National Biodiversity Strategies
& Action Plans
PACIFIC REGIONAL REVIEW
Cook Islands
Palau
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Federated States of Micronesia
Samoa
Kiribati Solomon
Islands
Marshall Islands
Tonga
Nauru
Tuvalu
Niue
Vanuatu
October 2007
Eleanor Carter
ACRONYMS
BINGO
Big International Non-governmental Organisation
CBD Convention
on
Biological Diversity
CI Conservation
International
CITES
Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species
CMS
Convention on Migratory Species
COMSEC Commonwealth
Secretariat
COP Conference
of
Parties
CROP
Council for Regional Organisations in the Pacific
FFA
Forum Fisheries Agency
FSM
Federated States of Micronesia
GEF
Global Environment Fund
GEF-PAS
Global Environment Fund - Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
GLISPA
Global Island Partnership
IBPoW
Island Biodiversity Programme of Work
IUCN
World Conservation Union
LDC
Less Developed Country
MDG
Millenium Development Goals
MEA
Multi-lateral Environmental Agreement
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NAPA
National Adaptation Programmes of Action
NBSAP
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NCSA National
Capacity Self Assessment
NGO Non-governmental
organisation
NIP-POPS
National Implementation Plans - Persistent Organic Pollutants
NSDS
National Sustainable Development Strategy
PACC
Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change
PIDP Pacific
Islands
Development Programme
PNG
Papua New Guinea
PoW
Programme of Work
SC - POPS
Stockholm Convention - Persistent Organic Pollutants
SCBD
Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity
SOPAC
South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP
Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment programme
SPTO
South Pacific Tourism Organisation
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNCLOS United
Nations
Convention on Law of the Sea
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USP
University of South Pacific
WHC
World Heritage Convention
WWF
World Wide fund for Nature
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This review examines the current status of NBSAP development across fourteen
South Pacific member nations, and assesses the scales of actionable planning and
M&E protocols existing within these plans.
The results of the review show that the status of NBSAP development and
implementation in the selected Pacific member countries is varied; from some
countries still awaiting funding to begin their NBSAP development process, to others
that are busy undertaking implementation activities.
All of the completed NBSAPs have made national level commitments to a range of
themes relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and there is
considerable commonality between the themes addressed across the region.
A common omission from NBSAPs is a monitoring and evaluation protocol with
appropriate targets, indicators, timescales and prioritizations.
This regional review also examines the issues of mainstreaming and the key
challenges faced by member states in the development and implementation of their
NBSAPs. These range from issues of financing and available capacity, to the
challenge of `limitations of scale' and multiplication of strategies evident in the
region. It also identifies opportunities to address these challenges, and presents
information to encourage further discourse amongst regional agencies for their
potential roles in providing technical backstopping and M&E development support to
member countries.
3
1. INTRODUCTION
In this regional review of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)
there are five key areas that are presented and discussed:
i) The current status of NBSAP development and production across fourteen
South Pacific member nations, and commonalities in visions and themes
presented.
ii)
A review of the actionable planning in the existing NBSAPs and the
mechanisms available for monitoring and evaluation.
iii)
The extent of mainstreaming and cross-sectoral adoption of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use principles.
iv)
The key challenges faced by member states in the development and
implementation of their NBSAPs.
v)
Addressing these challenges and identifying opportunities
Countries included in this review are: Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM), Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea
(PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
This work was carried out at the request of SPREP with support from the
Commonwealth Secretariat (COMSEC), UK. It was undertaken May - October 2007
and forms one component of six-part work-plan to: review NBSAPs; provide
consulting services to two nations at juxtaposing stages of NBSAP development and
implementation1; provide training and capacity building services to NBSAP
coordinators and identify training opportunities in the region.
This report is aimed at several audiences:
Firstly it has been written as a useful reference tool for NBSAP Coordinators
and associated personnel in the relevant departments, for use when reviewing
NBSAPs, updating planning documents, developing associated implementation
plans or developing improved targets and indicators for NBSAPs in the future.
Secondly it aims to be a useful reference for the Secretariat of the CBD, in
updating the information they have with regards to NBSAPs in the Pacific, and
the particular challenges faced in implementing these strategies in this region.
Finally it is designed as a useful reference document for SPREP, as a regional
organization, to provide an initial overview of the status of NBSAPs in these
focus countries (which can be updated at regular intervals now that the initial
database is established), and identify key areas where support is requested.
1 See associated report: Carter, E. (2007) Developing and Implementing National Biodiversity Strategies &
Action Plans: Case studies from the Solomon Islands and Samoa. SPREP / COMSEC
4
1.1 Background to NBSAPs: The Convention on Biological
Diversity, its obligations & recommendations
The call for National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) emerged as a
key issue at the Rio Summit in 1992 and was addressed in the formulation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
`Article 6' of the CBD states that:
"Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and
capabilities:
(a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing
strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures
set out in this Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned; and
(b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral
plans, programmes and policies."
This Article is mandatory and creates
an obligation for national biodiversity planning.
However, there is no `right or wrong' way to produce an NBSAP, and no fixed criteria
or `mandatory' checklist that nations are required to follow. It is very much up to
individual nation states what approach they feel best suits their needs and
challenges.
There are, instead, a plethora of recommendations and guidelines to support nations
in the development of their NBSAPs that have emerged over the years subsequent to
the Rio Summit. The Secretariat of the CBD (SCBD) encourage nations to reflect the
overarching objectives of the CBD in their NBSAPs (in light of specific national
circumstances), and include objectives and actions that show the sequence of steps
that are going to be taken to meet the goals listed in the convention (CBD).
The SCBD also highlights the requirement to mainstream the conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources across all sectors of the national economy and
policy-making framework (as outlined in Article 6[b]) and describes this as being `the
complex challenge at the heart of the Convention'.
The Conferences of Parties (COPs)2 have gone on to provide more specific guidance
to signatory nations in relation to NBSAP production. COP-2 & COP-3 encouraged
parties to ensure wide stakeholder input into the development of NBSAPs3. Various
key issues were also highlighted as being important areas to address in NBSAPs4.
2 These are conference where all member parties meet every two years.
3 decision II/17
4 including measures for in situ and ex situ conservation, equitable sharing of benefits from the use of
genetic resources, conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, and conservation of migratory species and
their habitats. (Decisions III/9 & III/21)
5
These two COPs also promoted the use of measurable targets that are fully
assimilated into the plans5, and recommended the incorporation of certain thematic
areas into NBSAPs, based upon those promoted in the overarching CBD (see section
3.1.2), and encouraged the reflection of associated cross-cutting issues identified
by the CBD.6 They also urged nations to include information on the values of
biodiversity in their NBSAPs; recognizing that public and private decisions across
different sectors of the government and wider public can be strengthened if they are
informed of the economic value of the ecosystem services underpinned by
biodiversity, and of the cultural, spiritual and aesthetic importance of healthy
systems and robust natural support systems.7
COP-7 encouraged NBSAPs to reflect the goals of the CBD Strategic Plan 2010,
and encouraged the use of indicators to facilitate the assessment of both the
progress made in the implementation of NBSAPs and the extent to which NBSAP
goals have been incorporated into other sectoral plans in-country.8
1.1.1 Guidelines for NBSAP development
As well as the various recommendations emerging from the CBD COPs with regards
to NBSAP development processes, a range of `guidelines' have been produced to
further support governmental departments in producing NBSAPs.
These include:
· National Biodiversity Planning: Guidelines based on Early Experiences around
the world (WRI/UNEP/IUCN, 1995)
· A Guide for Countries Preparing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans (UNDP/BPSP, 1999)
· A Guide to Developing a Biodiversity Strategy from a Sustainable
Development Perspective (IEPF/UNDP/UNEP, 2000)
· A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity (IUCN, 1998)
· Economics and the Convention on Biological Diversity (IUCN, 2000)
· Interim Assessment of Biodiversity Enabling Activities: National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (GEF)
· National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Planning : BSAP Preparation
Materials - Compiled materials for the BSAP preparation process (FFI)
· Revised Guidelines for Additional Funding of Biodiversity Enabling Activities
(GEF 2000)
1.1.2 Financing NBSAP development.
The key source of financing for NBSAP production has been through the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) `Enabling Activities'9. In the Pacific these funds have been
primarily managed through UNDP as the implementing agent. Different nations have
had different experiences with this funding mechanism, and further financial support
5 decision III/9
6 decision II/7 & decision III/9
7 VIII/9.UNEP/CBD/COP/8/31
8 decision VII/30
9 http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Enabling_Activity_Projects/enabling_activity_projects.html
6
for NBSAP production (or particular activities associated with NBSAP development)
has come from a range of sources (other donors and indeed domestic treasury
departments), depending upon the needs and resources of the countries concerned.
Some nations have also gone on to acquire `add-on' funds (beyond the initial
funding) to undertake associated work / complete the NBSAP if further funds were
required.
1.2 Relevant global initiatives & partner conventions
In addition to the CBD strategic plan, there are a range of global initiatives that feed
into and inform NBSAP development and implementation processes, and it is worth
taking a moment here to contextualize these national level plans (NBSAPs) within
the broader regional and international framework.
For example, emerging from the CBD are a range of `Programmes of Work' (PoWs)
one of which has particular relevance to the Pacific Region: The Island Biodiversity
Programme of Work (IBPoW). This PoW outlines "a set of priority and supporting
actions to implement the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
in islands". It recognizes that "all islands, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
in particular, rely on biodiversity for sustainable development, have close links
between culture and environment, have special concerns and particular
vulnerabilities, have limited land area, have high levels of endemism and extensive
coastal and marine biodiversity".10 Emerging out of this, the Global Island
Partnership (GLISPA) was launched in March 2006 to actively support
implementation of the new IBPoW under the CBD.
Additionally there are a number of other global initiatives that emerged out of, and
since, the Rio Summit that are of great relevance to Pacific islands and have
connectivity to the issue of conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity.
Hence these initiatives inevitably have cross-over linkages with the NBSAP
development and implementation processes in the region. These are discussed
further in section 3.3 on mainstreaming, however they include the: United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD); United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS); Millenium Development Goals (MDGs); Stockholm Convention and
Agenda 21.
1.3 Relevant regional initiatives
In the Pacific there are a number of regional initiatives and strategies that also have
linkages to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and hence
both inform and are informed by the national strategies and action plans being
developed by Pacific member nations. These include:
The Pacific Plan - In 2004 there was consensus to strengthen regional cooperation
and integration amongst Pacific islands countries. This became manifest
through the Auckland Declaration of April 2004 where Pacific Forum leaders
agreed to the development of a `Pacific Plan' with the goal to "Enhance and
10 Decisions VIII/I http://www.cbd.int/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-08&id=11013&lg=0
7
stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and
security for Pacific countries through regionalism." 11 Whilst management of
the natural environment or biodiversity conservation are not central themes
of the Pacific Plan, there is overt reference to `Improved Natural Resource
Management and Environmental Management' in the plans Strategic
Objective no. 5, with initiatives being promoted for the first three years in:
sustainable development, fisheries, forestry, coastal waters, waste
management, energy, freshwater management, biodiversity and climate
change.
