory framework for water management including hazard waste pollution and disposal; lack of clear utility operational structure over a number of islands; the need for clarifying the role of the Ministry of Environment in water conservation; water metering and tariff setting; the need for upgrading the water reticulation infrastructure in Nuka’lofa; and issues of land tenure and land use as they impact on sustaining the quality of the water resource. While there is a reasonable degree of community awareness on issues of water and the environment associated with projects including catchment management, coordination between agencies and sustaining partnerships with key stakeholders has been identified as a major issue to sustainable management of Tonga’s water resources.

Tonga needs to address several water resource issues, including implementing recommendations of Water Master Plan. There also a need for ongoing and appropriate water resources management awareness and conservation programmes. There is a need for upgrading water testing facilities and laboratories as well as related training for technicians. As is the case with many pacific islands Tonga’s ground water supplies are considered to be at significant risk of saltwater intrusion as a result of sea level rise through climate change. Finally there is a lack of water resource education and training at all levels within the country.

TUVALU

Area: 26 sq. km Highest Elevation: 5 m Population: 11,468 (2004)

GDP per capita: $1,100 Land Use: Arable: 0%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: ?% Permanent Crop: 0%

Industry: ?% Other: 100 %

Services: ?%

Description: Very low-lying narrow coral atolls. One of the smallest and most remote countries in the World. 9 atolls in total. 6 have lagoons open to the ocean, 2 have land-locked lagoons, and 1 has no lagoon.

Economy: Densely populated with poor soils. Vanuatu has no mineral reserves and few exports. Subsistence farming and fishing are the primary economic activities. Less than 1000 tourists per year. Government revenues are derived primarily from the sale of stamps and coins. Substantial income to the country comes from a Trust Fund established in 1987 by Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

Environmental Issues: since there are no streams or rivers and groundwater is not potable, most water needs must be met by catchment systems with storage facilities (the Japanese Government has built one desalination plant and plans to build one other); beachhead erosion because of the use of sand for building materials; excessive clearance of forest undergrowth for use as fuel; damage to coral reefs from the spread of the Crown of Thorns starfish; Tuvalu is very concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country’s underground water table; in 2000, the government appealed to Australia and New Zealand to take in Tuvaluans if rising sea levels should make evacuation necessary.

In the case of Tuvalu the only reliable, cheap and potable water resource is rainwater. It is therefore of great importance to have water management polices. One of its key objectives stated in the Development Plan is the “expansion of water supply systems on Funafuti and the outer islands, which should ensure that, by the end of the plan, every person in the country will have access to a more adequate supply of water” After Tuvalu gained independence in October 1978, there was an increase in the national priority to accord the provision of adequate supply of water, sanitation facilities and waste disposal.

There are three main sources of water supply in the outer islands and Funafuti, namely well water, desalination and rainwater. The wells are found in all the islands of Tuvalu except Niulakita in the southern group and Nanumaga in the Northern group. All wells are vulnerable to pollution by surface debris, frequently rotting vegetation and animal wastes. Groundwater lenses on each respective island are yet to be explored. Most island’s ground water is available under the main village settlement thus making it contaminated because of the extensive use of pit latrines, septic tanks and animal wastes. There could be an option to use this limited but undrinkable resource for toilet flushing or other means of second-class water. Most houses in the Tuvalu have corrugated galvanized iron and aluminium roofing. The rainwater is collected from these roofs, which have PVC gutters that run water through to down pipes into Ferro-cement, fibreglass, block work or reinforced concrete, and plastic tanks. The use of hand pumps to fill overhead tanks and supply water into the house by the use of gravitational pressure is still quite common both in the outer island and Funafuti. Government Civil servant houses in Funafuti have electric water pumps that reticulate the water through the house whilst some private dwelling still preferred a container under the outlet of the tank. Tuvalu still prefers and would continue to use rainwater because of the consistent and high annual rainfall in the country.

More recently desalination plants were installed on Funafuti, Vaitupu and Nanumaga after Tuvalu experienced drought in 1999, along with the demolition of approximately 300 m³ of water storage facilities in Funafuti.

Tuvalu has a 10-year water master plan that needs to be legally adopted by Government. One of the key factors for a high water demand is the population increase. In Funafuti the high demand for water is an issue of serious concern. The influx of people to the capital Funafuti and insufficient water storage capacity is a major problem for the Government which would need to resort to either increasing its water storage capacity or look to other alternative sources of water supply to ease the increasing demand.