The `Action strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region' was
developed by the Roundtable for Nature Conservation as a result of the 7th
Conference on Nature Conservation & Protected Areas, held in 2002. Its
mission is to `protect and conserve the rich natural and cultural heritage of
the Pacific islands forever for the benefit of the people of the Pacific and the
world.'12 It builds upon the three pillars of sustainable development
(environment, society and economy) and aims to provide guidance to a wide
range of actors in the Pacific community, including governments, in the
development of their plans and programmes for nature conservation. This
strategy is currently in the process of review at this time, and a revised
strategy for 2008-2012 is being discussed at the Alotau Conference in
October 2007. This revised strategy has taken considerable guidance from the
objectives and aims of the NBSAPs so far developed in the region, and the
new objectives in the Action strategy have arisen from the key common
themes prevalent in NBSAPs and the IBPoW.13
Additionally there are a range of further regional initiatives relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity that are too numerous to discuss in
detail here; such as the:
· Pacific Invasive Initiative (PII)
· Pacific Invasive Learning Network (PILN)
· Coral Reefs Initiative for the Pacific (CRISP)
· Locally Managed Marine Areas initiative (LMMA)
· Pacific Biodiversity Information Forum (PBIF)
· sub-regional Micronesia Challenge
Regional support for both regional and national level programmes in the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity is also provided by a number of inter-
governmental organizations active in a range environmental and humanitarian
issues14 as well as NGOs (from smaller scale local NGO initiatives to large scale
BINGOs). These too have regional initiatives underway, including:
11 The Pacific Plan, 2005, p.3
12 Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region: 2002-2007, p. 3
13 Tortell, P. (2007) IN DRAFT: Review of the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific
Region, 2003-2007: Report of the Roundtable to the 8th Regional Conference on Protected Areas and
Nature Conservation.
14 These are collectively known as CROP agencies, and include: The Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA),
Forum Secretariat (Forum Sec), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC),
South Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO), University of the South Pacific (USP), Pacific Islands
Development Programme (PIDP), Fiji School of Medicine, and the South pacific Board for Educational
Assessment
8
· IUCN Oceania regional programme
· WWF South Pacific Programme
· BirdLife International Pacific Programme
· Conservation International Pacific Islands Program and Melanesia Program
· UNESCO Man in the Biosphere Programme, Pacific operations.
A final noteworthy point in contextualizing national level planning of biodiversity
conservation into the wider regional framework is a mention of the `Roundtable for
Nature Conservation'. This is the Pacific's largest cross-sectoral coalition of
organizations working to increase effective conservation action in the region. This
Roundtable was formed in 1997 on request from Pacific island countries and
territories for stronger collaboration and coordination of conservation initiatives. Its
membership includes: regional and national NGOs, regional and international inter-
governmental agencies, public and private donors, and national agencies leading or
coordinating multi-country efforts or working on issues of regional significance. The
Roundtable facilitates `Working Groups' on key issues and is a forum for stakeholders
to come together to discuss and develop new ways to address the main issues of
nature conservation facing the Pacific Islands.
In 2004 a Pacific NBSAP Working Group and email network was formed through this
Roundtable, with the purpose of facilitating information sharing and cooperation
between NBSAP coordinators in member countries. The NBSAP Coordinators listed in
table 3 are all members of this working group along with: other representatives from
member government departments; representatives from SPREP; the Pacific Science
Association; the Pacific Biodiversity Information Forum and the company
Environmental Management Ltd. This working group also serves to promote NBSAPs
to Roundtable members and improve the monitoring and evaluation of NBSAPs.
1.4 Existing knowledge on NBSAPs in the Pacific region
The first NBSAPs to be produced in the Pacific region were in the late 1990s. Of the
fourteen countries being reviewed in this report eleven have completed NBSAPs and
three have yet to produce one.
In the Pacific there have been various regional-level reviews of one or more
components of the NBSAPs to date15 and various joint reviews of NBSAP components
looking at specific case studies of particular countries or issues.16 However, an in-
depth overview of NBSAP status, examining the key issues of implementation
planning and processes has not been undertaken to date, and this review attempts
to fill this gap in NBSAP analysis in the Pacific region.
Over the years the Secretariat of the CBD (SCBD) has also undertaken several
world-wide reviews of NBSAP development and implementation17 drawing primarily
on the information presented by countries in their `National Reports' that Parties are
obliged to submit to the SCBD every four years. 18 However, as Table 1 shows, many
countries in the Pacific region have not been able to submit these reports regularly.
15 See Schuster & Reti, 2001; Tabunakawai, 2002; SPREPa, 2004; NBSAP WG, 2005; SPREPa, 2006;
SPREPb, 2006 in the `further references' section at the end of this report.
16 See Thomson, 2006a; Thomson, 2006b
17 http://www.cbd.int/meetings/wgri-02/outcome.shtml
18 Article 26, CBD.
9
Reasons for the failure of some nations to submit their national reports include the
challenges of time and human resources (outlined further in section 3.5) and the
non-user-friendly layout of the reports themselves (these issues have been
thoroughly discussed in a range of reports).19 This means however that much of the
information held by the SCBD is consequently out of date or incomplete, and it is
hoped that this review will go some way to updating this information.
TABLE 1 NATIONAL REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE SCBD
First
Second
Third
COUNTRY
National
National
National
Report
report
Report
submitted? submitted? submitted?
Vanuatu
Y Y Y
Fiji
Y Y Y
Marshall Islands
Y
Y
N
Samoa
Y Y Y
Cook Islands
N N N
Niue
Y Y Y
FSM Y
Y
N
Palau
N N N
Tonga
N N N
Kiribati Y
Y
N
PNG
N N N
Nauru
N N N
Solomon Islands
N
Y
N
Tuvalu
N N N
19 See: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/cbd/measures/index.html
10
2. THE REVIEW PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
Various steps were undertaken in the process of this review:
· Completed NBSAPs from 11 countries were studied and relevant information
extracted.
· Existing reviews of NBSAPs (both from within the region and globally) were
studied.
· Questionnaires were distributed to NBSAP coordinators in the countries being
reviewed (with a 77% return of completed questionnaires: 10 out of 13
distributed).
· Interviews (both formal and informal) were undertaken with NBSAP
coordinators & related personnel in-countries
· Interviews (both formal and informal) were undertaken with NBSAP related
regional consultants and SPREP staff.
· Associated reports from across the region (Roundtable reports, regional
strategies etc) were reviewed.
· Associated plans and strategies related to other multi-lateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) were collated and reviewed.
· CBD COP decisions, recommendations, guidelines and articles were analysed
and reviewed.
This information is, as far as it has been possible to verify, accurate as of September
2007.
However, it is worth noting that three of the countries in the review did not
respond to the questionnaires, and due to the current re-drafting of the
Papua New Guinean NBSAP, much of the analysis of this particular NBSAP
has been omitted at this time.
11
3.
RESULTS
3.1 The current status of NBSAP development and production
across 14 South Pacific member nations, and commonalities in
visions and themes presented.
Background information on the 14 countries reviewed is provided in table 2. Vanuatu
and Fiji were the first countries of those reviewed to have completed NBSAPs. Tonga
& Kiribati have completed NBSAPs awaiting cabinet approval, and Nauru, Solomon
Islands and Tuvalu have yet to complete their NBSAPs.
TABLE 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Total
Per
land
capita
YEAR OF
area
Population GDP
CBD
NBSAP
COUNTRIES
(km2) *
*
(USD) *
ratified:
COMPLETION
Vanuatu
12,190 215,000
1,658
1993
1999
Fiji
18,272 836,000
1,926
1993
1999
Marshall Islands
181 55,400 2,362
1992
2000
Samoa
2,935 182,700 2,108
1993
2001
Cook Islands
237 14,000 8,563
1993
2001
Niue
259 1,600 5,854
1996
2001
FSM
701 112,700 2,113
1994
2002
Palau
488 20,700 5,808 Acs
1998
2005
Tonga
650
98,300
1,893
Acs 1998
2006 **
Kiribati
811
93,100
613
Acs 1994
2006 **
PNG
462,840 5,695,300 796
1993 DRAFT- 2006 ***
Nauru
21 10,100 unknown
1993 Not
completed
Solomon Islands
28,370 460,100
521
1995 Not completed
Tuvalu
26 9,600 1,563
2002
Not completed
* Source: SPC 2005 Statistical Summary (ISSN 1021-7436)
** NBSAP still awaiting final government / cabinet approval
***This NBSAP for PNG is only the first draft and is awaiting some major revisions. For
this reason the NBSAP is - at this time - not available for citation.
3.1.1
Institutional overview & information
Table 3 provides reference information for the departments and key individuals
responsible for NBSAP development and implementation in each country reviewed.
12
TABLE 3 INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
NBSAP
COUNTRIES
AGENCY LEADING NBSAP IMPLEMENTATION
COORDINATOR
Email contact:
Vanuatu Environment Department, Private Mail
Touasi Tiwok
environ@VANUATU.COM.VU
Vanuatu
Bag 9063, Port Vila, Vanuatu Ph: +678 25302
Eleni
Department of Environment, PO Box 2131, Suva,
etokaduadua@govnet.gov.fj
Tokaduadua
Fiji
Fiji, Ph: +679 311699
Office of Environmental Planning & Policy
Marshall
Coordination P.O Box 975 Majuro, Marshall Islands
Deborah Barker
oeppc@NTAMAR.NET
Islands
96960. tel: (692) 625 7944 fax: (692)625 7918
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
Faumuina V.S
Apia, Samoa Ph: (685) 31 197 /31 198, Fax: (685)
pati.liu@mnre.gov.ws
Pati Liu
Samoa
25 869/23 176
National Environment Service, PO Box 371,
Elizabeth Munro
liz@environment.org.ck
Cook Islands
Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, Ph: +682 21256
Department of Environment, PO Box 80, Alofi,
Judy Tanevesi
tongatules@mail.gov.nu
Niue
Niue Ph: +683 4021
Department of Economic Affairs, PO box PS-12,
Palakir, Pohnpei State FSM 96941 Ph: +691
Marion Henry
marionh@MAIL.FM
FSM
3202620
Office of Environmental Response and
Coordination, P.O. Box 6051, Koror, PW 96940,
Joel Miles
jmiles@PALAU-OERC.NET
REPUBLIC OF PALAU, Tel: 680-488-8681/5435,
Palau
Fax: 680-488-8638
Ministry of Lands and Survey, Natural Resources
Patisepa Saafi
patisepa_saafi@hotmail.com
Tonga
and Environment Tel: (676) 25 050
Environment Conservation Division (ECD),
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture
Development (MELAD), PO Box 234,
Nenenteiti
teiti.ecd@melad.gov.ki;
Bikenibeu,Tarawa,
Teariki-Ruatu
nrtitaake@yahoo.com.au
Republic of, Kiribati, Ph: +686 28000, 00686 28000 /
Kiribati
28593, Fax: 00686 28334
Biodiversity Assessment Conservation Division,
Dept Environment and Conservation, PO Box 6601,
biodiv@daltron.com.pg;
James Sabi
Boroko NCD, PNG Ph: +675 323 0279 or 325 0195.
jamessabi@hotmail.com
PNG
Fx: +675 325 0182
Department of Commerce, Industry & Resources,
Nauru Government Offices, Central Pacific, Yaren
Tyrone Deiye
tdeiye@gmail.com
Nauru
District, Nauru T: +674 4443133 ext 303
Environment & Conservation Division, Ministry of
Solomon
Forest, Environment and Conservation. P.O.Box
Jozef Hurutarau
jhurutarau@gmail.com
Islands
G24, Honiara,SI Ph:(677) 24215/22263
Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of
Environment, Vaiaku, Funafuti, Tuvalu. Ph: +688
Enate E. Taua'a
enateevi@gmail.com'
Tuvalu
20179
13
3.1.2
Themes addressed in the NBSAPs
In the recent review of the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific
Region20, Tortell examined the NBSAPs of 10 countries (plus the Conservation Plan of
New Caledonia) to assess what common themes, objectives or other targets might
be relevant to the Action Strategy. He also cross-checked these against the themes
in the Island Biodiversity Programme of Work (IBPoW) of the CBD, as well as the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Pacific Plan (results presented in
Table 4).
TABLE 4 COMMON THEMES FROM THE ROUNDTABLE REPORT 21
NBSAPs
OTHERS
ty
W
Po
ersi
odiv
THEMES, OBJECTIVES, TARGETS
l
an
ESIA
7
NIA Bi
L
N
TOTALS
ISLANDS
P
A
A
ON
O
O
L
I
ODIVERSITY
R
D
TU
B
ISLANDS
HALL
NEW GUINEA
A
vation
I
C P
MIC
U
A
L
NUA
PUA
er
Gs G
CIF
A
COOK
F S
FIJI
MARS
NIUE
MD
P
ISLAND
PA
VA
SAMOA
PA
TONG
NEW CALE
Cons
Community empowerment,
awareness, involvement, ownership and
8
benefits
Traditional culture and practices;
8
indigenous property rights
Improving knowledge, research,
12
education, public awareness
Developing and managing protected
13
areas, habitats
Species conservation terrestrial,
coastal and marine, and
13
agrobiodiversity
Management of invasive species and
10
genetically modified organisms
Capacity building and training,
10
Governance
Sustainable economic development,
11
sustainable use of resources
Mainstreaming conservation
6
Financial resources, mechanisms
8
Waste management, pollution
6
Natural
disasters
1
Energy
1
Climate change
2
Water
management
1
20 Tortell, P. (2007) Review of the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Island Region
2003-2007: Report of the Roundtable prepared for the 8th Regional Conference on Protected Areas and
Nature Conservation; Report 2 Recommendations for strengthening the action strategy and enhancing its
implementation.
21 Table exert from: Tortell, P. (2007) Ibid. P.16
14
As the table shows, 12 themes emerge from the NBSAPs, the New Caledonia BCP,
the Island Biodiversity PoW and other documents. These are:
· Community empowerment, awareness, involvement, ownership and benefits
· Traditional culture and practices; indigenous property rights
· Improving knowledge, research, education, public awareness
· Developing and managing protected areas, habitats
· Species conservation terrestrial, coastal and marine, and agrobiodiversity
· Management of invasive species and genetically modified organisms
· Capacity building and training, governance
· Sustainable economic development, sustainable use of resources
· Mainstreaming conservation
· Financial resources, mechanisms
· Waste management
· Climate change
These closely match the thematic areas and cross-cutting themes promoted through
the COPs for consideration in NBSAP development and planning (as mentioned in the
introduction). These specific thematic areas and cross-cutting issues promoted by
the CBD are reviewed in Table 5. As the table shows, the most common areas
covered in the NBSAPs are:
Thematic area:
· Agricultural Biodiversity
· Island Biodiversity
· Marine & Coastal Biodiversity
Cross-cutting issue:
· Invasive Alien species
· Protected Areas
· Public Education and Awareness
· Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
· Traditional Knowledge, innovations and practices
15
TABLE 5
CBD THEMATIC AREAS AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES IN THE NBSAPS
THEMATIC AREAS
tu
percent-
ga
age of all
Fiji
Niue
FSM
Palau
countries
Vanua
Marshall
Islands
Samoa
Cook
Islands
Ton
Kiribati
TOTAL
'Y'
reviewed
Agricultural biodiversity
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Dry and sub-humid lands
biodiversity
n/a n/a N n/a n/a N/A N/A NA
Y
NA
1 10%
Forest biodiversity
Y Y N
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
9 90%
Inland waters
biodiversity
Y Y N
Y
N
Y Y Y Y N
7 70%
Island biodiversity
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Marine and coastal
biodiversity
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Mountain biodiversity
N n/a N n/a
Y
N
Y
NA N NA 2 20%
CROSS-CUTTING
ISSUES
Access to genetic
resources and benefit-
N
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 90%
sharing
Invasive alien species
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Biological diversity and
tourism
Y
N N Y
N
Y Y Y Y Y
7 70%
Climate change and
biological diversity
N N N Y
N N Y Y Y Y 5 50%
Economics, trade and
incentive measures
N N
N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
7 70%
Ecosystem approach
N N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Y N
Y
5 50%
Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation
N N N N Y
N N Y
N N 2 20%
Global Taxonomy
Initiative
N N
Y
N N N N Y
N N 2 20%
Impact assessments
Y Y N
Y
N
Y Y Y Y Y
8 80%
Indicators
N N
N N N N Y Y Y Y
4 40%
Liability and redress
Article 14(2)
N N
N N N N N Y
N N 1 10%
Protected areas
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Public education and
awareness
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Sustainable use of
biodiversity
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
Technology transfer and
cooperation
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
5 50%
Traditional knowledge,
innovations and practices
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 100%
16
3.1.3
Referencing the CBD strategic plan and 2010 targets
The CBD promotes NBSAPs to include reference to the 2010 targets of the CBD
strategic plan.22 However, as Table 6 shows, only Kiribati makes some reference to
this in its NBSAP. This is in part because some of the NBSAPs were completed prior
to the promotion of inclusion of the 2010 targets.
TABLE 6 REFERENCING THE CBD 2010 TARGET IN THE NBSAPS
Does the NBSAP make any
COUNTRY
reference / linkage to the
CBD strategic goal and
2010 target?
Vanuatu
N
Fiji
N
Marshall Islands
N
Samoa
N
Cook Islands
N
Niue
N
FSM
N
Palau
N
Tonga
N
Kiribati
Y (to some extent)
3.1.4
`Visions' of the NBSAPs and outline structures
There are common structures to NBSAPs around the world, and the same is true in
the Pacific region. Many NBSAPs have an overarching `Vision' or `Mission' that the
nation intends to achieve through the implementation of their national strategy and
action plan.
Table 7 outlines these overarching visions / missions prevalent in the reviewed
NBSAPs:
22 http://www.cbd.int/2010-target/default.shtml
17
TABLE 7 `VISIONS & MISSIONS' OF THE NBSAPS
MISSION STATEMENT: (1) To manage and safeguard biological resources through
government, provinces and local communities so as to maintain fully our natural and
Vanuatu
cultural heritage for all ni-Vanuatu. (2) Guide government, provinces, local
communities and landholders to sustainable management of Vanuatu's natural
resources. (3) Ensure that all ni-Vanuatu_including future generations, are able to
benefit from biodiversity and enjoy its use. (4) Protect the custom, intellectual and
legal rights of ni-Vanuatu as resource custodians and users.
Fiji
GOAL: To conserve and sustainably use Fiji's terrestrial, freshwater and marine
biodiversity, and to maintain the ecological processes and systems which are the
foundation of national and local development.
Marshall
VISION: The Marshall Islands, this nation of islands, will have lush green vegetation
Islands
and its environment will be clean and intact. Its waters will be abundant with its
resources. We, the people, living in love and harmony with one another and the
environment, will continue to harvest our resources sustainably while enjoying our
rich culture and traditions, a right which we have inherited from our forefathers.
Samoa
VISION: Samoa's biological and genetic resources is protected, conserved and
sustainably managed so that it will continue to flourish and regenerate, for present
and future generations
Cook Islands COMMITMENT: (1) Conserve its endangered species (2) Develop a system of
protected areas (3) Reduce the harmful effects of invasive species and prevent
further invasions (4) Use biodiversity in a sustainable manner (5) Preserve knowledge
related to biodiversity (6) Ensure an equitable sharing of the benefits of biodiversity
Niue
VISION: Niue is an Environmentally Friendly Nation in which conservation and the
sustainable management of biological resources support all the living community.
VISION: The FSM will have more extensive, diverse, and higher quality of marine,
FSM
freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, which meet human needs and aspiratons
fairly, preserve and utilize traditional knowledge and practices, and fulfill the
ecosystem functions necessary for all life on earth.
Palau
VISION: The people of Palau are living in harmony with their diverse natural and
cultural heritage.
VISION: Tonga's biological diversity and natural resources are protected, conserved
Tonga
and enriched and are appreciated and enjoyed by her present and future generations
and the rest of the world.
GOALS for next five years: (1) Improvement of informal education and pubic
awareness at local community levels, which would form the basis for improved
decision- making and participatory approach in biodiversity protection. (2)
Kiribati
Sustainable use and management of land and terrestrial resources that are in line
with traditional and customary land and marine tenure systems. (3) Biological
resources shall be enhanced, used and managed to maintain biological diversity in
the short and long term run. (4) Available data and information on national
biodiversity shall be expanded and made available to policy makers and the public.
(5) Activities that pollute and threaten biodiversity shall be minimized.
18
As this range of visions / missions / goals etc shows there is a considerable diversity
in approach to each of the NBSAPs, and a wide range of motives particular to each
nation that are the drivers for biodiversity conservation. It would be interesting to
explore the different motives implicit in these visions and missions when examining
later implementation mechanisms and the linkages with societal priorities through
which to link biodiversity awareness raising programmes.
For example, the Vanuatu mission statement makes considerable reference to the ni-
Vanuatu (Vanuatu people), and it would be interesting to explore whether this
indicates that a focus on sovereignty over natural resources and linkages between
patriotism and protection of natural resources may prove effective in generating
support for biodiversity conservation in this case. In the FSM and Tongan visions a
key focus of their national biodiversity conservation efforts is in contributing towards
global biodiversity efforts, suggesting a sense of global partnership may be accessed
in order to encourage efforts in these nations and gain support for biodiversity
conservation. These divergent and complex motivations for biodiversity conservation
are worth exploring further.
3.2 A review of the actionable planning in the existing
NBSAPs and the mechanisms available for monitoring and
evaluation.
At the heart of any NBSAP is the actionable
BOX 1
text, the overall strategy and plan for
biodiversity conservation. In the NBSAPs
THEME 1 - xxxx
reviewed, after the vision / mission has been
Objective 1
outlined, most go on to have particular
Action 1.1 ...
`themes' or overarching `goals' of some sort,
Action 1.2 ...
under which clear `objectives' have been
Action 1.3 ...
described, under which further specific `actions'
Objective 2
have been listed (see box 1).
Action 2.1 ...
Action 2.2 ...
As discussed in the introduction there is no
Etc...
`right or wrong' way to produce an NBSAP, and
it is very much up to individual nation states
what approach they feel best suits their needs and challenges. However, there are
some underlying principles to strategy development, whether it be it for a corporate
business plan, or an NBSAP, that are useful to examine when undertaking any review
process.
In the conservation community, as in any other industry, a wide range of
terminology exists around which discourse is often focused. In strategic planning, the
terms `objectives, aims and goals' are used to describe the intended `outcomes and
outputs' of any `action'. In addition, an array of (often ill-defined) `tools, instruments
and mechanisms' are promoted in order to facilitate implementation of any
objectives, and clearly defined targets, as well as documented indicators of success
are desirable to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the intended outcomes.
19
This is familiar language to strategists and planners. However, for the wider public,
as well as individuals within conservation whose English is a second language and
capacity in strategic planning is lacking, such terminology can be confusing and
detracting from the meaningful substance of any strategic plan.
Therefore in this review the terminology is kept straightforward and simple. This is
intended both to simplify the review process, and as a reminder of the underlying
intention of any strategic plan.
To that end the mechanisms for strategy development have been broken down into
their fundamental components. Any strategy whether it is for an international
business corporation, or for a governmental biodiversity conservation plan - is
essentially composed of six key elements: These can most easily be described as the
`What, Where, When, Who, Why and How' of strategic planning.
For example: What does nation X want to do; where will it do it; by when should it
be done; who is going to be responsible for it and be involved in its development;
why do you want to do it; and finally how is it going to be done, and how will nation
X know when it has been successful?
The first three of these factors combined effectively provide a `target' for a strategy.
For example:
"Nation X wants to establish a network of protected areas to cover 15% of the land
area in Y province, by 2015."
Here the `What' is to establish a network of protected areas
The `Where' is
to cover 15% of the land area in Y province
The `When' is
by the year 2015.
Following this, in classic strategy development it is important to state `Who' is going
to lead the way on any activity, and who else (what other partners) are likely to be
involved. Finally, `Why' and `How' are added in to complete the plan (as discussed
below).
Taking these six key principles in strategy development, Table 8 shows a summary
of the `What, Where, When, Who, Why and How' areas that have been covered by
the NBSAPs under review.
Each of these sections is discussed in further detail below:
20
TABLE 8
COVERAGE OF THE SIX KEY ELEMENTS IN STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
tu
ga
Fiji
Niue
FSM
Palau
Ton
Kiribati
Vanua
Marshall
Islands
Samoa
Cook
Islands
WHAT - Have objectives and
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
actions been identified?