The current situation in Funafuti is that water shortages start directly after a week of no rain, a clear reflection of the lack of proper water management skills at the grass root level. Most families still buy their water requirement from Government, even following heavy rains, as they don’t have adequate or effective water collection and storage facilities.

VANUATU

Area: 12,200 sq. km Highest Elevation: 1,877 m Population: 202,609 (2004)

GDP per capita: $2,900 Land Use: Arable: 2.5%

GDP by sector: Agriculture: 26% Permanent Crop: 7.5%

Industry: 12% Other: 90%

Services: 62%

Description: Mostly mountainous of volcanic origin with a narrow coastal plain.

Economy: Based primarily on small-scale agriculture which provides a living for 65% of the population. Fishing, offshore financial services and tourism are the other mainstays of the economy. Negligible mineral deposits.

Environmental Issues: The majority of the population have no access to reliable supplies of potable water. Also deforestation.

The archipelago of Vanuatu has about 74 populated islands. 81% of the population live in rural areas and are mainly occupied in subsistence and small holder farming with the remaining 19% of the population living in the two main urban areas of Port Vila on Efate and Luganville on Santo. The average population growth rate is 2.6% per annum whilst the urban growth rate is estimated to be 4.2% per annum. The high urban growth is resulting in the rapid development of fringing settlements not serviced by proper roads, electricity, water and sanitation.

The Republic of Vanuatu has abundant rainfall with numerous rivers and springs, and water from the aquifers is generally of very good quality requiring no treatment for consumption purposes. Water is sourced primarily from surface water in catchments and from groundwater wells and bores, and is chlorinated for safety reasons. The average rainfall varies from 2800mm per annum in the north, to only 1900mm per annum in the southern islands. A dry season occurs during June to December. Land ownership issues and conflict are dominant in the culture and also relate to the ownership of water, creating difficulties in many areas of water management including gaining access to water for supply, protecting water resources such as catchments, infrastructure maintenance and negotiating national projects such as hydropower generation.

The institutional arrangements for water are vested with 4 key agencies;

• the Water Division of the Department of Geology, Mines and Rural Water Supply is responsible for installation and maintenance of water systems in rural villages, urban water supply planning and approval, as well as water resource management, legislation;

• the Department of Health for water quality testing and monitoring, and

• the privately owned UNELCO, which, operates and manages the water supply system for the capital city, Port Vila, and

• The Department of Public Works Department which looks after water supply in Isangel, Lakatoro and Luganville, including infrastructure provision.

A number of other agencies such as Environment and Lands administer legislation and coordinate proposals that affect water resources such as leases and development applications.

A National Water Committee was established in 1994 to provide a forum for information exchange on key issues in the water sector, including national policy issues. The high level committee continues and has been an important conduit to consider major issues and projects such as the Rural Water Supply Master Plan, designation of water protection zones in and adjoining catchments, and draft water resources legislation currently before Parliament. There is currently no water legislation that clearly addresses issues such as private, customary and public access rights; protection of significant water resources and their catchments; development of policy and planning through the National Water Committee, and generally, provides for national water management and policy.

Water infrastructure in the urban areas has deteriorating rapidly, the majority of reticulated systems having been constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Only the Lakatoro system was upgraded in 1995 and new sources for Isangel established in 1994. The transfer of water operation in 1994 from government to UNELCO has resulted in improved delivery and quality of water in Port Vila, with no marked increases in tariffs. Water supply for Port Vila continues to be sourced from groundwater and chlorinated. Water supply to the rural areas has been provided under the National Rural Water Supply Scheme that aims to provide potable water to all the rural population in Vanuatu. Community usage of water rather than individual tap connections has been the major focus of physical works, with approximately 65% of the rural population having access to formal water supply systems in 2001. The remaining 35% of the rural population access springs, rivers, private wells and water tanks to provide their water needs.

NGO’s, aid donors and other agencies have been active in supporting the development of the water sector with projects ranging from institutional strengthening projects to community river and catchment care – for example, the UNESCO/SOPAC Catchment and Communities Project in Maewo, Santo and Epule which focuses assisting communities understanding how their catchments work via mapping, education, installation and water gauges and water quality monitoring. A similar project is also under way in the Tagabe River with the Tagabe River Catchment Protection Committee. Other projects include the construction of ferro-cement tanks for public, upgrading of community and private water supply including hand pumps and solar panels. Human and technical resource constraints including shortage of qualified staff, have affected all government departments including systematic collection of water resource data, water quality monitoring, regular maintenance programmes and water sector planning generally. Financial constraints combined with the size of the country and diversify in cultures and languages, provides limitations to implementing comprehensive community education and awareness programmes, notwithstanding community awareness has increased substantially over the last decade.