WHERE - Do actions identify locale
Y Y N
Y Y Y Y ** Y Y Y
specific work to be undertaken?
WHEN - Does the NBSAP have an
overall time-frame? (ie. The
N N N N N
Y -2
Y - 5
years
N N
Y - 2
years
Years
strategy is from Yr X to Yr Y)
Has a timeframe for
implementation been set
Y
N N N N * N
Y ***
N
Y
against each obj / action?
Has distinction been made
between the varying 'priority
levels' of any one objective
N
Y Y Y N
Y
N
Y
N N
/ action, and have these
been highlighted within the
NBSAP document itself?
N (but
WHO - Has the Lead Agency
reco-
Y (2
responsible for overall NBSAP
N
mmen-
N
Y
N
agen-
Y
Y
Y
Y
implementation been identified?
dation
cies)
made)
Has the lead agency been
Y
identified against each
N
Y
N N * * N *
N
****
activity?
Have the key players /
partners / agencies
associated with
Y Y Y Y *
Y
N
Y Y N
implementing each obj /
action been identified
against each activity?
WHY (A) Does the NBSAP outline
the ' Non-marketable 'values' of
Y Y Y Y Y
? Y Y Y Y Y
biodiversity?
(B) Does the NBSAP
outline the marketable /
economic values of
N (but
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
biodiversity outlined in
pro-
(fish-
(fish-
posed)
eries)
eries)
NBSAP with monetary
figures provided.
/
/
x
)
s
,
i
ve
vas
HOW - Have separate
o
nents
o
nents
pment Plan,
in
eas, main-
NDS)
implementation plan/s been
SAF
wn
s:
n
ons)
N
ons)
N
velo
nment Matri
N
developed since the NBSAP
comp
c'd strategies)
comp
n ar
-
NE
production?
acti
acti
c De
viro
unkno
y area
some
some
Y
vatio
eaming i
t
egi
f
or
f
or
s
er
str
(
(
s
ee asso
(
tra
(
f
or ke
Y
Y
Y
(S
FSM - En
Y
con
Y
* sometimes
given
****
at Theme level
**
(for protected areas)
*****
attempt has been made in parts
*** (though
broad)
21
What
As mentioned, the question of `what' is to be done is at the heart of any strategy, i.e.
what actions are to be undertaken. An example from Samoa's NBSAP is:
Theme: Ecosystem Management
Objective: To enhance the management of existing protected areas and
establish new ones to increase coverage of protected areas to 15% and
achieve a full representation of Samoa's ecosystems.
Action 1: Develop and implement management plans for the existing
protected areas in Samoa.
Action 2: Establish conservation areas in under represented
ecosystems e.g. Mangrove areas.
All of the 10 countries (100%) reviewed have specific actions listed in their NBSAPs.
Where
Providing site-specific information against actions is not always relevant. For
example, some actions may be nation-wide; such as Theme 7, Objective 3 in FSM's
NBSAP, where one of the actions is: "Develop and implement waste collection,
storage and disposal programs for residential and commercial premises through the
nation." Or Theme `D' of the Cook Islands NBSAP, where the action is to "Establish
an independent agency to encourage and manage research on biodiversity and its
uses, and to ensure that there is an equitable sharing of benefits."
However, in some cases, site-specific reference is useful and valid. For example, in
the Kiribati NBSAP, action 1.1.1 states: "Establish at least one community-based
conservation area and one marine reserve in the Gilberts Group [and] one
community-based conservation area in the Line."
Nearly all of the NBSAPs reviewed provide site-specific information for particular
activities where relevant.
When
This section can be broken into three key questions:
(i) Does the NBSAP document itself have an overarching time frame? Ie. Is the
document valid from year X to year Y?
As the table shows only three NBSAPs reviewed have a specific time-
frame given for the NBSAP as a whole (Niue, Tonga and Kiribati).
(ii) Has a timeframe for implementation been set against each objective / action?
This is of particular importance in strategic planning. It provides
critical information about when any particular action aims to be
achieved. As outlined earlier, this is especially important when
prioritizing activities (especially where resources are limited), and in
setting targets and indicators for success (discussed further in section
3.2.1). However, only two NBSAPs in the region have specified
22
particular timeframes throughout all of their actions (Vanuatu and
Kiribati). Two others have provided some reference to time-frames
against particular key actions or only as a broad reference (Niue and
Palau).
(iii) Has distinction been made between the varying 'priority levels' of any one
objective / action, and have these been highlighted within the NBSAP document
itself?
Many NBSAPs have large numbers of objectives and actions.
Prioritizing these is essential, in order to direct resources appropriately
and focus efforts on the more critical issues that require immediate
attention. Whilst particular time-frames may not be given against
actions, it is still possible for countries to prioritise activities based
upon which they feel need addressing sooner rather than later. Of the
NBSAPs reviewed, five (50%) have given priority ratings to their
objectives and / or actions.
Who
This section can be divided into three components:
(i) Has the lead agency responsible for overall NBSAP implementation been
identified?
60% (six) of the NBSAPs reviewed have listed a particular agency or
division within government as primarily responsible for overseeing
NBSAP implementation.
(ii) Has a lead agency been identified against each activity?
Depending upon the activity listed, different divisions or departments
within government may be better placed to oversee an activities
implementation and management. Two nations (Tonga and Fiji) have
identified a lead agency for each particular activity, whilst three others
have assigned a lead agency for some, but not all, actions. Five
nations have not assigned a lead agency against particular actions,
though it is assumed that the overarching agency assigned overall
responsibility for the NBSAP is expected to be the lead agency (unless
otherwise stated).
(iii) Have the key players / partners / agencies associated with implementing each
objective / action been identified against each activity?
As well as describing which government agency / department /
institution is to take the lead in any activity, some NBSAPs also
provide information on who the key partners and key associated
players in any activity are expected to be. These can include other
government departments, NGOs, community groups, CROP agencies
and the like. Indeed, 70% of the NBSAPs reviewed have provided this
information.
Why
This section refers to `Making the case for the value of biodiversity'. That is; Why is
biodiversity conservation important? Why produce the NBSAP?
23
The CBD promotes the need to improve the understanding of the value of
biodiversity, including its role in ecosystem services. The outcome of COP-8
suggests: "Identifying and assessing the value of biodiversity resources and
functions and of the associated ecosystem services can raise awareness, thus
creating incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and can
also support the adequate design and calibration of other incentive measures for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity." 23
Biodiversity values can be at the cultural, spiritual and aesthetic level, as well as the
economic level. Making the case for the value of biodiversity in the NBSAP is
important as it can provide important leverage for political and wider support. This is
especially relevant in inter-governmental negotiations, between divisions responsible
for biodiversity conservation, and those responsible for economic development.
Making the case for the `economic value' of biodiversity is extremely useful in
arguing the case for finance ministries and associated divisions to develop
appropriate fiscal policies and mechanisms that provide incentives for biodiversity
conservation, as well as appropriate regulations and disincentives for environmental
over-exploitation and the resultant reduction in biodiversity that underpins vital
ecosystem services.
As the data in Table 8 shows, available NBSAPs have been reviewed to assess the
extent to which information on the value of biodiversity has been provided. The
upper row against the `Why' category (A) states whether the NBSAP has mention of
the non-marketable values of biodiversity (ie: those of cultural / aesthetic /
traditional importance as well as wider concerns for ecosystem integrity). This is of
key relevance, as many of these ecosystem services supported by biodiversity are
not reflected in market prices. As COP-8 found: "private and public decision-making
and the allocation of funds will be distorted if the repercussions of activities on
biodiversity resources and functions, and the associated ecosystem services, are not
adequately taken into account. This distortion is an important underlying cause of
biodiversity decline. Undertaking valuation of biodiversity resources and functions
and the associated non-marketed ecosystem services has the potential of improving
private and public decision-making."24
All the countries reviewed have some sort of description in their NBSAP regarding
non-marketable values of biodiversity. The majority of NBSAPs have such
information in the preambles, or introductory sections of their strategies.
The lower row in table 8 (B) assesses whether the NBSAP has gone on to make the
case for the direct economic value of biodiversity, such as information emerging from
the results of ecosystem service valuations, or simply from existing information on
available trade figures from key industries reliant on robust ecological systems, (such
as forestry and fisheries).
Only five NBSAPs reviewed have included some sort of section in which specific
financial values have been given for sectors of biodiversity of high importance to the
economy of the nation (usually fisheries or forestry related export profit data).
23 VIII/9.UNEP/CBD/COP/8/31, p. 235; See decisions IV/10 A and VI/15, annex I, paragraph 22.
24 VIII/9.UNEP/CBD/COP/8/31, p.233
24
In the years since the production of some of the NBSAPs it is worth noting however
that many countries have stressed their desire for undertaking economic valuations
of biodiversity as a priority in the future.
How
The question of `how' a particular action is going to be undertaken and achieved is
usually too complex an issue to outline in full in an overarching strategy. However,
the issue of `how' (or what mechanisms and processes will be used to achieve the
desired action) can be addressed by a nation developing (or committing to develop)
an associated, detailed plan of implementation against that particular activity.
For example, in the Samoan NBSAP, Theme 2, Objective 1, Action 1.4 states:
"Develop and implement a long term monitoring programme for Samoa's native
ecosystems including invasive species". In addressing `how' to do this Samoa has
gone on to develop various more detailed programmes, including the monitoring
programme outlined in the associated `National Invasive Alien Species
Implementation Action Plan (NIASAP) of 2005'.
As for how a nation will know whether or not it has been successful in its actions,
this is where indicators prove extremely useful. For instance, using our earlier
example, the indicator for success in nation X's work establishing protected areas
would be: "By 2015 a network of protected areas has been established, covering
15% of the land area in Y province." This is discussed further in section 3.2.1 below.
Most of the nations reviewed have gone on, post-NBSAP production, to develop
associated plans addressing the mechanisms for specific implementation of specific
actions (to lesser or greater extents). These are discussed further in section 3.3.
However, in-depth review of these associated plans are beyond the scope of this
assignment.
3.2.1 Monitoring & evaluation of NBSAPs
As mentioned in the previous section, the setting of targets and indicators are very
useful tools in monitoring and evaluating both the implementation of NBSAPs and the
success of activities undertaken in biodiversity conservation.
A TARGET can be defined as:
`The desired outcome/results to be achieved
within a specific timeframe. These should be
measurable and achievable' 25
An INDICATOR tells you:
`How you know when your action has been
successfully implemented'
In simple terms using our earlier example, a target would be:
"Nation X wants to establish a network of protected areas to cover 15% of the
land area in Y province, by 2015."
25 Island Biodiversity Programme of Work (IBPoW) `D- Working definitions'
25
The indicator for this target would be:
"By 2015 a network of protected areas has been established, covering 15%
of the land area in Y province."
The issue of `measurability' in any target is extremely important, as it is this
`measure' that enables effective and straightforward monitoring of success. For
example, in the FSM's NBSAP, Theme 1, Objective 2 states: "To enhance the
management of existing conservation areas and establish new areas to achieve a full
representation of the FSM's ecosystems." This could in and of itself be regarded
as a `target'. However, this is not particularly measurable. These types of `targets'
are common in NBSAPs in the region, and are situational targets, in that they do not
give specific information on the extent (level) to which the desired outcome is
expected.
More measurable targets are those that indicate a `level' of desired outcome using a
measurable parameter for reference (i.e. years, percentages or the like). In the
Samoan NBSAP an example of a measurable target is: Theme 2 (Ecosystem
Management), Objective 2 (Conservation Areas): "To enhance the management of
existing protected areas and establish new ones to increase coverage of protected
areas to 15% [from the existing 10%] and achieve a full representation of Samoa's
ecosystems."
As Table 9 shows, of the NBSAPs reviewed, 50% include some measurable targets.
However these are rarely set against `each' objective or action, and are rather
overarching targets or given only in certain areas of the NBSAP or under particular
themes (such as protected areas).
Similarly, 40% of the NBSAPs reviewed provided some `indicators' of success.
However, these were provided at lesser or greater extents across the range of
NBSAPs, from Palau's extensive list of indicators in its NBSAP action matrix, to
Samoa's intermittent `Monitoring goals'.
TABLE 9 TARGETS AND INDICATORS
Does the
NBSAP have
integral
Does the NBSAP
measurable
have integral
COUNTRY
TARGETS
INDICATORS
Vanuatu
Y
N
Fiji
N N
Marshall Islands
N N
Samoa
Y Y
Cook Islands
N N
Niue
N N
FSM
N N
Palau
Y Y
Tonga
Y Y
Kiribati
Y Y
26
In some countries, such as Tonga, these targets and indicators are set within defined
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans (or matrixes). However, most NBSAPs do not
have integral detailed M&E plans and rather refer to recommendations to develop
such plans in the future. It is important to note therefore that some countries have,
since the production of their NBSAPs, gone on to develop more refined monitoring
systems for the objectives and actions listed in their NBSAPs. For example, in 2004
the Federated States of Micronesia developed a `Strategic Planning Matrix', and in
2005 the Cook Islands integrated the key objectives of the NBSAP into the `National
Environment Strategic Action Framework (2005-2009)' in which `Key Performance
Indicators' were listed.26
Despite the lack of M&E plans inherent in the NBSAPs 60% have, in some form,
undertaken reviews / M&E (usually of one particular component of their NBSAP)
since their original production. And at least one, Fiji, has also gone on to update /
amend their NBSAP (see table 10).
TABLE 10 MONITORING, REVIEWING AND UPDATING OF NBSAPS
Has the NBSAP been
reviewed / has
Has the NBSAP been
strategy monitoring
amended / updated at
taken place since
all since its initial
COUNTRY
production?
production?
Vanuatu
N N
Fiji
Y
Y
Marshall Islands
Y
N
Samoa
Y N
Cook Islands
Y
N
Niue
Y
N
FSM
Y
N
Palau
N N
Tonga
unknown unknown
Kiribati
N N
Table 11 gives further detail of those reviews undertaken to date.27
26 NESAF, p.23
27 Information taken from literature reviews as well as the responses to NBSAP Coordinator questionnaires
27
TABLE 11 NBSAP REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN
COUNTRY
NBSAP REVIEW/S UNDERTAKEN
BY WHOM?
WHEN?
Review of NBSAP for Samoa & FSM with Dr. Lex A.J.
Feb-06
reference to treatment of forest
Thomson (SPRIG
biodiversity, especially forest genetic
Project Team
FSM
resources. (SPRIG 2 Milestone 75)
Leader
Review of NBSAP for Samoa & FSM with Dr. Lex A.J.
Feb-06
reference to treatment of forest
Thomson (SPRIG
biodiversity, especially forest genetic
Project Team
resources. (SPRIG 2 Milestone 75)
Leader
Focus country NBSAP preliminary
DEC & SPREP
2007
SAMOA
review
Project Evaluation Report: Government
Dr David Butler
2003
of Cook Islands Enabling Activity
COOK
Biodiversity Project (NBSAP)
ISLANDS
CKI/98/G31
Review of NBSAP for Fiji & Niue, with
Dr. Lex A.J.
Feb-06
reference to treatment of forest
Thomson (SPRIG
biodiversity, especially forest genetic
Project Team
resources. (SPRIG 2 Milestone 59)
Leader
Review of `Activities or Actions
Department of
2006/7
implemented by Stakeholders - NGOs,
Environment
Institutions, Statutory Bodies or
Government Agencies - which are
linked to Fiji's National Biodiversity
FIJI
Strategy and Action Plan'
Review of NBSAP for Fiji & Niue, with
Dr. Lex A.J.
Feb-06
reference to treatment of forest
Thomson (SPRIG
biodiversity, especially forest genetic
Project Team
NIUE
resources. (SPRIG 2 Milestone 59)
Leader
General review as part of the
OEPPC, BCI (Local
2005
Biodiversity Capacity Building Needs
Consultants)
MARSHALL
Assessment (NBSAP-Enabling Activities
ISLANDS
additional funding)
3.3 The extent of mainstreaming and cross-sectoral adoption
of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
principles.
"The most important lesson of the last ten years is that the objectives
of the Convention will be impossible to meet until consideration of
biodiversity is fully integrated into other sectors. The need to
mainstream the conservation and sustainable use of biological
resources across all sectors of the national economy, the society and
the policy-making framework is a complex challenge at the heart of
the Convention." (Hague Ministerial Declaration from COP VI to
WSSD, 2002)
28
Mainstreaming basically means that concerns for biological diversity conservation
and sustainable use need to be reflected across all arena's of society, and in all
`economic sectors and development models, policies and programmes' ultimately
into all human behaviour.28,29 Mainstreaming means ensuring biodiversity concerns
take appropriate priority levels in national planning and may involve difficult choices
requiring well-informed decisions and trade-offs between: (a) the interests of
biodiversity conservation and conventional forms of economic production, both in the
short and long term, and (b) the needs of those who gain the benefit and those who
bear the costs of such economic impacts from the consideration of biodiversity
concerns.30
For mainstreaming to be successful, concerns for biological diversity need to be
integrated into the planning processes for a range of government departments
(agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining etc). This can be very challenging in
traditionally established centralized government constructs where sectors are sub-
divided and managed relatively independently, where an inherent hierarchy of
leaders (Ministers and associated personnel) and actors (civil servants) are required,
by de-facto, to promote their own key concerns and priority agendas in their
domestic policies and plans (within which concerns for biological diversity may not
feature particularly prominently). A clear example of such a situation can be seen in
many Forestry Departments around the world, especially in developing countries,
where any concern for forest conservation and sustainable management is often in
direct conflict with the pressing need to acquire foreign exchange revenue generation
through immediate term lucrative logging agreements.
A further challenge to mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in many traditionally
sector-driven governmental constructs, is in ensuring that plans and policies (and
even legislation) are synchronised. Plans and agendas of different government
departments become manifest through the production of policies and laws, and
where communication flows between departments and divisions are inadequate,
policies and laws developed in one sector of the government may directly conflict
with equally valid (under the eyes of the law) policies and legislation in other sectors.
This can lead to considerable conflicts when such laws are put to the test, and
requires high level law-makers to make decisions in favour of one law over another.
Such legal authorities may not have the necessary information or awareness of the
importance of biodiversity conservation (and support of ecosystem services) over
apparently far more tangible concerns regarding the potential impacts on the
national economy in the immediate term.
Despite these challenges, many countries in the Pacific have developed policies and
legislation with regards to biodiversity concerns emerging from, or in connection
with, their NBSAPs.
28 GEF (2004) Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and sectors (Interim) report. Prepared
by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility (GEF/C.24/Inf.11
November 10, 2004)
29 Van Boven, G. & Hesselink, F. (2006) Mainstreaming Biological Diversity: The role of communication,
education and public awareness. IUCN, SCBD, UNESCO, CEC
30 GEF (2004) Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and sectors (Interim) report. Prepared
by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility (GEF/C.24/Inf.11
November 10, 2004)
29
Tables 12 & 13 give some examples of these.
TABLE 12 - POLICIES
Examples of domestic POLICIES produced that reflect biodiversity
conservation concerns
Climate Change Policy(draft) 2002
Fiji
Forest Policy(draft) 2007
draft National Bio-safety Policy 2006
National Coastal Management Framework 2006
Marshall Islands
Policies and Priority Actions for Sustainable Mariculture Development in the
Republic of the Marshall Islands 2004
The Sustainable Management of Biodiversity Policy (2007)
Samoa
A National Deforestation Policy is under development.
Various site-specific environmental regulations, ie: Atiu Environment Reg, 2007;
Cook Islands
Aitutaki Environment Reg, 2006; Mitiaro Environment Reg, 2006; etc.
Environment Protection Fund Reg, 2006
Scientific and Policy Support for the Development of MPAs (yr?)
FSM
Invasive Species Policy (yr?)
TABLE 13 - LEGISLATION
Examples of domestic LEGISLATION produced
as a result of / associated with the NBSAP
Environment Management and Conservation Act 2003
Vanuatu
Water Resources Act 2003
Amendments to the Forestry Act 2001
Environment Management Act 2005
Fiji
Endangered & Protected Species Act 2002
National Biosecurity Bill-draft (under review by key agencies & legislative counsel)
Sustainable Development Regulations (under review by Cabinet) 2006
Marshall Islands
Fisheries Management Ordinances (being drafted for Mejatto, Arno, Majuro, Likiep)
Office of Environmental Planning & Policy Coordination Act 2003
The Maritime Zones Act (1999)
Bio-prospecting regulations drafted 00-01
EIA regulations (drafted 1998)
Samoa
Village Fono Act (1990)
The watershed protection and management regulations (1992)
Fisheries Act regulations (amended 2002)
Biodiversity Prospecting Bill 2006
Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2006
Cook Islands
Trade and Endangered Spp. Bill (yr?)
Biosafety Framework Bill 2005
MPA laws/ regulations 2003
FSM
Bio-security laws (drafted) 2006
Amendments to the Protected Areas Network legislation, including enabling the
Micronesia Challenge (Yr?)
Palau
an act prohibiting shark-finning (name / yr?)
amendments to fisheries legislation (name / yr?)
recycling act (yr?)
30
A further approach to mainstreaming biodiversity concerns is through ensuring that
they are reflected in the concurrent strategic plans that are being developed in
response to other multi-lateral environment agreements (MEAs).
As mentioned in the introduction and as shown in Table 14, Pacific nations are party
to a range of MEAs and international processes, including:
UNCCD
- United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNCLOS
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNFCCC
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
CMS
- Convention on Migratory Species
CITES
- Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species
Ramsar
- Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
WHC
- World Heritage Convention
SC-POPS
- Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
TABLE 14 PARTY MEMBERSHIP OF MEAs AND ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS
SC-
UNCCD UNCLOS UNFCCC
CMS
CITES Ramsar WHC POPS
Vanuatu
X
X
Fiji
X
Marshall Islands
X X
Samoa
Cook Islands
X X X
Niue
X X X
FSM
X X X
X
Palau
X
Tonga
X X X
Kiribati
X X X
PNG
X
Nauru
X X X X
Solomon Islands
X X X
Tuvalu
X X X X
As parties to these conventions, each nation is required (or `urged') to produce a
range of planning documents / strategies etc:
UNFCCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change addresses
the issues of global warming, resulting in the Kyoto Protocol - an international
and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions world
wide. A key recommendation from this convention is for Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) to produce National Adaptation Programmes of Action
(NAPAs). This would be relevant for Pacific LDCs, namely: Kiribati, Samoa,
Solomon islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. However, a further strategy has been
encouraged through the GEF in the framework of Pacific Adaptation for
Climate Change reports (PACCs), which is required by the GEF from all Pacific
nations in order to release funds to support climate change issues.
31
UNCCD - The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification was adopted in
Paris on 17 June 1994. Countries affected by desertification are implementing
the Convention by developing and carrying out national, subregional, and
regional action programmes. At the national level these take the form of
`National Action Plans' that guide governmental processes and policies in
tackling land degradation.
UNCLOS The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, also called the Law of
the Sea Convention, provides a set of rules for the use of the world's oceans.
UNCLOS came into force in 1994, and defines the rights and responsibilities of
nations in their use of the seas, establishes clear guidelines for businesses,
protects the environment, and improves the management of marine natural
resources.
MDGs - The Millenium Development Goals promote the protection and sustainable
management of biodiversity, including genetic resources, species and
ecosystem services that support human development.
The Stockholm Convention addressed issues of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
and urges parties to produce National Implementation Plans (NIPs) to guide
national responses.