Whilst government and donor funds support the installation of new schemes and upgrades, it is the communities’ responsibility to maintain the systems. Of the 1,170 systems in place, at least 30% do not work or require major work to fix them. While the supply of water in the government controlled areas is satisfactory, the government investments on these systems are only for operations and maintenance. The systems were built during the 50s and badly require upgrading.

The countries aim is to mainstream adaptation to Climate Change measures as a practical means toward protecting, building and maintaining sustainable water resource management. The shortage of skilled personnel and expertise will continue to slow progress in the water sector. The management and operation of rural water supply systems and government controlled urban systems are emerging to be the crucial issue in the water sector. Although upgrades are planned, the systems cannot be expected to be operational without proper maintenance procedures.

ANNEX 3: PROPOSED EU-SOPAC IWRM PROJECT COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES

ANNEX 4: DETAILED OUTPUT BUDGET FOR PROJECT

ANNEX 5: RESPONSE TO REVIEWS

A – GEF Secretariat Concept Agreement Review

B - Other IAs and relevant EAs

ANNEX 5A: RESPONSE TO GEF SECRETARIAT CONCEPT AGREEMENT REVIEW

The following information identifies areas of the Concept and PDF Submission which respond to the additional requirements of the GEF Concept Review as specified under that document’s section on Further Processing:

Requirement 1: In revised submission clarify GEF

resources allocations per component,

considering GEF’s recommendation to

spend much of the funding in the on the-

ground demos because this concept

does qualify in that strategic priority

(IW-3).

Response: P.4 – Summary. P.16 – 2. Demonstrations of IWRM and WUE. P.19 & 20 – Discussion on Demonstration Project Objectives. P.23 - Financing Plan – 2nd Paragraph. Part II – Project Development Preparation. P.XXXII – D – Budget.

Requirement 2: Make reference to the PAC SIDS

SAP in the text specifying that this is a

follow-up to the SAP and point out how

this follows up. Likewise there was a

water and wastewater SAP that

PACSIDS countries released at the

World Water Forum in Japan.. This

should help implement that and should

be cited here too.

Response: P.4 – Summary. P.5 Country Drivenness and Regional Ownership & P.6 – 2^nd Paragraph forward.. P.10 – 1^st Paragraph . P.14 – 2^nd Paragraph.

Requirement 3: In the original idea discussed in NY 1 year ago, the demos would focus on protection of surface drinking water supplies (watersheds), groundwater drinking supplies (recharge areas), and reduce wastewater pollution from urban areas (including utility reforms/incorporation of water supply and wastewater treatment into the tariffs)--especially sewage pollution reduction. GEFSEC would urge the revised text to indicate that the majority of the demos would be related to these issues, although others might be proposed.

Response: P.19. Final Paragraph and P. 20 associated bullet points.

Requirement 4: P.16--lessons learned should be revised to say they will be involved with IWLEARN in exchanging experiences and learning among all the SIDS.. A separate component of the project should be produced to describe this south-south.inter-regional SIDS learning and exchange program.

Response: P.17 – Component 2 -GEF Full Project Activities and Expected Component Outcomes. Also P.19 - various.

Requirement 5: The revised concept should include development of a website consistent with IWLEARN guidance and will participate with IWLEARN, including putting some travel money to tell their story at international meetings, including 2 people from countries and project CTA for the IW Biennial meetings.

Response: P. 18 – Descriptive text for Component 4 and P.19 - associated text for Activity 4.5. P.21 – Replicability – 1^st Paragraph.

Requirement 6: M & E plan and stakeholder involvement plan should be produced by time of work program inclusion.

Response: P.23 – Stakeholder Involvement – Final Paragraph. P. 29 – Implementation and Execution Arrangements – Final Paragraph. P.30 – Description of Proposed PDF Components and Activities – 4.1 & 5.3.

Requirement 7: Indicate in the text that GEF-UNDP IWRM processes for producing national IWRM plans will be discussed with the countries and the EU in their component of the effort, and include an analysis of competing water uses or conflicts on each island as part of the processes, stakeholder involvement in the IWRM plan production, and inclusion of downstream coastal areas in the IWRM plan so that mud, sewage, etc. will not appreciably degrade the downstream reefs, lagoon, and wetlands.

Response: P.15 - The Alternative Scenario – Penultimate Paragraph.

wb155260

Z:\Websites\learningspace\cls\INWEH\usbdocs\2586_P+A\IWLEARN\project-concept-for-iwrm-for-the-pacific-island-countries.doc