Agenda 21 - emerging from the Rio Summit (from which most of these conventions
arose) calls on countries to adopt `National Strategies for Sustainable
Development' (NSDSs) that `should build upon and harmonize the various
sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that are
operating in the country.'31, 32
The nations included in this review are at varying stages of completing these various
MEA plans and strategy requirements (see Table 15). There appears to be some
confusion as to whether national development plans (under a range of titles) can be
regarded as NSDSs (as promoted by Agenda 21). However, Pacific nations are
making considerable headway in their efforts to ensure their international obligations
to the MEAs are met. And through these, the CBD goes on to promote the
mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use concerns.
It is beyond the scope of this review to assess whether these associated MEA-related
plans and strategies do in fact incorporate and mainstream biodiversity related
issues; however, such analysis would be extremely useful in the future.
31 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
32 McNeill, C.I. (2007) Mainstreaming Biodiversity into National Development Plans: Overview and
Selected Tools. Presentation by UNDP.
32
TABLE 15 STATUS OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT FOR MEAs
Pacific
Adaptation to
Climate
National
Change
Adaptation
reports
Programme
National
National Sustainable
(PACC) -
of Action
NIP-POP -
Biosafety
National
Development Strategy
UNFCCC
(NAPA) -
Stockholm
Frameworks -
Action Plan -
(NSDS) - Agenda 21
(GEF)
UNFCCC
Convention
CBD
UNCCD
Vanuatu
Y - Priorities and Action
under
Y
draft prepared
Y
unknown
Agenda 06/15
development
Fiji
Y - Strategic Development
Y
N/A
Y
N N
Plan 06/08
Marshall
under
under
under
N N/A
Islands
Y - Vision 2018 06/18
development
development
development
Y - Strategy for the
Samoa
under
Development of Samoa 05-
Y Y
Y Y
07
development
Cook
under
Y - National Sustainable
Y
N/A N
N
Islands
Development Plan 2007-2010
development
Niue
Y - Integrated Strategic Plan
Y
N/A
Y Y Y
03-08
FSM
Y - Strategic Development
under
Y
N/A
Unknown, N/A
N
Plan 00/15
development
Palau
Y - National Master
under
under
under
N/A
Y
Development Plan 06/20
development
development
development
Tonga
Y - Strategic Development
under
Y
N/A
Y
unknown
Plan 06/07 - 08/09
development
Y - National Development
Kiribati
Strategy 04-07. Y - update to
under
under
under
under
Y
2008 2011 (under
development
development
development
development
development)
PNG
Y - Medium Term
Y
N/A
Y Y
unknown
Development Plan 2005-2010
Nauru
Y -National Sustainable
under
N
unknown
Development Strategy 06/08
Y
N/A
development
Solomon
Y - National Economic
draft being
under
Recovery, Reform and
Y
N N
Islands
Development Plan 03/06
prepared
development
Y - National Strategy for
Tuvalu
draft being
under
Sustainable Development
Y
N
Y
05/15
prepared
development
In addition to these MEA related plans and strategies, various nations have gone on
to develop other relevant plans that incorporate the aims of the NBSAPs (as shown in
table 16).
This vast array of plans, strategies, policies and protocols offer considerable
opportunities for mainstreaming, but also risk fragmentation between divisions and
departments intent on completing their own plans and implementation their own
priority agendas. The very scale of planning processes (further discussed in section
3.5) also suggests that planning requirements in the region are highly burdensome
and consume considerable time of the limited personnel available in government
departments that are also tasked with implementation activities.
33
TABLE 16 FURTHER STARTEGIES DEVELOPED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
Examples of other plans and strategies developed with key
relevance to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
Coastal Management Advisory Council (CMAC) Strategy and Action Plan-2005 Re-
Marshall
Imman Action Plan-strengthening of the Process for Community-Based Fisheries and
Islands
Resource Management Planning (2007-2009); RMI Biodiversity Capacity Building Needs
Assessment (2005); Marshall Islands Invasive Species Task Force Strategy and Action
Plan (2007-2010)-DRAFT still undergoing final input from key agencies
National Environment Strategic Action Framework (NESAF) 05-09; Millennium
Cook
Development Goals National Report 2005; Manuae Marine Management Plan under
Islands
development; Manuae Management Plan under development
FSM
Climate Change Adaptation Project (CLIMAP) - ADB
Fiji
Tourism Development Plan 2007
Micronesia Challenge; National Invasive Species Strategy, and 5-year Strategic Plan for
Palau
Invasive Species; Protected Areas Network; SNC-CCC
National Implementation Strategy (NIS) Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance
Programme (PICCAP); Phoenix Islands Protected Areas Management Plan - under
Kiribati
development (covering terrestrial and marine biodiversity up to 60 nautical miles from
each islands); National Implementation Strategy (NIS) Pacific Islands Climate Change
Assistance Programme (PICCAP)
Solomon
Grand Coalition for Change Government Policy;
Islands
3.4 The key challenges faced by member states in the
development and implementation of their NBSAPs
As a part of this regional review, NBSAP coordinators from the three countries
without NBSAPs were asked to identify the challenges and obstacles they and their
departments were facing in developing the NBSAPs.
In Nauru and Tuvalu it would appear the key constraints identified at this time are:
i) Economic and Financial obstacles (lack of financing).
Both of these countries are in the process of acquiring the GEF funds to
support the NBSAP development process.
ii)
Institutional, technical and capacity-related obstacles (lack of human
resources). Both of these countries have limited numbers of personnel
available to focus on this work, and this has been a severe constraint in
moving this process forward, as other, more immediate priorities have taken
precendence.
In the Solomon Islands there have been two previous attempts to initiate the NBSAP
development process. Both ultimately stalled in large part due to the lack of
guidance in NBSAP development procedure. Early attempts to develop the NBSAP
attempted to ensure full stakeholder collaboration by distributing resources through
all relevant departments (Forestry, Fisheries, Environment, Meteorology, Agriculture
etc) to undertake their own preparatory work and return with priorities and
recommended actions for the NBSAP. This fragmentation of the work ultimately led
to a failed consensus for the way forward in NBSAP development and production. In
34
early 2007 the Environment and Conservation Division (ECD) of the Solomon Islands
recognized the need to revive the NBSAP process and ensured that NBSAP
development and production received paramount attention in their departmental
work-planning. To that end, the Solomon Islands have, this year, established a
multi-sectoral NBSAP committee, procured a consultant, undertaken the necessary
preparatory work (gap analyses etc) and are currently in the process of undertaking
the stakeholder and provincial consultations.
The key challenges and obstacles to NBSAP development in Solomon Islands
observed and identified overall were (and in some respects still are) the following:
i) Lack of personnel in the Environment and Conservation Division responsible
for both developing and implementing the NBSAP.
ii)
Available capacity in ECD and associated departments.
iii)
Access to funds (GEF funding was returned after the delays to the previous
attempts at NBSAP development).
iv)
Ensuring wide stakeholder and provincial consultation is achieved in such a
fragmented archipelago state.
v)
Accessing background information on biodiversity currently held with BINGOs,
Universities and associated institutions (that have not yet been shared with
government)
vi)
Ensuring inter-governmental departmental collaboration and communication.
3.4.1
Challenges to NBSAP implementation
NBSAP coordinators from the nations with completed NBSAPs were also asked about
the challenges and obstacles they and their departments are facing in implementing
their NBSAPs. Table 17 shows the ratings that NBSAP coordinators gave against the
key challenges and obstacles identified.
The highest rating for a `serious obstacle' was `economic and financial (lack of
financing)'.
The next biggest challenges identified were: `socio-economic obstacles' (such as
poverty, lack of community capacity, unsustainable utilization rates), and
`institutional, technical and capacity-related obstacles' (such as lack of human
resources, inadequate capacity, lack of technology transfer).
These are discussed further in section 3.5.
The lowest rated challenge was `lack of collaboration/cooperation between partners
and stakeholders', suggesting that this particular challenge was well met in the
Pacific region.
35
TABLE 17 KEY CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING NBSAPS
s
d
)
tu
slan
on of
Fiji
TAL
Niue
FSM
Palau
Vanua
Marshall
Islands
Samoa
Kiribati
TO
porti
grades (%
Cook I
Political/societal obstacles
(such as lack of political will,
political instability, or difficulties
mainstreaming NBSAP into other
government sectors)
3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 18 11%
Institutional, technical and capacity-
related obstacles
(such as lack of human resources,
inadequate capacity, lack of
technology transfer)
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
23
14%
Lack of accessible
knowledge/information
(such as a lack of scientific and
traditional knowledge on status of
biodiversity)
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 19 12%
Economic and Financial obstacles
(such as lack of financing)
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
24
15%
Lack of Collaboration/cooperation
between partners and stakeholders
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 16 10%
Legal/juridical challenges
(such as a lack of appropriate
policies and laws)
2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 18 11%
Socio-economic obstacles
(such as poverty, lack of community
capacity, unsustainable utilization
rates)
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
22
14%
Natural phenomena and
environmental change
(such as climate change or natural
disasters)
1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 20 13%
1 = this is not an obstacle
2 = this is a challenge to the implementation of our NBSAP, but it is not critical
3 = this is a serious obstacle to the implementation of our NBSAP
36
3.4.2 Support
required
Following on from the above section, NBSAP coordinators were asked to list three
key areas where they feel support is needed in implementing their NBSAPs. The
results are shown in Table 18.
TABLE 18
AREAS WHERE SUPPORT IS REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTING NBSAPS
s
d
SUPPORT REQUIRED
tu
slan
Vanua
Fiji
Marshall
Islands
Samoa
Cook I
Niue
FSM
Palau
Kiribati
TOTAL
Institutional strengthening
X
X
2
Political will to support NBSAP
X
1
Review of NBSAP / M&E
process development
X
X
X
X
X
5
baseline biodiversity data
gathering and information
management
X
1
collection of biodiversity
specimens & equitable access
and benefit sharing
X
1
develop economic valuation
procedures into land and
coastal zone planning
X
1
strengthening partnerships
with wider stakeholders in
implementing NBSAP
X
X
X
X
4
developing a workable
reporting and communication
strategy
X
X
X
3
capacity building for NBSAP
implementation
X
X
X
X
X
5
developing funding strategies /
securing financial sustainability
X
X
X
X
4
There are a wide range of areas where countries feel support is needed, and
reviewing this table with a mind to specific country requests may be especially useful
for support organizations such as SPREP. However, commonalities do occur, and the
two areas that were most oft cited were:
(i) Undertaking reviews of NBSAPs and assisting with the development of
Monitoring and Evaluation processes (as previously discussed in section
3.2.1)
(ii) Supporting capacity building of the relevant departments to enable
effective NBSAP implementation.
37
3.5 Addressing these challenges and identifying opportunities
Therefore, in synopsis: from the questionnaire results, the interviews undertaken
and from review of the associated literature, the key challenges in NBSAP
development and implementation appear to be (in no particular order):
A) Financing (fundraising)
B) Socio-economic obstacles (such as poverty, lack of community capacity,
unsustainable utilization rates)
C) Burdensome and fragmented MEA requirements & multiple strategy development
D) The issue of scale: limited numbers of personnel available
E) Lack of available capacity
A. Financing (fundraising)
Lack of financing is repeatedly cited in NBSAP related documentation (in fact most
biodiversity / conservation related documentation), this despite the considerable
funds made available from the Global Environment Facility, bilateral donors and
other agencies.
There are two key aspects to this challenge:
i)
Managing the complex and time-consuming application processes for
accessing funds.
Accessing GEF funds through the implementing agencies (UNDP) has
proven very complex for some member countries, and extremely time
consuming, creating in some cases considerable delay to the NBSAP
development process. For example, in Tuvalu, the Department of
Environment are still awaiting dispersal of funds despite the application for
funds being processed at the end of 2006.
ii)
Meeting the donors requirements for planned use of those funds.
From discussions held it appears that the challenge is not so much that
there is not money available for biodiversity conservation / development
and implementation of the NBSAPs. Rather, criticisms from member
countries focus on the challenges in meeting donor requirements, and are
addressed at two levels:
- There is a feeling from some sectors that funding so far made available
to the Pacific region has been predominantly focused towards
`planning' rather than `implementation', and some member countries
are keen to push ahead with implementing their plans, rather than
developing further plans, analyses etc. One comment from those
interviewed was that "Implementation of biodiversity conservation
goals seems to have happened `despite' the intensive planning rather
than `because' of it."
- Another response that emerged from interviews was that donors (the
GEF in this case) have a habit of repeatedly re-inventing the
`requirements' for allocating funds in line with global priorities and
global trends, rather than in response to local or regional needs. It
must be remembered that the GEF is designed as an `additional
support' mechanism to countries existing processes in the key focal
38
areas with which it works, and is "an independent financial
organization that provides grants for projects that benefit the global
environment and promote sustainable livelihoods." However, the GEF
is the key donor in supporting the implementation of the various UN
environmental conventions in the region, including the CBD (which
makes it the primary donor for NBSAP development and
implementation). Therefore it has been frustrating for some member
countries to try and adapt the work that they would like to do (in order
to meet their national biodiversity goals) to the work that will be
acceptable to this donor (though not perhaps of such a priority
nationally). This is a common complaint from recipient nations all
around the world who deal with large-scale donor organizations of this
type; however it remains worth highlighting here as it continues to
remain a challenge.
Identifying the opportunities
The root causes of the challenges of accessing and acquiring funding for NBSAP
development and implementation (as outlined above) may be addressed through
more open dialogue between the donors and the member nations. At the SCBD and
World Bank level there is an increasing push for `implementation activities', and
Pacific nations have the opportunity to voice their concerns and ensure funding is
directed to national level priorities concurrently with those being posited as of global
concern. And with more open dialogue, donors will acquire the information they need
to ensure funds are directed appropriately.
It is important to remember that any financing is not `obligatory' and member
nations have the option to refuse funding they feel would require a re-focus away
from their own national level concerns. However, it must also be borne in mind that
in countries where the per capita GDP is low (the average for these countries is ~
US$2,700, with more the 50% of these countries actually having per capita GDPs
less than US$2,000) there will always be an implicit push for accessing and securing
international support funds.
Ultimately the issue of financing is one that is likely to continue to be challenging;
however with the recent addition of $100 million USD into cross-sectoral Pacific
environmental concerns from GEF Secretariat, it is hoped that once the
mechanisms for application and dispersal are agreed through the GEF-PAS process
further funds will be made available to member countries.
B) Socio-economic obstacles (such as poverty, lack of community capacity,
unsustainable utilization rates)
This is a complex and persistent challenge, and is a global as well as regional
concern. This is especially true where high levels of poverty create high levels of
resource exploitation, low levels of access to education or divergent employment
opportunities, and where pressing humanitarian issues (over and above long term
sustainable development) tend to inevitably dominate a political agenda.
39
In the Pacific region this is especially true for LDCs. Whilst the `poverty /
environment' nexus is well documented33 it continues to pose one of the greatest
challenges to sustainable development (and biodiversity conservation). It is beyond
the scope of this review to explore this enormously complex and demanding subject
area. Suffice to comment that poverty in and of itself does not `inherently' lead to
unsustainable practices, and many protagonists would argue that examples do exist
in various parts of the world where sustainable utilization activities have been
brought in line with economic growth and sustainable livelihood development.34
Identifying the opportunities
Many of the countries in this review address this challenge of enhancing community
capacity towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through clear
objectives and actions already promoted in their NBSAPs. It is through the
implementation of these activities such challenges may be alleviated.
C) Burdensome and fragmented MEA requirements & multiple strategy
development
Not only do all of the conventions outlined in section 3.3 require considerable work in
developing strategic plans and the like, but there are also reporting requirements to
these conventions, and despite the considerable cross-over of issues relevant for
such reports there is currently no synchronicity in these various reporting
mechanisms. Whilst the production of these plans is not necessarily undertaken by
the same departments as those responsible for the NBSAP, there are similar issues
of limited personnel and capacity cross-sectorally (as discussed further in the next
section).
On top of these national level plans, there are innumerable regional plans, strategies
and protocols (some of these are listed in Annex 1, taken from the SPREP
catalogue).
The reporting and planning requirements surrounding the wide range of strategies
conspire to consume considerable time of the limited personnel available in
government departments charged with implementing biodiversity conservation
actions on the ground.
On top of this, ensuring that the objectives and actions promoted in the NBSAP
remain high in the agenda can also be challenging. Multiple strategy development
appears to be very real concern for this region, as different priorities and different
agendas are pushed depending on the collaborating organization or donor at any
given time. Considerable pressures are being levied at government departments to
undertake either conflicting or duplicative assignments relevant to one or another of
the numerous `agreed strategies' in-vogue at any given time.
This leads onto the next key challenge.
33 See: Agarwal, 1995; Praxis, 2002; DFID, 2003; Hayes & Nadkarni, 2001.
34 See: Hajer, 1995; Mol & Sonnenfeld Eds, 2000.
40
D) The issue of scale: Limited numbers of personnel available
It is worth pointing out at this time the MEAs mentioned in the previous section are
global in nature, and make the same requirements (or `urge' the same processes) in
nations with many millions of people, at varying levels of development, and with
vastly different resources, both human and financial.
In the Pacific region the `scales' are relatively unique in the world. Nations such as
Niue, with only 1,600 inhabitants, covering a land area of only 259 km2 are
subjected to the same planning and strategy development processes as nations such
as Indonesia with over 240 million inhabitants and covering a land area of more
than 1,800,000 km2.
Some of the lead agencies in NBSAP development and implementation have very few
personnel available to undertake this activity. When their limited time is therefore
further taken in associated planning processes, reporting requirements, juggling
multi-strategic agendas, as well as undertaking frequent travel to participate in
convention related steering committee's and workshops, this time becomes
extremely restricted. For example, in the Solomon Islands the Environment &
Conservation Division currently has only three full time personnel based in Honiara,
and one staff member based provincially (though there are now plans underway for
an additional thirteen staff). In Samoa, where NBSAP implementation is very much
underway and various successes in biodiversity conservation management can be
cited, this is a credit to the 17 local staff members of the Department of Environment
& Conservation (one of more fully staffed departments in the region).
Identifying the opportunities
Whilst a particular issue may present various challenges it is important in any
analysis to examine the counter-arguments of the `opportunities' that might prevail
from the same issue.
In this case, the challenges of `scale' outlined in the above section can also present
considerable opportunities. For example:
- The findings of this review would suggest that compared to larger scale
nations Pacific island states have achieved high levels of stakeholder
consultations in the preparation of their NBSAPs and have good opportunities
to access the wider stakeholders in the subsequent NBSAP implementation
processes.
- Given the relatively close-knit alliances between government departments in
these small island states, there is considerable opportunity for improved
synchronicity of planning; both in terms of MEA strategy development and the
associated policies, plans and legislation.
- A key challenge faced by the governments of many large-scale nations is one
of monitoring and collating critical biodiversity data being gathered in the field
by researchers from universities, NGOs and other institutions. This is
especially true where reporting processes are not well established,
information flows to relevant government departments are minimal (and often
overlooked by researchers) and the research is undertaken at many sites by a
cross-section of groups. In the Pacific region there is considerable potential
41
for developing clear and relatively manageable reporting requirements with
academic institutions and NGOs to ensure that research undertaken is
appropriately copied to the relevant government department (and associated
regional information depots, such as the SPREP library).
Such systems could be established (and already are in some cases) through
developing Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the relevant
institutes or NGOs. These MOUs may not only cover the submission of
research findings to the appropriate governmental bodies, but may also
include requirements to report on the progress of biodiversity conservation
activities being undertaken by a range of agencies (that can then easily feed
into an NBSAP monitoring and evaluation process, as well as to national
reporting to the SCBD).
E) Lack of available capacity
As well as having limited numbers of personnel in the necessary departments to
undertake development and implementation of NBSAPs on top of the myriad of tasks
demanded of these departments, another key challenge is capacity. This can be in
terms of individual capacities of staff members (the skills training required), through
to the institutional capacity (of the overall organisational performance and
functioning capabilities) up to systematic capacity (considering the overall policy,
regulatory and accountability frameworks within which institutions and individuals
operate).
Identifying the opportunities
The issue of capacity building is currently being addressed through the National
Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) process, that aims to "provide countries with the
opportunity to take the lead in articulating their own capacity needs and priorities
with respect to the global environment taking into account the three global
conventions on biodiversity, climate change and desertification/land degradation." 35
In other words this initiative is designed to help government agencies identify where
capacity is lacking in trying address implementation of not only NBSAPs (and the
CBD principles) but also the concurrent needs of climate change and land
degradation.
The NCSA process aims to identify capacity needs at the individual level, the
institutional level and at systematic levels.36
Such capacity assessments have been / are being done thematically: firstly
undertaking a stock-take of the `status quo' in the particular areas connected to
biodiversity conservation (CBD), climate change (UNFCCC) and desertification
(UNCCD); followed by a thematic assessment within each of these realms, and
finishing with a cross-cutting assessment of all three arena's, after which an action
plan to address these capacity needs is developed.
Table 19 shows the status of the NCSA process in the region.
35 GEF (2001) A Guide for Self-Assessment of Country Capacity Needs for Global Environmental
Management. P.1
36 ibid, p.5
42
TABLE 19 STATUS OF NCSA PROCESS IN THE REGION
STATUS OF NCSA PROCESS
CBD Thematic
CBD Thematic
Cross-Cutting
Stocktake report
Assessment
Assessment
NCSA ACTION PLAN
completed?
completed?
completed?
COMPLETED?
Vanuatu
Y Y Y unknown
Fiji
N N N
N
Marshall Islands
underway N
N
N
Samoa
Y Y Y
underway (compl Dec 07)
Cook Islands
Y
underway N
N
Niue
Y
underway N
N
FSM
underway underway underway
N
Palau
Y Y
underway N
Tonga
Y Y
Y
(draft)
underway (compl Dec 07)
underway (compl.
Y Y
underway (compl. Nov 07)
Kiribati
Sept 07)
PNG
Y
N N unknown
Nauru
N N N
N
Solomon Islands
Y
Y
Y
Action Plan is in draft form
Tuvalu
N N N
N
So far only Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati and Solomon Islands have reached the stage of
action plan development. In many countries a criticism leveled at the NCSA process
is that it has been lengthy, time consuming and difficult to undertake precisely
because of the capacity challenges existing and the over-burdening of key personnel.
However, it is hoped that once all countries have finalized this process they will be
better equipped to confront and address their capacity needs. Additionally the action
plans will provide support organizations such as the CROP and bi-lateral agencies
with clear information with regards to the areas in need of tangible institutional
assistance, and will identify the key training needs for relevant departments and
agencies.
Of course the production of the NCSA action plans are only the `beginning' of
addressing the capacity needs (and not an end result in themselves). Therefore it is
important that there is follow through from the relevant donors and associated
agencies, as well as the SCBD, in ensuring the needs identified, and mechanisms
promoted to address these needs, are supported.
43
A further opportunity in addressing capacity is therefore through developing
partnerships to provide support to government departments. Given the range of
support organizations existing in the Pacific37 there would appear to be considerable
opportunity for developing and enhancing further partnerships with government
departments to both provide technical backstopping, training and key-post financial
support (where appropriate).38
37 Including the CROP agencies and NGOs
38 Key-post support basically means assisting governmental departments to maintain `key people' and `key
positions' within their divisions, where core funding from overstretched government treasuries fail to meet
the existing needs. This is especially relevant in the conservation industry where relatively affluent NGOs
and other organizations can offer higher levels of salaries and benefits to individuals from governmental
departments; causing a `brain-drain' and loss of key personnel of high importance in these small and
overstretched departments and divisions. To resist such opportunities on an individual level takes
considerable commitment and dedication to ones post, and such enticements need to better understood by
the larger and more affluent organizations that are the beneficiaries of these personnel shifts.
44
4. CONCLUSION
This review has shown that the status of NBSAP development and implementation in the
selected Pacific member countries is varied; from some countries still awaiting funding to
begin their NBSAP development process, to others that are busy undertaking
implementation activities.
In terms of actionable planning the What, Where, When, Who, Why and How of
strategy development different countries have met these six criteria to different
extents. None have covered them in their entirety, but all have identified the key
concerns of relevance to their nation and have made appropriate commitments within
their NBSAPs to address these concerns.
In terms of strategic planning, a common omission from NBSAPs in the region is a
monitoring and evaluation protocol with appropriate targets, indicators, timescales and
prioritizations. Assistance from support organizations to help member countries is to
address this issue and support national level NBSAP reviews is also one of the key
requests emerging from the region.
This regional review has also shown a wide range of challenges member nations are
experiencing in both developing and implementing their NBSAPs, and in mainstreaming
concerns for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity cross-sectorally. It also
highlights a range of opportunities available to member countries in addressing these
challenges.
It is important to remember that this review was conducted within a limited time-frame.
The information presented is as far as it has been possible to verify accurate as of
September 2007. However, with regards to the status of MEA planning, NCSA analyses
and the like these are continuing processes that will develop in the coming weeks and
months, and it will be important to ensure this information is regularly updated to reflect
the current status of activities.
NBSAPs are not static documents, and are not designed to be produced once and then
followed verbatim or set aside as a new set of principles comes into fashion. A national
biodiversity strategy and action plan should be a dynamic, responsive `process' that is
articulated through document production but that accepts changes, addendums, additions
and alterations as the needs arise. For example, in the future undertaking of individual
NBSAP reviews, there is no reason why an addendum implementation plan (detailing the
answers to the six key strategic principles), or M&E protocol cannot be added. And as
objectives and actions are met and achieved, the NBSAPs can be renewed and re-
assessed to address the remaining challenges to biodiversity conservation observed.
Ultimately the conservation of biological diversity in any member nation must be
domestically driven, and `ownership' over the NBSAP and the subsequent activities
undertaken to achieve the actions in the NBSAP must be secured at the national level.
The NBSAP is the bedrock framework for planning the conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity in any country, and must not be `lost' in the `paper rain' created by
conflicting agendas and externally driven requirements.
However, regional support organizations and international institutions have a key role to
play in providing technical backstopping for the government departments concerned,
especially in assisting with implementation, and it is hoped that the key areas identified
in this review may provide guidance for future discourse on the direction such support
could take.
45
Acknowledgements
Thanks goes to all the NBSAP coordinators and associated Governmental personnel from
member countries who participated in this review. Thanks also to the Island Ecosystem
Programme team at SPREP (especially Kate Brown-Vitolio, Ana Tiraa and Theresa Fruean-
Afa) for all their support and advice, and to Julius Kaberere and the team at COMSEC for
facilitating this work.
Contacts
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
The Commonwealth Secretariat
Environment Programme (SPREP)
Marlborough House, Pall Mall,
PO Box 240. Apia, Samoa
London SW1Y 5HX, UK
Tel: +685 21929
Tel: +44 (0)20 7747 6500
Fax: +685 20231
Fax: +44 (0)20 7930 0827
www.sprep.org
www.thecommonwealth.org
Eleanor Carter
Environment & Development (E&D) Consulting
Email: carter.ed.consulting@gmail.com
46
FURTHER REFERENCES
NBSAP WG (2005) Report of the NBSAP Working Group Meeting, Alotau, PNG. July 2005.
Agarwal, B. (1995) Gender, Environment and Poverty Interlinks in Rural India: Regional Variations and
Temporal Shifts, 1971-1991. Discussion Paper prepared for United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development
DFID (2003) Linking Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management. Prepared jointly as a contribution to
the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg. DFID, EC, UNDP and The World Bank
Hajer, M. A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process,
Oxford.
Hayes, A. and Nadkarni, M.V. (2001) Eds. Poverty, environment and development: studies of four countries
in the Asia Pacific Region. UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Bangkok
Mol, A.P.J.& Sonnenfeld, D.A. (Eds.)(2000) Ecological Modernisation Around the World. Perspectives and
Critical Debates. London/Portland (Or.): Frank Cass.
Praxis (2002) Poverty-environment Nexus in India: Situation Analysis and Strategy for Change. Paper
prepared for UNDP, India
Roundtable report (2007) Review of the action strategy for nature conservation in the pacific island region
2003-2007; Reports of the Roundtable: Prepared for the 8th Regional Conference on Protected Areas and
Nature Conservation, Report 2: Recommendations for strengthening the action strategy and enhancing its
implementation
Schuster, C. & Reti, J. (2001) PIC NBSAP preparation checklist. WWF/SPREP
SPREP (2004) Report of the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation Management Group Meeting.
Samoa April 27th 29th 2004
SPREP (2006) NBSAP working group, preliminary findings. Notes from workshop.
SPREP (2006) Report back on countries priorities for the next twelve months. Notes from workshop.
Tabunakawai, K. (2002) NBSAP review. Roundtable for Nature Conservation. Facilitator Paul Chatterton.
Notes from Workshop.
Thomson, L.A.J. (2006a) Review of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans for Fiji and Niue With
reference to treatment of forest biodiversity, Especially forest genetic resources. SPRIG 2 Milestone 59.
Thomson, L.A.J. (2006b) Review of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans for Samoa and FSM With
reference to treatment of forest biodiversity, Especially forest genetic resources. SPRIG 2 Milestone 75.
Tortell, P. (2007) IN DRAFT: Review of the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Region,
2003-2007: Report of the Roundtable to the 8th Regional Conference on Protected Areas and Nature
Conservation.
47
ANNEX 1
Examples of some of the multi-strategic plans active in the Pacific region.
·
Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region, 2003-2007 (2002)
see also Roundtable for Nature Conservation website
·
Aid and the Environment - building resilience, sustaining growth [An environmental strategy
for Australian aid]
·
Asian Development Bank Pacific Regional Environment Strategy 2005-2009
·
Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States (1994)
·
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [FAO]. FAO and SIDS: challenges
and emerging issues in agriculture, forestry and fisheries (2004)
·
Global Environment Facility: Country Support Programme - GEF Focal points in the Pacific
·
Mauritius Strategy for the further implementation of the Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island States (2005)
·
NZAID Pacific Regional Environment & Vulnerability Strategy
·
The Pacific Plan (various docs) see Implementation Strategy (2006)
·
Pacific WSSD Regional Assessment (2002) and Pacific Position Paper: Further
Implementation of the BPoA and New and Emerging Concerns (2004)
·
Reducing Vulnerability of Pacific ACP States through Island Systems Management [SOPAC]
·
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme Action Plan [SPREP] [2005-
2009]; Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme Strategic Programmes
[SPREP] [2004-2013]
·
Type II Pacific Umbrella Partnerships / Initiatives launched by Pacific Leaders at the World
Summit for Sustainable Development 2002
·
United Nations Environment Programme Asia-Pacific website (various docs.) see also UNEP
Regional Seas Global Strategy
·
World Conservation Union [IUCN] Strategy for Oceania (2003)
·
Asian Development Bank Pacific Strategy 2005-2009 (2004)
·
AUSAID Pacific Regional Aid Strategy 2004-2009 (2004)
·
European Union Pacific Strategy (2006; 3.9mb))
·
Forum Fisheries Agency Strategic Plan 2005-2020 (2004)
·
Global Environment Facility [GEF] Operational Strategy
·
Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative
·
Sustainable development priorities for South Pacific: civil society position [UNEP] (2004)
·
United Nations Development Programme Pacific Centre website (various docs.)
·
United Nations Millenium Development Goals website (various docs.) and Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment Website and Reports
·
World Bank Pacific Regional Strategy (2006-2009) (2005) see also World Bank Pacific
website
·
Asia-Pacific Water Forum (approach, priority themes and key result areas) [SOPAC et al.]
·
The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles (2004) see also 2007 meeting
update
·
Bird Conservation Priorities and Draft Avifauna Strategy for the Pacific Islands Region
[SPREP] (2001)
·
Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action 2005-2015
·
Education and Communication for a Sustainable Pacific : guiding framework 2005 - 2007
[SPREP] 2005)
·
Framework for South-South Co-operation on Biodiversity [CBD] (2006)
·
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based
Activities (1995)
·
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities
to disasters (HFA) [UNISDR] and Strategic National Action Plan [SNAP] template [UNISDR]
·
Land Resources Division - Strategic Plan 2005-2008 [SPC]
·
Invasive species in the Pacific: a regional strategy [SPREP] (2000) / Invasive species in the
Pacific: a technical review and draft regional strategy [SPREP] (2000)
·
International Coral Reef Action Network Pacific Programme (ICRAN) (2001-2005)
·
Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 20062015 [SPREP] (2005)
·
The Pacific Island Global Climate Observing System (PIGCOS) : action plan (2002) [WMO /
SPREP]
48
·
Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP)
(2007) [UNDP / GEF / SPREP] (2002)
·
Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy and Implementation Framework for Strategic
Integrated Action (2005; 746kb)) [MSWG of CROP] - see also SPC Regional Ocean Policy
website
·
Pacific Ocean Pollution Prevention Programme - PACPOL
·
Strategy and Workplan [SPREP] (1999;)
·
Pacific Regional Action Plan on Sustainable Water Managerment [SOPAC] (2002)
·
Pacific wastewater : framework for action (2001) and Policy statement (2001; 24kb)
[SOPAC / SPREP / PWA / UNEP/GPA]
·
Plan d'Action National de l'IFRICOR [Initiative Francaise Pour Les Recifs Coralliens]
Deuxieme phase 2006-2010
·
Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Pollution Emergencies in the South Pacific
Region (2001)
·
Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacific Region by Dumping (1986)
·
Regional Framework for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture
[SPC] (2002)
·
Regional Marine Species Programme Framework 2003-2007 [SPREP]- includes action plans
for dugong, marine turtle, and whale and dolphin.
·
Regional Maritime Programme - Strategic Plan 2006-2010 [SPC]
·
Regional Seas Strategic Directions for 2004-2007 [UNEP]
·
Regional Strategy to Address Marine Pollution from World War II Wrecks [SPREP / ACPOL /
SOPAC](2002)
·
Regional Strategy to Comply with the Montreal Protocol in Pacific Island Countries [UNEP /
SPREP] (2002)
·
Regional Wetlands Action Plan for the Pacific Islands [SPREP] (1999)
·
Renewable energy technology support programme for the Pacific Islands [SPREP] (2005)
·
Shipping-related Introduced Marine Pests in the Pacific Islands: a regional strategy (2006)
[SPREP / IMO]
·
Solid Waste Management Strategy for the Pacific Region (2005) and Action Plan (2006)
[SPREP]
·
SPREP / RAMSAR Memorandum of Understanding (2006) and Joint Work Plan (2002-2003)
*Convention on Wetlands
·
Strategic Action Plan for the Development of Meteorology in the Pacific region 2000 - 2009
[SPREP / Bureau of Meterology] (1.18mb)
·
Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of the Pacific Islands Region (1998;
605kb) SPREP] see also IWP Terminal Report (2007)
·
Strategic Plan of the Coastal Fisheries Section 2003-2005 [SPC]
·
Strategic Plan of Actions for the Conservation of Western Pacific Leatherback Turtle
Population and their Habitats in the Bismarck Solomon Seas Ecoregion (2007)
·
Type II Pacific Umbrella Partnerships / Initiatives launched by Pacific Leaders at the World
Summit for Sustainable Development 2002 - see SPREP 2004 update
-
Capacity Building through Education and Training for the Sustainable Use and
Management of Natural Resources and the Environment in the Pacific (2002- 2012)
*archive document not current
-
Mainstreaming conservation of Biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge in
the Pacific Islands (2003-2007)
-
Pacific Islands Adaptation Initiative (2003-2015)
-
Pacific Islands Waste Management Initiative (2003-2012)
-
Planning for Sustainable Community Lifestyles in the Pacific
49